December 7, 2023 Commission Meeting

1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Public Comment Period (Each speaker is limited to three minutes) A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.
   (Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]
4. Approval of Minutes for November 16, 2023 Meeting (PDF)
   (Reylina Ruiz) [415/352-3638; reylina.ruiz@bcdc.ca.gov]
5. Report of the Chair
6. Report of the Executive Director
7. Commission Consideration of Administrative Matters
   There is no administrative listing
   (Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]
8. Commission Consideration of a Contract with the Port of San Francisco to Fund Planning Activities
   POSTPONED
   The Commission will consider authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a contract with the Port of San Francisco to fund a planning position that will lead several activities, including amending the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan (Bay Plan Amendment No. 3-17) and coordinating between Port of San Francisco and BCDC on regulatory and planning issues.
   (Erik Buehmann) [415/352-3645; erik.buehmann@bcdc.ca.gov]
9. Public Hearing and Possible Vote to Approve Stipulated Orders CCD2023.002.00 and CCD2023.003.00
   The Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote to approve two stipulated orders as recommended by the Enforcement Committee to resolve BCDC Enforcement Case No. ER2019.063.00 against Seaplane Investments LLC alleging unauthorized development activities and violations of BCDC permits 1973.014.04 and M1985.030.01 in Sausalito, Marin County.
   (Greg Scharff) [650/868-9303; greg.scharff@bcdc.ca.gov]   
   Executive Director’s Recommended Enforcement Decision with Exhibits
10. Public Hearing on the US Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District’s Proposed Phased Consistency Determination for the Oakland Turning Basins Widening Project.
    The Commission will hold a public hearing to receive comment on the US Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District’s proposed Port of Oakland Outer and Inner Harbor Turning Basins Widening Project, Alameda County. In order to improve the ability of large ships calling at the Port of Oakland to turn around, the USACE proposes to widen the Outer Harbor Turning Basin from 49 acres to 70 acres, and the Inner Harbor Turning Basin from 41 acres to 61 acres. At the Inner Harbor Turning Basin portions of Howard Terminal and Alameda former Naval Annex wharves, land beneath the wharves, infrastructure, and portions of buildings would be removed. Both turning basins would require dredging of the new areas to minus 50 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW). In addition, sheet and batter piles, and rip rap would create new bulkheads in Oakland and Alameda. Adjacent to Schnitzer Steel, a subtidal retaining wall with rip rap would stabilize the slope from the shore to subtidal bottom. The disposal of construction debris and dredged sediment is targeted for an appropriately classed landfill, and beneficial reuse at a wetlands restoration site when the materials are of suitable quality. The disposal and reuse site locations are not fully defined, but could occur in Marin and/or Solano County, and a landfill(s) outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction, respectively.
    (Brenda Goeden) [415/352-3623; brenda.goeden@bcdc.ca.gov
    Presentation (PDF) // Public Comment (PDF) // Application Summary Addendum (PDF) // Staff Presentation (PDF)
11. Briefing on Updates to the California Sea-Level Rise Guidance
    POSTPONED
    Representatives of the California Natural Resources Agency Ocean Protection Council (OPC) will brief the Commission on updates to the California Sea-Level Rise Guidance, last issued in 2018. This update aims to incorporate the most current scientific knowledge and improved planning and decision-making guidance to support preparedness for rising sea levels, and is used by BCDC to determine how best to ensure that projects and plans are resilient to rising sea levels.
    (Jessica Fain) [415/352-3642; jessica.fain@bcdc.ca.gov]
12. Adjournment

Commission Mailing November 17, 2023

• Stipulated Orders CCD2023.002.00 and CCD2023.003.00
• Application Summary C2023.003.00 

Commission Mailing December 1, 2023

• Revised December 7, 2023 Commission Meeting – Agenda Item 8 has been postponed
• Draft Minutes of November 16, 2023 Hybrid Commission Meeting (PDF)

Articles about the Bay and BCDC

• When sea levels rise, so does your rent
• There’s a big new sea wall in the Bay Area, is this the future?
• No water, power, Wi-Fi or parking – but for $25 million, this island on S.F. Bay can be yours 
• Bay Area Housing Project Raises Concerns About Sea-Level Rise 
• MLB owners approve Athletics’ planned move to Las Vegas, sources say
• Bay Area Housing Project Raises Concerns About Sea-Level Rise

Minutes

Audio Recording

CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

GOOD AFTERNOON, ALL, AND

WELCOME. TO OUR, ONCE AGAIN,

HYBRID BCDC COMMISSION MEETING.

MY NAME IS ZACK WASSERMAN, AND I

AM THE CHAIR OF BCDC.

BEFORE WE GET STARTED, I WANT TO

INFORM THAT YOU BOTH ITEMS EIGHT

REGARDING A CONTRACT WITH THE

PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO AND ITEM

11 REGARDING THE UPDATE OF SEA

LEVEL RISE GUIDANCE HAVE BEEN

POSTPONED, HOPEFULLY TO OUR NEXT

MEETING.

OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS

TO CALL THE ROLL. COMMISSIONERS

IF YOU ARE PARTICIPATING

VIRTUALLY, PLEASE UNMUTE

YOURSELVES WHEN YOU ANSWER, AND

THEN MUTE YOURSELVES AGAIN

AFTERWARDS. RAY LYNN A WILL YOU

PLEASE CALL THE ROLL?

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: CHAIR

WASSERMAN?

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: VICE

CHAIR EISEN?

>>V. CHAIR, REBECCA EISEN:

HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ:

COMMISSIONER ADDIEGO?

>>ANDREW FREMIER: HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: AHN?

>>EDDIE AHN: HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: AMBUEHL?

>>DAVID AMBUEHL: HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: BURT?

>>ANDREW FREMIER: HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: ECKERLY?

>>JENN ECKERLE: HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: ECKLUND?

>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: PRESENT.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ:

COMMISSIONER GILMORE?

>>MARIE GILMORE: HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: GIOIA?

>>JOHN GIOIA: HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: GORIN?

>>SUSAN GORIN: HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: GUNTHER?

>>ANDREW GUNTHER: HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: HASZ?

>>V. CHAIR, KARL HASZ: HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ:

JOHN-BAPTISTE?

>>ALICIA JOHN BAPTISTE: HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ:

KISHIMOTO?

>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: NELSON?

>>BARRY NELSON: HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ:

PEMBERTON?

COMMISSIONER PESKIN?

>>AARON PESKIN: PRESENT.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ:

COMMISSIONER PINE?

>>DAVE PINE: HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ:

COMMISSIONER RAMOS?

>>BELIA RAMOS: HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ:

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS?

>>SPEAKER: HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ:

COMMISSIONER ZAPEDA?

>>CESAR ZEPEDA: HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: DID I

FORGET ANYONE?

>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS:

MOULTON-PETERS?

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: SORRY.

THANK YOU.

>>SPEAKER: AND PEMBERTON.

HERE.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: 23

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE

HAVE A QUORUM AND SO WE CAN

PROCEED. IT’S A LITTLE A BIT

LIKE A QUAKER QUILT, IF YOU

DON’T LEAVE SOMEBODY OUT, THEN

IT’S TOO PERFECT.

