December 7, 2006 Commission Meeting Minutes

Approved Minutes of December 7, 2006 Commission Meeting

  1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Chair Randolph at the Port of San Francisco Board Room Ferry Building at 1:10 p.m.
  2. Roll Call. Present were Commissioners Bourgart, Fernekes, Gibbs, Goldzband, Kondylis, Lai-Bitker, Lundstrom, Moy, Waldeck, Potter, Smith, Carruthers, Kato, Jordan, Halsted, and Chair Randolph.
    Not Present were: Senate (Alquist), Senate (Nelson),Assembly (Yee), ABAG (Bates), Contra Costa County (Gioia), San Mateo County (Gordon), COE (Hicks), Finance (Klass), Marin County (McGlashan), ABAG (Mossar), San Francisco County (Peskin), EPA (Schwinn).
  3. Public Comment Period. There was no public comment.
  4. Approval of Minutes of November 2, 2006 Meeting. Chair Randolph entertained a motion to adopt the minutes.

    MOTION: Commissioner Lundstrom moved, seconded by Commissioner Halsted to approve the November 2, 2006 minutes. The motion passed unanimously.

  5. Report of the Chair. Chair Randolph provided the following update:
    1. Next BCDC Meetings. It will not be necessary to hold the next two regularly-scheduled meetings on December 21 and January 4. Therefore, the next meeting will be held on January 18, 2007 at the MetroCenter in Oakland. The following matters will be taken up:

      If the Commission decides today to initiate the process of considering an amendment to a Bay Plan port priority use designation in Oakland, BCDC will hold a public hearing and will vote on the requested amendment.
      A public hearing and vote on a permit application for a shoreline development project in Benicia.
      John Kriken, the Chair of the Design Review Board, will provide the Commission with further ideas as to how to improve the quality of public access areas around the Bay.

      The Commission will receive a briefing on the potential impacts of climate change on the Bay.
      A report on the progress BCDC is making in carrying out its strategic plan will be considered.

    2. Ex-Parte Communications. In case any members of the Commission inadvertently forgot to provide staff with a report on any written or oral ex-parte communications, they were invited to report on them at this point. There were no respects on ex-parte communications.
  6. Report of the Executive Director. Mr. Travis provided the following report:
    1. Personnel. Sandra Steeringer, the newly hired Records Manager was introduced to the Commission.

      Two individuals have been selected to fill two more of the 11 positions that were added to BCDC’s staff this year. They are:
      Tim Doherty, who has been with BCDC as a planning intern since July, has been selected as our Geographic Information System specialist.

      Reginaldo Abad has accepted BCDC’s offer to become the office technician in the dredging unit.
      Lindy Lowe will be starting a six-month maternity leave in March, 2007.

      As of today, the overall personnel situation is as follows:

      Nine of the 11 new staff positions have now been filled. BCDC is still looking for an engineer and an enforcement analyst. A planner position will be added with the funding BCDC is receiving from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
      There are three employees on leave. Bob Batha is on medical leave. His duties as chief of permits are being handled by Brad McCrea and Jaime Michaels.

      Andrea Gaut and Michelle Levenson are on family leave. Andrea’s duties are being handled by Jaime Michaels. Mr. Travis is looking for two limited term employees to backfill for Jaime and Michelle.

      Therefore, overall seven of the 43 permanent staff positions are currently vacant.

      During the next six month period while BCDC looks for a new Chief Planner, Caitlin Sweeney and Joe LeClair, two senior planners, will be handling the day-to-day management of the planning unit.

    2. ffice Hours. With the addition of Reggie Abad and Joanne Leung to BCDC’s support staff, the office will be open from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. beginning the first of the year.
    3. Permit Fees. BCDC is under no legal obligation to change its existing regulations that contain its fee schedule. However, staff has committed to work with the regulated community to come up with a fee schedule that is both moiré effective in reaching revenue targets and is more equitable, especially to applicants for smaller projects where the fees under BCDC’s current schedule have increased to the point where the application fee can exceed the cost of the project.

      In an attempt to achieve these goals, staff proposed a revised fee schedule a few months ago. Two public workshops were held, as well as a number of meetings and conversations with stakeholders. Based on these conversations, staff has come to an uneasy consensus on a new fee schedule that everyone reluctantly supports. Everyone would prefer a new schedule that reduces the fee for their particular project. No fee schedule can achieve that for all projects while also generating more revenue. At the same time, everyone seems to like the fee schedule better than the schedule that will go into effect next month if BCDC does not change its regulations.