[LAUGHTER]

ITEM THREE IS PUBLIC COMMENT.

YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO

ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY

ITEM NOT ON OUR AGENDA, OR NOT

WHERE WE HAVE NOT — WHERE WE

HAVE NOT HELD A PUBLIC HEARING,

OR ARE NOT SCHEDULED TO.

I DO WANT TO REMIND YOU, ALL, OF

THE UNFORTUNATE INCREASE IN THIS

TERRIBLE WORD ZOOM BOMBING OF

BOTH LOCAL AND REGIONAL

AGENCIES, AND THEIR MEETINGS.

EVERYONE PLEASE DO NOTE, AS WAS

SAID IN THE INTRODUCTORY VIDEO,

THAT BCDC WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY

FORM OF HATE SPEECH OR THREATS

OF ANY GROUPS, AGAINST ANY

GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS. AND AS

CHAIR, I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT I

WE WOULD A VERY HEAVY HAMMER ON

THOSE ISSUES.

WITH THAT, DO WE HAVE ANY

MEMBERS IN THE ROOM WHO HAVE

SUBMITTED CARDS?

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: I HAVE

NO CARDS.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: AND

DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ON ZOOM WHO

WISHES TO SPEAK.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: NO

PUBLIC COMMENT.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: NO

PUBLIC COMMENT. THIS IS GOING

TO BE A VERY QUICK MEETING,

EVERYBODY.

THAT BRINGS US TO APPROVAL OF

OUR MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16TH.

WE HAVE ALL RECEIVED COPIES. I

WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO

APPROVE, AND A SECOND.

COMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS

MOVED. I SAW IT.

COMMISSIONER BAPTIST SECONDED.

I SAW HER MOVING HER HAND.

[LAUGHTER]

ANY CORRECTIONS OR ADDITIONS TO

THE MINUTES?

SEEING NONE.

DOES ANYBODY WISH TO OPPOSE OR

ABSTAIN?

I DON’T SEE ANY. THE MINUTES

ARE APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.

THAT BRINGS US TO MY REPORT.

OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE HELD ON

A.M. AT THAT MEETING WE MAY

TAKE UP THE FOLLOWING MATTERS

CONSIDERATION OF A CONTRACT WITH

THE PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO

REGARDING SAN FRANCISCO

WATERFRONT SPECIAL AREA PLAN

THAT WE POSTPONED TODAY. A

POTENTIAL COMMISSION VOTE ON THE

PROPOSED OAKLAND TURNING BASIN

EXPANSION ON WHICH WE ARE

HOLDING A PUBLIC HEARING TODAY.

A BRIEFING ON THE UPDATE OF SEA

LEVEL RISE GUIDANCE FROM THE

STATE, ALSO POSTPONED FROM

TODAY. A BRIEFING ON THE SUISUN

MARSH IN SOLANO COUNTY, AND A

BRIEFING ON BAY ADAPT.

JUST A COUPLE OF BRIEF COMMENTS.

AS I NOTED EARLIER, SLIGHTLY

JOKING, THIS IS GOING TO BE A

BRIEF MEETING. ENJOY THE GIFT

OF TIME. I THINK NEXT MEETING

WILL BE A BIT LONGER. AND AS WE

MOVE INTO THE NEW YEAR, I THINK

THEY WILL BE LONGER. I THINK

WE’LL START TAKING ON MORE

IN-DEPTH SOME OF THE POLICIES WE

HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING AND I AM

CERTAIN THERE WILL BE SOME

INTERESTING HEARINGS ALONG THE

WAY. THERE WAS AN INTERNATIONAL

SCIENTIFIC REPORT THAT NOTED

OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS GIVE OR

TAKE OR MAYBE EVEN ARE LONGER,

THE RATE OF SEA LEVEL RISE HAS

DOUBLED OVER THE LONG-TERM

TREND. IT’S STILL SMALL, BUT

THAT IS SIGNIFICANT AND

INDICATES THE WATER THAT WE KNOW

IS COMING, WELCOME OR NOT, IS

COMING, AND WE NEED TO KEEP

DOING OUR WORK, AS WE ARE, AND

WE NEED TO KEEP PUSHING OUR

COLLABORATORS AND PARTNERS ON

MOVING EVER FASTER. BECAUSE THE

SEA AIN’T WAITING FOR US.

WITH THAT, THIS IS A MOMENT TO

PUT ON THE RECORD ANY EX PARTE

COMMUNICATIONS YOU MAY HAVE HAD

THAT YOU HAVE NOT PUT IN WRITING

THROUGH OUR WEB SITE. YOU DO

NEED TO DO THAT, IN ANY END OF

THE EVENT, AND THESE ARE ON

ADJUDICATORIAL MATTERS NOT ON

POLICY MATTERS. ANYBODY HAVE

ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION TO

REPORT? SEEING NONE. THAT

BRINGS US TO THE REPORT OF OUR

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR GOLDZBAND IS ON

VACATION, AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

SCHARFF IS ACTING TO PROVIDE THE

REPORT.

>>GREG SCHARFF: I’M GREG

SCHARFF IT’S BEEN A PLEASURE

SERVING AS YOUR ACTING EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR FOR THE LAST FEW WEEKS

WHILE LARRY HAS BEEN OUT. I

WANT TO NOTE TODAY IS PERIL

HARBOR DAY AND I CAN ONLY

IMAGINE HOW LARRY WOULD HAVE

WEAVED THAT INTO THE REPORT.

UNFORTUNATELY YOU HAVE ME, NOT

LARRY. SO, YOU WILL JUST HAVE

TO IMAGINE.

NOW, FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO

THANK EVERYONE WHO INDICATED

THEY WILL BE PRESENT FOR THE

DECEMBER 21ST COMMISSION

MEETING, AND STRESS THAT IT’S

CRITICAL THAT YOU DO SO, AS WE

WILL ALL BE TAKING A VOTE AT THE

MEETING ON TODAY’S ITEM 10,

WHICH IS THE THE PROPOSED PHASE

CONSISTS OF DETERMINATION FOR

THE PROPOSED BASIN-WIDENING

PROJECT AND WE WILL NEED A

QUORUM FOR THAT.

I WANT TO NOTE AS PART OF BCDC

SEDIMENT FOR WETLAND ADAPTATION

PROJECT, BCDC AND PARTNERS US

EPA COASTAL CONSERVANCY REGIONAL

WATER BOARD, SFEI AND SAN

FRANCISCO BAY JOINT VENTURE ARE

HOSTING A WORKSHOP IN-PERSON ON

JANUARY 23RD AND FEBRUARY 13TH,

2024 TO REVIEW AND DISCUSS

POTENTIAL CHANGES TO SEDIMENT

MANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION

ROADMAP OF ACTIONS TO INCREASE

BENEFICIAL USE OF SOIL AND

SEDIMENT IN THE BAY AREA. THE

WORKSHOP WILL WORK WITH A

VARIETY OF STAKEHOLDERS WHO ARE

INVOLVED IN AND IMPACTED BY

SEDIMENT IN THE BAY AREA. WE

WILL BE HOLDING OUR SECOND BAY

ADAPT COORDINATING MEETING ON

12/8 AND ELECTED OFFICIALS TASK

FORCE MEETING ON 12/19. FINALLY

NOVEMBER 27TH COASTAL MANAGEMENT

ISSUED TWO DECISION LETTERS

APPROVING CHANGES TO THE COASTAL

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM UNDER THE

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT NOAA

HAS APPROVED TWO SETS OF

AMENDMENT TO THE COMMISSION’S

REGULATION ADOPTED IN 2022

REGULATIONS CONCERNING

ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES

ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL PENALTY

POLICY AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF

THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT WITH NOAA PRIVATE

PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE ELEMENTS

COMMISSIONS REGULATIONS

CONCERNING ADMINISTRATIVE

PROCEDURAL PERMITTING AND

PLANNING MATTERS. ALL THREE

SETS OF AMENDMENTS TO THE

REGULATIONS ADOPTED BY THE

COMMISSION IN 2022 HAVE BEEN

APPROVED BY NOAA AS PART OF THE

COMMISSION’S COASTAL MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM. THANK YOU.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY

QUESTIONS FOR OUR ACTING

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR? SEEING

NONE. WE MOVE TO ITEM SEVEN

WHICH WE’RE NOT TAKING UP

BECAUSE THERE ARE NO MATTERS TO

REPORT. THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM

EIGHT WHICH WE ARE ALSO NOT

TAKING UP THAT WILL BE POSTPONED

HOPEFULLY TO THE NEXT MEETING

AND THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM NINE

WHICH I CAN’T EVEN GET TO IN MY

PAGE.

THIS IS THE PUBLIC HEARING AND

POSSIBLE VOTE TO APPROVE

STIPULATED ORDERS,

CCD2023.002.00 AND

CCD2023.003.00 REGARDING THE SEA

PLANE INVESTMENTS LLC OF CORTE

MADERA AND THEIR DEVELOPMENT IN

MARIN COUNTY. AFTER BCDC HAS

GIVEN ITS OPENING REMARKS I’LL

ASK RESPONDENTS TO AFFIRM THE

STIPULATED AGREEMENT I’LL

COMMENT AFTER AND WE HOLD

DISCUSSION AND VOTE ON THE

COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATION. AT

THIS TIME WILL THE

REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE

RESPONDENT PLEASE IDENTIFY

THEMSELVES FOR THE RECORD.

PRESENT OR ON ZOOM.

>>SPEAKER: DO WE NEED TO

POSSIBLY ADMIT GILLIAN

BLANCHARD, COUNSEL FOR SEA PLANE

INVESTMENTS, LLC AND LOU

VASQUEZ?

>>LOU VASQUEZ: HI. THIS IS LOU

VASQUEZ. I’M PRESENT,

REPRESENTING SEA PLANE

INVESTMENTS.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

THANK YOU.

BEFORE STAFF GIVES ITS

PRESENTATION, I INVITE

COMMISSIONER GILMORE, THE CHAIR

OF THE ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE TO

GIVE A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE

COMMITTEE’S HEARING ON THIS

MATTER THAT TOOK PLACE ON

NOVEMBER 9TH OF THIS YEAR.

CHAIR GILMORE.

>>MARIE GILMORE: THANK YOU,

CHAIR WASSERMAN. BEFORE I

START, I WANT TO GIVE A REAL

VOTE OF THANKS TO BOTH THE

RESPONDENTS, STAFF, AND OUR

GENERAL COUNSEL GREG SCHARFF,

THE ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE HEARD

THIS CASE SEVERAL TIMES AND IT

IS A COMPLICATED CASE AND IT’S

COMPLICATED BY THE NUMBER OF

VIOLATIONS, THE FACT THAT THE

PROPERTY CHANGED HANDS AND ALSO

THE LENGTH OF TIME INVOLVED IN

THIS AND SO KUDOS TO EVERYBODY

INVOLVED BRINGING THIS TOGETHER

AND GETTING AN ORDER THAT FIXES

THE VIOLATIONS AND ALLOWS

EVERYBODY TO MOVE FORWARD. SO

THANKS AGAIN TO THE RESPONDENTS,

TO STAFF, AND TO OUR GENERAL

COUNSEL.

CHAIR WASSERMAN?

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE

WILL NOW HAVE STAFF’S

PRESENTATION BY PRINCIPLE

ENFORCEMENT ANALYST ADRIENNE

KLEIN. GO FOR.

>>ANDREW FREMIER: THANK YOU

CHAIR GILMORE. IN JULY 2024

STAFF ISSUED A VIOLATION TO

REPORT COMPLAINT TO RESOLVE SIX

UNRESOLVED VIOLATIONS IN OCTOBER

OF THE SAME YEAR WE ISSUED A

SECOND COMPLAINT FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL PENALTIES

TO RESOLVE THE PENALTY PORTION

OF THREE RESOLVED VIOLATIONS

DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON

MAY 30TH, 2023 THE ENFORCEMENT

COMMITTEE DIRECTED STAFF TO

ENTER INTO A SETTLEMENT

NEGOTIATIONS WHICH RESULTED IN

TWO PROPOSED STIPULATED ORDERS

TO RESOLVE ALL NINE VIOLATIONS

DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON

NOVEMBER 3RD OF THIS YEAR THE

ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE HAS

JANUARY MENTIONED BY CHAIR

GILMORE COMMISSIONER GILMORE

ADOPTED BOTH PROPOSED STIPULATED

ORDERS WHICH ARE BEFORE YOU

TODAY. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

THE PRESENTATION WILL COVER THE

SITE LOCATION, NINE VIOLATIONS

AND THE TWO STAFF

RECOMMENDATIONS. NEXT SLIDE

PLEASE.

THE RED PIN ON THIS VICINITY MAP

SHOWS THE LOCATION WHERE THE

VIOLATIONS ARE OCCURRING AND ARE

OCCURRING KNOWN AS 240242

REDWOOD HIGHWAY FRONTAGE ROAD IN

AN UNINCORPORATED AREA OF MARIN

COUNTY. JUST TO BE CLEAR,

APOLOGIES CHAIR WASSERMAN, IT’S

NOT IN CORTE MADERA. IMAGE ON

THE LEFT SHOWS THE SITE LOOKING

TO THE NORTHEAST THE SITE

CONTAINS A NUMBER OF BUSINESSES

AND OPERATIONS WHILE SOME OF THE

GROUND LEVEL USES AND ASSOCIATED

FILL APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN ONGOING

SINCE 1965 CHANGES TO THE

ONGOING USES AND ASSOCIATED

THROUGH WITHIN BCDC JURISDICTION

INCLUDING MAINTENANCE THAT

OCCURRED AFTER ENACTMENT OF THE

MCATEER-PETRIS ACT REQUIRING

BCDC PERMIT OR PERMIT AMENDMENT.

PERMITS RUN WITH THE LAND AND

NEW OWNERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR

RESOLVING INHERITED VIOLATIONS

AND VIOLATIONS THEY UNDERTAKE.