      Therefore, staff intends to initiate the legally required rulemaking process to incorporate the new fee schedule into BCDC’s regulations. As part of this process, a Commission public hearing and vote on the revised regulations will be held in the spring of 2007 and, if approved, the new fees would go into effect in the summer of 2007. Until the new schedule is approved, under the Commission’s currently adopted regulations, the schedule should be revised on January 1, 2007 in a manner that would result in marked increases in the fees for small projects. Staff does not believe it would be appropriate to impose these higher fees while at the same time going through the process of adopting a new schedule that will lower many of the fees. Therefore, unless the Commission directs otherwise, staff will continue to use the current fee schedule until a new one is adopted.

      Commissioner Goldzband asked if there is an expedited process through OAL to approve these things. Mr. Travis said it is OAL and they have a process for emergency regulation changes, but this is not considered an emergency. Counsel Smith said getting this approved and on the books won’t occur until this summer. Mr. Travis said the current stakeholders have agreed to this because they would far prefer to have lower fees than higher fees.

    4. Water Forum. A report was sent to the Commissioners on November 21, 2006 which explained what the Bay Area Water Forum is and what it is trying to accomplish. For the reasons explained in the report, staff believes it would be beneficial for BCDC to formally indicate its intention to continue to participate in the work of the Forum by signing the Memorandum of Understanding, which is attached to the staff report. The MOU does not obligate BCDC to take any action beyond participating constructively in the deliberations of the Water Forum. On the other hand, participating on the Water Forum would help achieve one of the strategic plan goals by improving coordination and interaction with other agencies. Therefore, unless the Commissioner directs him otherwise, Mr. Travis will sign the MOU on behalf of the Commission.
    5. Climate Protection Summit. Mr. Travis directed the Commission’s attention to a report dated December 1, 2006 dealing with the BCDC’s climate change project and describes the very provocative climate protection summit that was held last month under the leadership of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Featured at that summit was a brochure that BCDC staff prepared illustrating the impacts a one meter rise in Bay waters could have by the end of this century. In 1960 the Army Corps of Engineers published a map showing how small the Bay could become if landfill reclamation projects remained unchecked. Just as those maps motivated Bay Area citizens to take action to prevent the future predicted by the Corps, it is staff’s hope that the maps will advance the regional effort to deal proactively with climate change instead of simply accepting the devastating impacts of business as usual.
    6. Regulation Changes. The fourth document Mr. Travis called to the Commission’s attention was dated November 22nd and transmits newly-approved sections of BCDC’s regulations dealing with the recreational findings, policies and maps in the Bay Plan. He asked the Commissioners to insert these new pages into their reference copy of BCDC’s regulations.
    7. Childers Lawsuit. Robert Childers filed a lawsuit against BCDC seeking $1.5 million in damages because BCDC worked in cooperation with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and other local agencies and law enforcement departments to carry out a court order requiring several derelict vessels owned by him to be removed from the Alviso Slough. Mr. Childers has filed a similar lawsuit against the water district. Staff is working with the Attorney General’s office and the water district to have both cases immediately dismissed. If the cases are not dismissed, staff intends to fulfill BCDC’s obligations to the district to take the lead in dealing with this matter. Mr. Travis will continue to keep the Commission apprised of the status of this lawsuit.
    8. Skaggs Island. The BCDC permit that authorizes the replacement of the eastern span of the Bay Bridge requires CalTrans to provide $8 million for clean-up work needed so ownership of Skaggs Island in Sonoma County can be transferred from the U.S. Navy to the State of California and the property can be restored to tidal and seasonal wetlands. Up to $6 million is to be used for the removal of deteriorated buildings and hazardous materials on the property. The remaining funds are to be used for the eventual wetland restoration.

      There was recently an estimate done that found it would cost over $24 million to remove the buildings and the hazardous materials from the property. However, this estimate was based on very preliminary information and also relied on some very general assumptions. To determine the accuracy of this estimate, additional data needs to be collected on the actual extent of lead-based contamination and asbestos on the property. The total cost of this analysis is $189,915.