AS NEW OWNERS RESPONDENTS HAVE

DID NOT CONTACT THE BCDC AS PART

OF THE DUE DILIGENCE REVIEW TO

INQUIRE ABOUT THE SITE STATUS IN

RELATION TO THE LAW AND THE

EXISTING PERMITS THAT GOVERN THE

SITE THE IMAGE ON THE RIGHT IS

AN OVERLAY OF THE PROXIMATE

LOCATIONS IN THE TWO PRIVATELY

OWNED PARCELS NUMBERED 164, ON

THE RIGHT 167 ON THE LEFT WITH

THE THREE STREET RIGHTS OF WAY

WHICH YOU CAN SEE THE LEFT SIDE

PARAPPA STREET, MOLENA STREET,

AND YELLOW STREETS THAT SURROUND

OR STRADDLE THEM AND THE DOCKING

FACILITY PICTURES IN THE WATER

IS LOCATED ON MARIN COUNTY

PROPERTY. NEXT SLIDE. I’LL

DESCRIBE THE SIX VIOLATIONS

UNRESOLVED VIOLATION FIRST BEING

THAT RESPONDENT VIOLATING

SPECIAL CONDITION TO SEE PUBLIC

ACCESS OF ITS 1973 PERMIT BY

FAILING TO PROVIDE THE PUBLIC

SHORE SIGNAGE PUBLIC ACCESS

CONNECTION FROM THE SITE TO

MARIN COUNTY PUBLIC ACCESS WEST

OF THE SITE VIOLATION TWO IS OF

SPECIAL CONDITION 2C TWO

MAINTENANCE OF THE PERMIT BY

FAILING TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING

REQUIRED PUBLIC SHORT PATHWAY

AND LANDSCAPING. THE BULK HEAD

AT PARAPPA STREET IS SEVERELY

ERODED IN THE ADJACENT PUBLIC

SHORELINE PATHWAYS FREQUENTLY

INUNDATED BY TIDES AND THE

NORTHWESTERN TIP IS ERODED TO

THE POINT OF BEING GONE AND THE

WERE REMAINDER IS COLLAPSING

INTO THE BAY. VIOLATION THREE

IS MCATEER PETRIS ACT SECTION

66632A BY PLACING UNAUTHORIZED

FILL IN THE BAY AND SHORELINE

BAND IN YOLO STREET.

UNAUTHORIZED FILL INCLUDES

VEHICLE PARKING AND OR EQUIPMENT

STORAGE, SEA PLANE STORAGE

REPAIR AND SEA PLANE STORAGE

REPAIR MAINTENANCE FUELING TANK

ELEVATED ASPHALT PATHWAY ACROSS

YELLOW STREET TO ALLOW

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS DURING HIGH

TIDES. BY USING FILLED AREAS

DESIGNATED TO BE USED ONLY FOR

LANDSCAPING PUBLIC ACCESS AND

PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE PATHWAYS FOR

PRIVATE USE.

VIOLATION FOUR IS MCATEER-PETRIS

ACT INVOLVING PLACING

UNAUTHORIZED FILL IN BCDC’S

JURISDICTION CONSISTING OF THE

UNAUTHORIZED HELICOPTER LANDING

PAD AND FOUR PAVED WALKWAYS ON

BLOCK 164 VIOLATION FIVE

MCATEER-PETRIS ACT VIOLATION

PLACING UNAUTHORIZED FILL IN THE

BAY ON MARIN COUNTY PROPERTY BY

EXPANDING EXISTING U SHAPED

FLOATING SEPARATE EPISODES WITH

NEW FLOATING FILL TWO PILINGS

RELOCATING ON WATER FILLING

STATION.

AND THE SIXTH UNRESOLVED

VIOLATION IS ALSO A MCATEER

PETRIS ACT VIOLATION INVOLVES

EXCAVATION TO FILL AND CONSTRUCT

A NEW CONCRETE REBAR WATER

ACCESS RAMP IN THE YELLOW STREET

RIGHT OF WAY. THIS MOST

RECENTLY MARCH 20, 2022. THIS

COMPLETES THE SUMMARY OF THE SIX

UNRESOLVED VIOLATIONS. NEXT

SLIDE PLEASE WHERE I WILL

DESCRIBE THE THREE RESOLVED

VIOLATIONS.

TWO ARE THE SAME, WHICH ARE

RESPONDENTS FAILURE TO TAKE

ASSIGNMENT OF BOTH THE 1973 AND

THE SECOND 1985 PERMITS THAT

GOVERN THE SITE AND THE THIRD

RESPONDENT’S FAILURE TO COMPLETE

A PROJECT PRIOR TO PERMIT

EXPIRATION DATE AND CONTINUE

WORK WITH AN EXPIRED PERMIT

THOSE ISSUES HAVE BEEN RESOLVED

BUT THERE WERE ADMINISTRATIVE

CIVIL PENALTIES. NEXT SLIDE. I

WILL NOW READ THE ENFORCEMENT

COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDED

ENFORCEMENT DECISION TO RESOLVE

THE SIX UNRESOLVED VIOLATIONS.

THE RESPONDENT HAS AGREED TO

STIPULATE TO THE FOLLOWING

TERMS. SO, TO CEASE AND DESIST

FROM VIOLATING THE

MCATEER-PETRIS ACT AND BOTH

PERMITS BY JUNE 30TH, 2024 TO

COMPLY WITH THE EXISTING PERMITS

BY MAINTAINING THE PERMIT

REQUIRED PUBLIC ACCESS ALONG THE

EXISTING SHORELINE PATHWAY

WITHIN RESPONDENTS CURRENT

PROPERTY OWNERSHIP ON YOLO

STREET FROM THE TERMINATION OF

THE SHORELINE PATHWAY LOCATED

WITHIN THE DEDICATED PUBLIC

ACCESS AREA TO STRIPE AND

MAINTAIN A CONNECTION FOR AN

EIGHT FOOT WIDE ACCESS PATH OF

TRAVEL. AND THAT IS OUTLINED IN

ONE OF THE ORDER EXHIBITS.

RESPONDENT AGREES TO INSTALL

EIGHT PUBLIC SHORE SIGNS AS

OUTLINED ON THE SLIDE AND IN

ORDER TO RELOCATE ACCESSIBLE

PARKING ALSO SHOWN IN THE ORDER

EXHIBIT ON YOLO STREET TO REMOVE

UNAUTHORIZED ELEVATED ASPHALT

PATH THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED TO

ALLOW FOR ACCESS AND HIGH TIDES

AND TO CONFIRM WITH STAFF WHICH

HELICOPTER LANDING PADS AND

WALKWAYS ARE AUTHORIZED OR NOT.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF THE DATE OF

THE ORDER RESPONDENT AGREES TO

FILE A PERMIT APPLICATION FOR

THE UNAUTHORIZED FILL IN USES AS

FOLLOWS THEY’LL SUBMIT A REVISED

LANDSCAPING PLAN FOR AREAS

ADJACENT TO THE PUBLIC PERMIT

REQUIRED PUBLIC ACCESS THAT WILL

BE REVIEWED BY STAFF AND IT WILL

INCLUDE INSTALLATION AND

MAINTENANCE OF SOME PICNIC

TABLES THAT WILL BE ADA

ACCESSIBLE. AND IF THERE IS ANY

NEW ACCESS REQUIRED UNDER A

FOLLOWING SECTION, THAT WILL BE

INCLUDED ON THESE PLANS.

RESPONDENT AGREES TO REQUEST

AFTER THE FACT AUTHORIZATION FOR

ANY HELICOPTER LANDING PADS,

FUEL TANKS, AND WALKWAYS THAT

ARE NOT PERMITTED BY THE ’85

PERMIT. THE THREE FINGERS THAT

ARE PART OF THE DOCKINGS IS THAT

ARE NOT CURRENTLY AUTHORIZED,

AND THE LAUNCHING RAMP

CONSTRUCTED IN MARCH 2022. NEXT

SLIDE PLEASE.

RESPONDENT AGREES TO PROVIDE

SOME ADDITIONAL PUBLIC ACCESS,

EITHER THAT CURRENTLY REQUIRED

BY THE PERMIT, WHICH IS A

CONNECTION BETWEEN THE SITE AND

THE ADJACENT COUNTY PUBLIC

WALKWAY, AND BICYCLE PATH, OR

ALTERNATIVE ON-SITE ACCESS IF

LOCAL APPROVAL CANNOT BE

OBTAINED. AND FINALLY TO

PREPARE A SEA LEVEL RISE RISK

ASSESSMENT TO ADDRESS SEA LEVEL

RISE IN THE PERMIT RELATED

PUBLIC ACCESS — THE PERMIT

REQUIRED PUBLIC ACCESS AREAS.

AND TO IMPLEMENT THAT SEA LEVEL

— TO IMPLEMENT THE SEA LEVEL

RISE PLAN IN THE TIMELINE

OUTLINED IN IT.

AND IT WILL INCLUDE THE

MAINTENANCE OF THE PUBLIC ACCESS

ON PARAPPA STREET THAT’S FLOODED

AND ERODED, FREQUENTLY FLOODED

AND QUITE ERODED AND ALSO

ADAPTIVE MEASURES TO MAINTAIN

PUBLIC ACCESS FOR THE LIFE OF

THE PROJECT OR UNTIL 2050. NEXT

SLIDE.

SO, THAT COMPLETES THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE UNRESOLVED

VIOLATIONS.

THERE WILL BE, FOR THE THREE

RESOLVED VIOLATIONS, A

RESPONDENT AGREES TO A $5,000

ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL PENALTY DUE

WITHIN 12 AND 24 MONTHS OF THE

ORDER IN TWO EQUAL INSTALLMENTS.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

AND THE PENALTY BE ASSOCIATED

WITH THE SIX UNRESOLVED

VIOLATIONS IS 43,800 DUE IN

THREE DIFFERENT INCREMENTS,

FIRST 10,000 WITHIN 60 DAYS OF

ORDER ISSUANCE THEN TWO PAYMENTS

OF 16,900 DUE WITHIN 12 AND 24

MONTHS OF ORDER ISSUANCE.

I THINK THAT’S MY LAST SLIDE.

MAYBE NEXT SLIDE.

SO, TOGETHER, THE TWO

RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD RESULT IN

A TOTAL PENALTY OF $48,800, AND

THAT CONCLUDES THE STAFF

PRESENTATION.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I WOULD ASK RESPONDENTS

REPRESENTATIVE WHETHER THEY

CONCUR WITH STAFF

RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE

STIPULATED ORDER?

>>SPEAKER: YES. GOOD AFTERNOON

COMMISSIONERS. APOLOGIES FOR

JOINING LATE. I’M GILLIAN

BLANCHARD WITH LAW GROUP AND I

REPRESENT SEA PLANE INVESTMENTS,

LLC.

GOOD TO SEE YOU ALL.

I, ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS, CAN

CONCUR THAT WE DO SUPPORT THE

STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION AND

STIPULATED ORDER. THANK YOU.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM

COMMISSIONERS BEFORE WE OPEN FOR

PUBLIC COMMENT? I THOUGHT WE

HAD A QUIET GROUP? VICE CHAIR

EISEN

>>V. CHAIR, REBECCA EISEN: I

WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THIS

MATTER IS, SORT OF, A REALLY

GOOD EXAMPLE OF THE WORKINGS OF

THE ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE.

STAFF AND RESPONDENTS ARE

WORKING HARD TO RESOLVE THIS

MATTER BUT SOMETIMES THEY CAN’T

QUITE PULL IT ACROSS THE FINISH

LINE, AND THE ENFORCEMENT

COMMITTEE SERVES AS WHAT I WOULD

CALL THE COURTHOUSE STEPS. AND

AS CHAIR WASSERMAN AND ADRIENNE

KLEIN MENTIONED THIS WAS A

COMPLICATED MATTER AND WHEN IT

CAME TO US, WE THE EFFORT THAT

HAD BEEN MADE ALREADY, AND WE

SAW THAT WITH A LITTLE MORE

EFFORT AND PUSH FROM OUR

COMMITTEE THEY COULD RESOLVE

THIS MATTER AND THEY DID. SO,

IT’S REALLY A TESTAMENT TO HOW

WELL THAT COMMITTEE WORKS AS AN

ARM OF THIS COMMISSION. SO I

JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT POINT.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

THANK YOU. AND I WOULD ADD MY

THANKS TO STAFF, AND TO CHAIR

GILMORE.

ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? DO WE

HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT?

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: NO

PUBLIC COMMENT.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I

ASSUME THERE ARE NO FINAL

COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS.

AND I NOW INVITE CHAIR GILMORE

OF THE ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE TO

PRESENT THE COMMITTEE’S

ENFORCEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS.

>>MARIE GILMORE: THANK YOU

CHAIR WASSERMAN. BEFORE I PUT

FORTH THE ENFORCEMENT

COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATIONS I’M

GOING TO BRIEFLY REVIEW THE

COMMISSION’S OPTIONS TO PROCEED.

PURSUANT TO BCDC REGULATIONS

SECTION 11332 ENTITLED

COMMISSION ACTION ON RECOMMENDED

ENFORCEMENT DECISION. WHEN THE

COMMISSION ACTS ON A RECOMMENDED

ENFORCEMENT DECISION THE

COMMISSION’S ACTION SHALL BE ONE

OF THE FOLLOWING. ONE, THE

COMMISSION MAY ADOPTED

RECOMMENDED ENFORCEMENT DECISION

WITHOUT ANY CHANGES TO THE

PROPOSED STIPULATED ORDERS AND

THIS IS YOUR ENFORCEMENT

COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATION.

TWO, THE COMMISSION MAY DISMISS

THE ENTIRETY OR EITHER PART OF

THE MATTER BY VOTING NOT TO

ISSUE ONE OR BOTH OF THE

STIPULATED — OF THE PROPOSED

ORDERS.

THREE, THE COMMISSION MAY REMAND

THE ENTIRE MATTER BACK TO THE

ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE OR STAFF

FOR FURTHER ACTION AS THE

COMMISSION DIRECTS, OR, FOUR,

THE COMMISSION MAY REJECTED

RECOMMENDED ENFORCEMENT DECISION

AND DECIDE TO CONSIDER THE

ENTIRE MATTER DE NOVO. IN THIS

EVENT THE COMMISSION SHALL

CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO

THE NEXT AVAILABLE COMMISSION

MEETING WHERE IT SHALL PROCEED

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SAME

PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS AS THE

COMMISSION MUST FOLLOW UNDER

REGULATION SECTION 11327.