      The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have requested that BCDC allow this data collection and analysis to be funded out of the $6 million set aside for site clean-up. Without this work, there is no way to determine whether the site can be cleaned up to a point where the State can accept the ownership of the property, BCDC staff has concluded this analysis is necessary. The cost of the analysis, while substantial, still represents a small portion of the available funding. For these reasons, BCDC staff believes it would be appropriate to allocate funding for the analysis if they can get assurance that this expenditure will, in fact, result in the transfer of the property from the federal government to the state. Therefore unless the Commissioners direct Mr. Travis otherwise, he will inform CalTrans to release funds for the data collection and analysis.

    9. Ethics Training. New Commissioners are required to complete an ethics training course within six months of assuming office and Commissioners are required to take a refresher course every two years. Therefore, Commissioners appointed to the Commission before January 1, 2005, and who have not taken a refresher course in the past two years, they must do so by the end of the month. The training can be completed on line at the Attorney General’s website, which is Once the course is completed, a certificate of completion must be filed with BCDC staff.
    10. Vacation. Mr. Travis will be on vacation in Thailand from December 22 until January 6, 2007. Steve McAdam will be serving as acting executive director during his absence.

      Commissioner Fernekes asked if there is a video tape available to take the ethics training course. Counsel Smith said there is a video tape available but the most up-to-date way to complete the training is by accessing the website. Ms. Reynolds said that the Attorney General’s website also has a website for local officials and both the training for BCDC and local officials can be completed at this website.

      Commissioner Waldeck asked about Skaggs Island inquiring if the $6 million was a figure that was a best guess amount for the removal of the deteriorated buildings and hazardous material. Mr. McAdam said a number of years ago CalTrans did a survey which was a thumbnail survey with an estimate of $6 million. The Fish and Wildlife Service believed that this survey was high based on some assumptions that CalTrans had made. They did a more recent survey which was based on another set of assumptions. The Service believes it is very high too. The figure which was arrived at was $24 million. They believe that when the site is surveyed more carefully estimates will come down.

      Commissioner Carruthers said Mr. Travis mentioned that if the $100,000 expenditure on Skaggs Island for the assessment could be justified if there was a guarantee that the land would be transferred to the state. He asked who can guarantee that the land will be transferred

      to the state. Mr. McAdam said that perhaps guarantee is not the right word; better assurance is perhaps a better phrase. Mr. Travis said BCDC does not want to keep spending money on estimates and it needs to be pinned down more.

      Mr. McAdam said this effort will create a work program which can then be shopped around to contractors, and at that point BCDC will have a better idea of what can be done for the money that is available.

  7. Commission Consideration of Administrative Matter. Mr. McAdam was available to answer any questions on the administrative listing that was provided to the Commissioners. There were no administrative matters.
  8. Public Hearing and Vote on Proposed Memorandum of Understanding with the Port of Oakland Regarding the Establishment of Fill Credits. Chair Randolph explained that this is a public hearing and vote on a memorandum of understanding with the Port Of Oakland regarding mitigation credits.

    Commissioner Gibbs said the next two items refer to the Port of Oakland, City of Oakland, and the Redevelopment Agency of Oakland and his law firm does work for these agencies. After consulting with counsel he has been advised to recuse himself from the following two matters and, therefore, departed the meeting.

    Steve McAdam provided the following staff report and recommendation:

    In 1999 the Commission issued Permit No. 7-99 to the Port of Oakland to authorize the construction and use of the Berths 55-59 Project at the Oakland Inner harbor as part of the modernization of several of its marine terminals.

    The approved and completed project resulted in a net increase in the Bay’s surface area of about 16.8 acres. The permit provides that BCDC would consider applying any portion of the fill credits resulting from the net removal of the 16.8 acres to any Port project, but by no later than September 26, 2007.

    The permit also indicates that the fill credits can only be applied to projects that otherwise meet all of the requirements of BCDC’s laws and policies. The Bay Plan Policies on Mitigation states, in part, that to encourage cost-effective and comprehensive mitigation programs, the Commission should extend credit for certain fill removal and encourage land banking, provided that any credit or land bank is recognized pursuant to a written agreement executed by the Commission.

    Since the issuance of the BCDC permit, the Commission has authorized the use of 2.66 acres of the fill credits established in the permit to mitigate for the impacts for other small fill projects undertaken by the Port. There is currently a balance of fill credits to the Port of approximately 14.14 acres.

    Because the fill credit program provided by the BCDC permit is lapsing, the Port wants to make the fill credit program more formal by entering into a Memorandum of Understanding as envisioned by the Bay Plan Mitigation Policies.