I WILL NOW PRESENT THE

ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE’S

RECOMMENDATION.

THE ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE

RECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMISSION

VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE ADOPTION OF

THE PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT

DECISION AND CEASE AND DESIST

CIVIL PENALTY ORDERS CCD

2023.002 AND CCD2023.003 TO

RESOLVE BCDC ENFORCEMENT CASE

NUMBER ER2019.063.00.

I’M GOING TO MOVE THAT THIS

COMMISSION ADOPTED RECOMMENDED

ENFORCEMENT DECISION WITHOUT ANY

CHANGES.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: DO

I HAVE A SECOND FOR THE MOTION?

>>SPEAKER: I’LL SECOND THAT.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

COMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS FROM

THE GREAT COUNTY OF MARIN

SECONDS THE MOTION.

[LAUGHTER]

PLEASE CALL THE ROLL REYLINA.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ:

COMMISSIONER ADDIEGO?

>>ANDREW FREMIER: YES.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ:

COMMISSIONER AHN?

>>EDDIE AHN: YES.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: AMBUEHL?

>>DAVID AMBUEHL: YES.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ:

COMMISSIONER BURT?

>>PAT BURT: YES.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ:

COMMISSIONER ECKERLY?

>>JENN ECKERLE: YES.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ:

COMMISSIONER ECKLUND? PAT.

>>SPEAKER: YES.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ:

COMMISSIONER GILMORE?

COMMISSIONER GUNTHER?

>>SPEAKER: YES.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: HASZ?

>>V. CHAIR, KARL HASZ: YES.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ:

KISHIMOTO?

>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: YES.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ:

MOULTON-PETERS?

>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS:

YES.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ:

PEMBERTON?

>>SHERI PEMBERTON: YES.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: PESKIN?

>>AARON PESKIN: YES.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: PINE?

RAMOS? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS?

>>ANDREW FREMIER: ABSTAIN.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ:

COMMISSIONER ZEPEDA?

>>CESAR ZEPEDA: YES.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: EISEN?

>>V. CHAIR, REBECCA EISEN: YES.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ:

WASSERMAN?

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

YES.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: 20

YESES. NO NOS, AND ONE

ABSTENTION.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THE

MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU FOR

ALL OF YOUR WORK.

CONTINUE AND LET THIS NOT COME

BACK TO US. THAT BRINGS US TO

ITEM TEN, PUBLIC HEARING ON THE

U.S. ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS

PROPOSED PHASE CONSISTENCY

DETERMINATION OF THE OAKLAND

TURNING BASIN’S WIDENING

PROJECT.

THE PRESENTATION WILL BE MADE BY

OUR SEDIMENT PROGRAM MANAGER

BRENDA GADEN, OR AT LEAST SHE’LL

INTRODUCE AND KICK IT OFF.

>>ANDREW FREMIER: THANK YOU

CHAIR WASSERMAN AND

COMMISSIONERS. WE APPRECIATE

YOU ALL BEING HERE TODAY FOR THE

ARMY CORP’S OAKLAND TURNING

BASIN-WIDENING PROJECT. WE HAVE

A BIT OF A PRESENTATION FOR YOU

TODAY. PLEASE HANG ON. WE

RECOGNIZE THAT THIS PROJECT IS

BOTH COMPLEX IN ITS CONSTRUCTION

AND TIMING, BUT ALSO WE NOTE

THAT THE COMMISSION DOESN’T

OFTEN HEAR PHASED CONSISTENCY

DETERMINATION. SO WITH THAT, WE

WOULD TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO

JUST USE OUR LEGAL EAGLE,

MICHAEL NG TO WALK YOU THROUGH

THE FEDERAL LAW AND POLICIES

AROUND THIS TYPE OF PROJECT

PRIOR TO GETTING THE — PRIOR TO

GETTING THE OVERVIEW OF THE

PROJECT FROM THE COMMISSION

STAFF, WHICH WILL BE MYSELF.

THEN FOLLOWING ME, PHOENIX

ARMENTA WILL BE PRESENTING ON

THE EJ POLICIES BECAUSE THERE

ARE SOME COMPLEX EJ ISSUES HERE.

FOLLOWING PHOENIX I’LL STEP BACK

IN FOR A MINUTE THEN WE’LL BE

TURNING THE PROJECT OVER TO THE

ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS TO GIVE

YOU A DETAILED DESCRIPTION.

WITH THAT, I APPRECIATE YOUR

ATTENTION TODAY. MICHAEL WILL

GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE MIC.

>>MICHAEL NG: HELLO

COMMISSIONERS MICHAEL, SENIOR

STAFF ATTORNEY AT BCDC.

AS BRENDA MENTIONED I’M GOING TO

BE COVERING TWO TOPICS TODAY

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT CMA

AND FEDERAL CONSISTENCY, THEN

THE SECOND TOPIC IS THE

COMMISSION’S AUTHORITY AND

JURISDICTION. I’M GOING TO KEEP

THIS BRISK. THE COMMISSION’S

CURRENT CONSIDERATION IS A BIT

OUT OF ITS USUAL CONSIDERATION

OF PROJECTS. THROUGH THE MY

PRESENTATION YOU MAY SEE

ASTERISKS ON CERTAIN SLIDES AND

WONDER WHAT THAT’S ALL ABOUT.

THOSE HAVE NO PARTICULAR

SIGNIFICANCE OTHER THAN TO SERVE

AS CUES FOR MYSELF TO PROVIDE

FOR SPEAKER NOTES WHICH I

WOULDN’T FIT ON TO MY SLIDES.

NEXT SLIDE.

THANK YOU. SO, FIRST I’LL TALK

ABOUT THE PURPOSE OF THE CZMA.

IT IS A FEDERAL LAW, AGAIN, THE

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT.

ITS BASIC PURPOSE IS TO

PRESERVE, PROTECT, DEVELOP, AND

WHERE POSSIBLE TO RESTORE OR

ENHANCE THE NATION’S RESOURCES

OF THE COASTAL ZONE AND THE CZMA

ENCOURAGES THIS AND ACCOMPLISHES

THIS BY ENCOURAGING STATES TO

DEVELOP WHAT’S CALLED COASTAL

ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS OR

CZMP’S AND THIS GOAL IS FURTHER

INCENTIVIZED BY FEDERAL

GOVERNMENT PROVIDING MATCHING

GRANTS TO ADMINISTER CZMP’S FOR

COASTAL STATES THAT HAVE

CERTIFIED CZMP’S AND ADMINISTER

PER CMA STATUTE CZMP SHOULD

INCLUDE OBJECTIVE POLICIES AND

STANDARDS TO GUIDE PUBLIC AND

PRIVATE USES OF LANDS AND WATERS

IN THE COASTAL ZONE AND ONCE

APPROVED BY NOAA CMP STANDARD

FOR FEDERAL AGENCY ACTIVITY THAT

COASTAL ZONE. NEXT SLIDE.