    The proposed MOU would acknowledge that the Port holds a positive balance of fill credits that could be applied to Port projects that are the subject of BCDC permit applications. The Commission would then determine the appropriateness of using the fill credits for that particular project as mitigation for the proposed fill as it would do for any other similar project.

    In addition, the proposed MOU would extend the life of the fill credits for at least another 10 years, or until September 26, 2017. Moreover, the proposed MOU generally would limit the use of the credits to in-kind impacts and the application of this principle would be made by the Commission on a case-by-case basis.

    The staff recommends that the Commission enter into the proposed MOU because they believe it is consistent with the Bay Plan Policies on Mitigation and would be a useful tool for the Port and BCDC to consider in meeting future Port mitigation requirements.

    Richard Sinkoff, Environmental Manager at the Port of Oakland, expressed his appreciation to BCDC staff and to the Commission on their support of this recommendation. He believes it will help the Port move projects forward in a streamlined fashion and will be a useful tool when the Port comes to BCDC with permit applications for small projects.

    Ellen Johnck, Executive Director of the Bay Planning Coalition, said she wholeheartedly supports the use of the MOU. She encourages these kinds of agreements to implement the policy as it enables applicants to work constructively with the Commission on fulfilling appropriate mitigation. She thanked the Commission for its support of this proposal.

    MOTION: Commissioner Carruthers moved to close the public hearing; seconded by Commissioner Lai-Bitker. Motion carried unanimously.

    Commissioner Waldeck asked if piles are removed from the Bay, would the amount of fill credit be given for just the circumference of the piles. Mr. McAdam said under that particular scenario, the circumference of the pile would be considered.

    Commissioner Goldzband said if the life of the credits is extended for a decade, from an economist’s perspective, does the value of those credits go up or down as the option time decreases. And if the value goes up or down, is this then the way the Commission would look at the way they used the credits. Mr. McAdam said BCDC would say there is no value associated with this because fill is fill and the earlier it is taken out the earlier the benefits are seen.

    Commissioner Kondylis asked if BCDC has ever done this type of MOU before. Mr. McAdam said BCDC has authorized mitigation sites to be constructed, and then later on, applied a project to it. Commissioner Kondylis asked if there is a way to have a nexus in order to get people to perform compliance. Mr. McAdam said the way the MOU is written, a project cannot use the mitigation credits if it doesn’t already meet all the other polices of the Bay Plan and the Act. The time when the nexus is important is when the future project comes forward, and then we would make a nexus between that and the credits that are being allowed for use here.

    Commissioner Goldzband said BCDC has no idea what the Port of Oakland plans to do over the next 10 years, with which it may want to mitigate using those 14.14 acres of credit, so how is the option value on the credits determined? His understanding is that for the Port to be able to do anything, they must come to BCDC for a permit, therefore they don’t have blanket approval to use the 14.14 credits. Mr. McAdam said the MOU doesn’t say that the Port can fill 14 acres of Bay. It simply states that in the future, if they have a fill project, and would like to avail themselves of the credits, they will need to go through the mitigation process.

    Commissioner Lai-Bitker asked Mr. McAdam to elaborate on the in-kind impacts that are referred to in the MOU. Mr. McAdam said pile supported impacts would be mitigated by pile supported fill removal, and if it were solid fill there would be a different kind of impact, and then solid fill credits could be used. They do not have an open door on the fill.

    Commissioner Potter asked what the rationale of setting the September 26, 2007 date. Mr. McAdam said this date reflected a 10 year date from the time the permit was issued, and BCDC thought the Port would have used the credits by this time period, however, staff has come to find out that the Port does not do that much filling with small projects.

    MOTION: Commissioner Lai-Bitker moved to approve the staff’s recommendation for the Memorandum of Understanding with the Port of Oakland; seconded by Commissioner Goldzband. Motion carried unanimously.

  9. Public Hearing and Vote on Whether to Initiate the Process of Amending the San Francisco Bay Plan and the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan to Relocate a 15-Acre Port Priority Use Area at Oakland and Authorize the Executive Director to Enter into an Agreement with the Oakland Redevelopment Agency to Pay the Commission’s Cost of Processing the Proposed Amendment. Chair Randolph said if the Commission considers this request, a public hearing on the proposed amendment will be held at the next Commission meeting on January 18, 2007.

    Sara Polgar presented the staff report as follows:

    The Commission has received an application from the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Oakland to amend the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan and the San Francisco Bay Plan maps to relocate 15 acres of Oakland Port priority use area that is designated for Ancillary Maritime used for truck parking to serve the Port of Oakland.

    Under the Commission’s regulations it must determine whether it wants to consider the amendment, and if it does, a public hearing date must be set to take up the application.

    The applicant must pay for the cost of the Commission processing and acting on the plan amendment application. The proposed amendment would delete priority use designation from the Baldwin Property and relocate it to 15 acres of land in the East Gate Yard of the former Oakland Army Base which is closer to the Port of Oakland’s Maritime Terminals.

    The application stems from Commission approval in 2001 of an application from the Port and the Oakland Base Reuse Authority to modify port priority use area designation on the former Oakland Army Base.

    Much of the Port’s cargo is moved by truck and, during the 2001 amendment process, members of the trucking community requested that additional land be reserved for trucking use. The Port and the Reuse Authority agreed to each provide 15 acres of land adjacent to the Port for trucking and Port ancillary uses.

    At the time of the amendment public hearing process in 2001 the final reuse plan was not complete and the Commission and the Reuse Authority agreed that the Baldwin property would be identified as Port Priority Use Area, that that if, upon completion of the final reuse plan, the Reuse Authority determined that one of the alternative sites would be more appropriate for Port Ancillary uses it could apply to the Commission to make this substitution and the Commission would expedite the amendment application consistent with its law, policies and regulations.

    The Redevelopment Agency has determined that the East Gate Yard property is better suited for Port ancillary uses and the relocation of the Port Priority Use Area to that site would be more consistent with the comprehensive redevelopment plans for the former Army base.

    Staff recommends that the Commission adopt the descriptive notice attached to the staff report and schedule a public hearing and possible vote for the January 18, 2007 Commission meeting, and authorize the Executive Director to sign an agreement with the applicant for the applicant to pay the Commission’s cost of acting on and processing the proposed amendment.
    Steve Lowe, Vice President of the West Oakland Commerce Association which represents most of the large business in the vicinity of the Port of Oakland, said in representation of most of the Ancillary Maritime Support Services Group (AMS) he would like to move ahead with staff’s recommendation and he would link it with agenda item 11 because the two are inseparable.

    He said the problem that we are faced with is, will there be adequate land on the base for AMS. When the first report was done it was found that almost 180 acres of land would be needed for maritime support. Will the transfer of the 15 acres from the Baldwin Yard and the 15 acres that the City of Oakland is supplying be adequate? It is hoped that the Commission will approve both agenda items 9 and 11.
    MOTION: Commissioner Carruthers moved, seconded by Commissioner Lundstrom to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.

    There were no questions or comments from the Commissioners.

    MOTION: Commissioner Kondylis moved, seconded by Commissioner Lai-Bitker to approve staff’s recommendation on Bay Plan Amendment 3-06. Motion carried unanimously.

  10. Consideration of Strategic Investment Plan. Mr. Travis presented the following report on the strategic investment plan:

    BCDC received a $1 million budget augmentation funding 11 new staff positions. The budget has $730,000 for the salaries of the 11 positions and $270,000 for related operating expenses. There is $238,000 in savings and staff believes it would be appropriate to use this money for expenditures that will advance the long-term productivity and effectiveness of BCDC’s programs.

    He proposed to use $40,000 for information technology; $86,000 for staff training; $12,000 for project tracking system; $50,000 for documentary video and $50,000 for contingency reserve.

    If the Commission approves the $50,000 to assist in underwriting the production of the public television documentary “Saving the Bay” the funds would be transferred to the California State Coastal Conservancy, which would augment the $200,000 grant the Conservancy has already provided to KTEH.

    MOTION: Commissioner Lundstrom moved, seconded by Commissioner Carruthers to adopt staff’s recommendation for investment strategy.

    Commissioner Lundstrom asked when the project tracking system will be completed and if the requested $12,000 will complete this project. Mr. McAdam said the $12,000 will not come near enough to complete the project. Mr. Travis said staff is working with Business Transportation and Housing on support for some of the software that is needed. This will be an ongoing expenditure.

    Commissioner Lundstrom said she personally would like to see more money in the tracking system category and a bit less in staff training.