BCDC AUTHORITY RESPONSIBILITY

UNDERTAKING A STEP BACK THERE’S

ACTUALLY TWO COASTAL ZONE

SEGMENTS IN CALIFORNIA FOR CZMA

PURPOSES BCDC ADMINISTERS THE

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AND

COASTAL ZONE SEGMENT AND THE

COASTAL COMMISSION ADMINISTERS

THE REST OF THE COASTAL ZONE BUT

IT’S WORTH POINTING OUT THAT

BOTH THE MCATEER-PETRIS ACT

FOUNDING LAW AND THE BAY PLAN

PREDATE THE CZMA AND THE MAC ACT

WAS ADOPTED AND ENACTED BY

LEGISLATURE IN 1965 AND THE BAY

PLAN APPROVED IN 1968, CZMA

ENACTED BY CONGRESS IN 1972. IN

1977 WHEN NOAA APPROVED THE BCDC

CZMP IT VIRTUALLY AND WHOLLY

INCORPORATED THE MAC ACT AND THE

BAY PLAN INTO OUR CCP. BACK.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: SORRY

MICHAEL.

>>SPEAKER: UPDATES TO OUR CZMP

MUST BE ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH OUR

CZMA PROGRAM CHANGES AND MOST

COMMONLY OCCURS WHEN THE

COMMISSION ADOPTS A BAY PLAN

ELEMENT SO IT’S WORTH POINTING

OUT THAT BCDC CZMP HAS UPON BEEN

UPDATED 121 TIMES SINCE 1982 AND

REFLECT AMENDMENTS AND UPDATES

TO BCDC’S LAWS AND POLICIES.

NOW WE GET INTO THE NITTY-GRITTY

BEFORE US TODAY A SUBMITTED

CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION SO THE

CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION

PROCESS OR CD INVOLVES BOTH

FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES.

I’LL TALK ABOUT THE FEDERAL

AGENCY ROLE SUBMITTING TO BCDC

PRIOR TO UNDERTAKING ANY

ACTIVITY THAT AFFECTS ANY LAND

OR WATER USE OR NATURAL RESOURCE

OF THE COASTAL ZONE ACTIVITY

MUST BE CARRIED OUT IN A MANNER

WHICH IS CONSISTENT TO THE

MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE WITH

THE ENFORCEABLE POLICIES OF THE

APPROVED STATE MANAGEMENT PLAN

PROGRAM. TWO NOTES FIRST I’LL

ADDRESS THE LEGAL CHARACTER OF

PHASE LATER IN THIS PRESENTATION

SECOND NOAA’S REGULATIONS DEFINE

MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE TO

MEAN FULLY CONSISTENT WITH THE

ENFORCEABLE POLICIES OF

MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS UNLESS FULL

CONSISTENCY IS PROHIBITED BY

EXISTING LAW APPLICABLE TO THE

FEDERAL AGENCY AND NOAA

REGULATIONS FURTHER DEFINE

ENFORCEABLE POLICY AS STATE

POLICIES WHICH ARE LEGALLY

BINDING THROUGH CONSTITUTIONAL

PROVISIONS LAWS REGULATIONS LAND

USE PLANS ORDINANCES OR JUDICIAL

ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS BY

WHICH A STATE EXPERTS CONTROL

OVER A PRIVATE AND PUBLIC LAND

AND WATER USES AND NATURAL

RESOURCES IN THE COASTAL ZONE SO

THE FEDERAL AGENCY SHALL NOT

PROCEED WITH ACTIVITY OVER BCDC

OBJECTION UNLESS FEDERAL AGENCY

HAS CONCLUDED ONE OF THE

FOLLOWING EITHER THAT ACTIVITY

IS CONSISTENT WITH BCDC

ENFORCEABLE POLICIES IS

ENFORCEABLE ARE POLICIES IS

PROHIBITED BY LAW OR THAT

PROPOSED ACTION IS CONSISTENT

WITH BCDC ENFORCEABLE POLICIES.

THE NEXT PART OF THE CD PROCESS

IS THE STATE AGENCY ROLE. BCDC

RESPONDS TO A CD SUBMITTED TO

THE FEDERAL AGENCY BY ONE OF THE

FOLLOWING EITHER CONCURRING

CONDITIONALLY CONCURRING OR

OBJECTING TO THE CD CONDITIONAL

CONCURRENCE MEANS THAT THE

FEDERAL AGENCY MUST MEET

SPECIFIED CONDITIONS TO BE

DEEMED CONSISTENT WITH THE

POLICIES AND BCDC MUST IDENTIFY

SPECIFIC ENFORCEABLE POLICIES OF

ITS CMP EXPLAINING WHY

CONDITIONS ARE NECESSARY TO

ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH THOSE

SPECIFIC ENFORCEABLE POLICIES

AGAIN BCDC CZMP INCLUDES

ENFORCEABLE POLICIES OF BOTH

MCATEER-PETRIS ACT AND THE BAY

PLAN IF THE FEDERAL AGENCY

REJECTS CONDITIONS IN THE

STATE’S CONDITIONAL CONCURRENCE

IS EFFECTIVELY DEEMED AN

OBJECTION. NEXT SLIDE. NOW WE

KNOW THE FEDERAL AGENCY AND

STATE AGENCY ROLES IN THE

PROCESS, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN

THERE’S A CONFLICT IN THE TWO

SIDES. FIRST NOTING OBJECTION

TO A CD IS NOT A DENIAL IN THE

WAY WE MAY BE ABLE TO DENY AN

APPLICATION UNDER OUR STATE LAW

AUTHORITY UNDER FEDERAL AGENCY

DECIDES TO PROCEED WITH ACTIVITY

THAT IS OBJECTED TO BY BCDC THE

FEDERAL AGENCY MUST NOTIFY BCDC

OF ITS DECISION TO PROCEED

BEFORE COMMENCEMENT. SO IF

THERE IS A SERIOUS DISAGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE FEDERAL AGENCY AND

BCDC, EITHER PARTY MAY REQUEST

MEDIATION BY NOAA’S OFFICE OF

COASTAL MANAGEMENT, OCM OR THE

SECRETARY OF COMMERCE. IF

MEDIATION IS NOT SUCCESSFUL OR

UTILIZED, EITHER PARTY MAY SEEK

REVIEW. NEXT SLIDE.

SO, THAT WAS A LOT OF

INFORMATION. BUT TO SUMMARIZE,

BCDC’S CZMP INCLUDES ENFORCEABLE

POLICIES OF MCATEER-PETRIS ACT

AND THE BAY PLAN AND FEDERAL

AGENCIES MUST UNDERTAKE

ACTIVITIES CONSISTENT WITH THE

MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE WITH

ENFORCEABLE POLICIES OF OUR

CZMP. FEDERAL AGENCY SUBMITS A

CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION FOR

ITS PROPOSED ACTIVITIES TO WHICH

BCDC CAN CONCUR CONDITIONALLY

CONCUR OR OBJECT, AND FOR

SERIOUS DISAGREEMENTS BETWEEN A

FEDERAL AGENCY AND BCDC, BCDC

MAY REQUEST MEDIATION FROM

NOAA’S OFFICE OF COASTAL

MANAGEMENT OR THE SECRETARY OF

COMMERCE AND/OR SEEK JUDICIAL

REVIEW IN A COURT OF LAW. NEXT

SLIDE. NOW TO THE SECOND PART

TALKING ABOUT THE COMMISSION’S

AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION.