    Chair Randolph asked if the project tracking system would provide the forward institutional capacity to track things in the future and what would it take to get this capacity more institutionalized. Mr. Travis said information has been recorded on the projects as they come in, but staff needs to go back 41 years to record all that data to bring it current. The requested $12,000 is for data input staff to input historic data. The $12,000 will not complete the project.

    Commissioner Bourgart asked what the length of the documentary will be, what is the plan for distribution and broadcast, and will it be made available to schools. Mr. Ron Blatman, Executive Producer of Saving the Bay television project, said this documentary will be 4 one-hour programs that will run as a series providing a history of the Bay. It will be shown prime time in multiple times on KQED and KTEH starting in the early fall. It will be distributed nationally and it will be available to schools.

    Commissioner Kondylis asked if this documentary will include possible impacts to the Bay from global warming. Mr. Blatman said there are some differences of opinion as to what the effect and rate will be. The documentary will touch on it but not examine it in detail.

    Commissioner Jordan asked if there has ever been any consideration of giving the money that was not needed back. Mr. Travis said the expenditures that staff have recommended is for important things that BCDC has not been able to do in the past because there has not been enough money. The Commission can elect to send it back if they so choose.

    Commissioner Moy said he is in favor of supporting Mr. Blatman’s project. This is a good use of public funds. He asked if the Commission will get credit for supporting the project. Mr. Blatman said that BCDC will get credit.

    Commissioner Halsted said this is something that BCDC has not been able to do and she feels very strongly that this is something BCDC should do.

    The motion carried unanimously.

    Commissioner Lundstrom said if there is money left over in the reserve she would like some consideration given to using it for project tracking. Commissioner Goldzband agreed with Commissioner Lundstrom.

  11. Consideration of BCDC Participation on the Regional Joint Policy Committee. Mr. Travis said staff recommends that the Commission ask to be invited to be a formal member of the Joint Policy Committee. This Committee is made up of 7 members each from the Association of Bay Area Governments, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the Bay Area Air Quality District, and the Secretary of Business Transportation and Housing.

    The membership of the Committee is set by law and meets every other month. It coordinates the work of the three regional agencies. This Committee is effective in providing a forum to gain better understanding of the work of the other agencies and to develop consistent regional policies.

    Participation in this Committee will also help achieve a number of BCDC’s strategic plan objectives. Staff recommends that BCDC request that it be allowed to participate on the JPC by sending a formal letter. If JPC agrees to BCDC’s request, it would have to be with the understanding that BCDC would not be allowed to vote.

    Commissioner Goldzband asked if the Regional Water Quality Board is a member. Mr. Travis said they are not a member and they tend not to get engaged in issues of sustainable development and land use. They are more of a regulatory body.

    Commissioner Waldeck asked if there would be staff involvement, Commissioner involvement, or a combination of both. Mr. Travis said the Joint Policy Committee is made up of Commissioners, Executive Committee of ABAG, but there would also be staff involvement. The work of the staff of the Joint Policy Committee is overseen by a Management Committee which is made up of the Executive Directors of ABAG, MTC and the Air District and Mr. Travis was invited to be on the Management Committee.

    Commissioner Kondylis said it is important to think closely, because she sees eventually that a consolidation of all agencies might come out of this making one super agency. She feels it is important to determine BCDC’s independence. She would not like to see the good work that BCDC is doing undermined by some of the interests that would like to keep filling and destroying. Mr. Travis said as he has had discussions with them he has heard no hint, suggestion or anything else that anything should be done other than the continued protection of the Bay.

    Commissioner Caruthers said he feels BCDC has more to gain by being inside than outside.

    MOTION: Commissioner Carruthers moved, seconded by Commissioner Halsted that the Commission request to participate on the Regional Joint Policy Committee. Motion carried unanimously.

  12. Consideration of Strategic Plan Status Report. Mr. Travis provided an update on the progress in carrying out the strategic plan. There are three deadlines that he recommends be changed: Integrated Information Technology (change to March 31, 2007); Sand Mining Report (change to June 30, 2007); and Sea Level Rise (change to June 30, 2007).
    MOTION: Commissioner Kondylis moved, seconded by Commissioner Fernekes to extend the deadlines as requested by staff. The motion passed unanimously.
  13. New Business. There was no new business.
  14. Old Business. There was no old new business.

    MOTION: Commissioner Patten moved, seconded by Commissioner Goldzband to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed.

  15. Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 2:32 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Executive Director

Approved, as corrected, at the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Meeting of January 18, 2007