NEXT SLIDE.

BEFORE I ADDRESS THE SPECIFIC

TOPIC OF THE COMMISSIONS

JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY OVER

THIS PROJECT IT WILL BE HELPFUL

TO TAKE A STEP BACK AND

UNDERSTAND HOW VARIOUS LEGAL

REGIMES SHOULD INFORM AND GUIDE

THE COMMISSION’S DECISION-MAKING

PROS. I HAVE SET FORTH TWO

BROAD CATEGORIES FOR DISCUSSING

RELEVANT LEGAL REGIMES FIRST

CATEGORY SHOULD GUIDE THE

PROCESS AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIVE

POLICY STANDARDS BY WHICH THE

COMMISSION SHOULD MAKE A

DECISION ON THE PROJECT AT THE

NEXT MEETING ON DECEMBER 21ST.

THE SECOND CATEGORY

ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

IDENTIFIES TWO LAWS, ONE FEDERAL

AND ONE STATE WHICH REQUIRES

PREPARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL

DOCUMENTATION WHICH SHOULD ALSO

INFORM THE COMMISSIONS POLICY

DETERMINATIONS WITHIN ITS

DECISIONAL FRAMEWORK. YOU MAY

HEAR COMMENTERS MAKE REFERENCE

TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL

DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED FOR THE

PROPOSED PROJECT UNDER THESE

LAWS. HOWEVER IT’S WORTH

POINTING OUT THAT THE

ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION LAWS

THEMSELVES DO NOT DIRECTLY

CONTROL THE COMMISSIONS

DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK HERE.

NEXT SLIDE.

FIRST WE’LL TALK ABOUT THE CZMA

WHICH WE JUST TALKED ABOUT. AS

PREVIOUSLY EXPLAINED UNDER CZMA,

A FEDERAL AGENCY UNDERTAKING ITS

OWN ACTIVITY WITHIN OR OUTSIDE

OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY COASTAL

ZONE WHICH MAY AFFECT COASTAL

RESOURCES WITHIN OUR SEGMENT OF

THE COASTAL ZONE MUST SUBMIT A

CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION TO

BCDC JUSTIFYING THAT THE FEDERAL

AGENCY’S PROPOSED ACTIONS ARE

CONSISTENT TO THE MAXIMUM

COMMENT PRACTICABLE WITH THE

ENFORCEABLE POLICIES OF BCDC

CZMP. ARMY CORP ENGINEERS

SUBMITTED A FIRST PHASE CD THAT

IS PROPOSED ACTIONS CONSISTENT

TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT

PRACTICABLE WITH THE ENFORCE

POLICIES OF OUR CZMP AND AGAIN

BCDC CZMP INCLUDES ENFORCEABLE

POLICIES OF THE MAC ACT AND THE

BAY PLAN AND BCDC CAN CONCUR

CONDITIONALLY OR OBJECT. THESE

ARE BASED ON DEVELOPING

INFORMATION NOT AVAILABLE AT THE

TIME OF THE CD WITH EACH PHASE

SUBJECT TO FEDERAL AGENCY

DISCRETION TO IMPLEMENT

ALTERNATIVE DECISIONS BASED UPON

THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE AT

THAT TIME. FOR EXAMPLE,

PLANNING CITING DESIGNING DESIGN

PHASES AND CD IS REQUIRED FOR

EACH MAJOR DECISION. NEXT

SLIDE.

NEXT WE’LL TALK ABOUT THE

MCATEER-PETRIS ACT AS PART OF

THE DECISIONAL FRAMEWORK. THE

PROJECT WOULD OCCUR OUTSIDE OF

THE BAY AND SHORELINE BAN

JURISDICTIONS BUT THE PROJECT

MAY AFFECT RESOURCES WITHIN BOTH

OF THESE JURISDICTIONS WITHIN

BCDC COASTAL ZONE SEGMENT

IDENTIFIED IN THE APPLICATION

SUMMARY OF LISTED I’M NOT GOING

TO GO OVER ALL OF THESE BUT YOU

CAN SEE STAFF IDENTIFIED AS THE

RELEVANT POLICIES FOR THE

COMMISSION TO CONSIDER IN

RELATION TO THIS PROJECT. NEXT

SLIDE.

SO, NEXT WE’LL TALK ABOUT THE

BAY PLAN AS PART OF THE

DECISIONAL FRAMEWORK. AND ON

THIS SLIDE, AGAIN, I’M NOT GOING

TO READ ALL OF THESE CATEGORIES,

BUT THESE ARE ENFORCEABLE

POLICIES AND THE CZMP THAT WERE

IDENTIFIED IN THE BAY PLAN. THE

FOLLOWING BAY PLAN POLICY

CATEGORIES ARE RELEVANT IN

ENFORCING POLICIES FOR THE

COMMISSION TO CONSIDER

DETERMINING WHETHER IT CONCURS

CONDITIONALLY OR OBJECTS TO THE

ARMY CORP SUBMITTED CD. THE

COMMISSION’S RECENT UPDATE TO

THE SEAPORT PLAN VIS-À-VIS

ADOPTED PLAN IS NOT YET PART OF

THE BCDC APPROVED CERTIFIED

CZMP. FOR PURPOSES OF THE

COMMISSION’S CONSIDERATION OF

THE CD THE COMMISSION SHOULD

RELY ON POLICIES OF THE SEAPORT

PLAN PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF BPA

119 TO THE EXTENT THEY INFORM

THE COMMISSION DETERMINATION

WHETHER IT CONDITIONALLY CONCURS

OR OBJECTS TO THE ARMY CORP’S

SUBMITTED CD. NEXT SLIDE.

NEXT I’LL TALK ABOUT

ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AS

PART OF THE RELEVANT LEGAL

REGIME HERE. SO, NEPA STANDS

FOR THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL

POLICY ACT, WHICH WAS ENACTED BY

CONGRESS IN 1969. IT REQUIRES

THAT ALL FEDERAL AGENCIES ARE TO

PREPARE DETAILED STATEMENTS

ASSESSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT AND ALTERNATIVES TO MAJOR

FEDERAL ACTIONS SIGNIFICANTLY

AFFECTING THE ENVIRONMENT. SO,

HERE, FOR THIS PROJECT, THE ARMY

CORP PREPARED AN INTEGRATED

FEASIBILITY REPORT AND

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AS THE

NEPA LEAD AGENCY. AND AS PART

OF ITS EA, IT MADE A DRAFT

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

OR [INDISCERNIBLE] UNDER CZMA

STATE AGENCIES CANNOT REQUIRE

SUBMITTAL OF NEPA DOCUMENTATION

AS PART OF A CD BUT HERE THE

ARMY CORP DID PROVIDE AN EA FOR

STAFF CONSIDERATION IN

EVALUATING THE SUBMITTED CD IT’S

WORTH POINTING OUT FEDERAL

AGENCIES CD OBLIGATIONS UNDER

CZMP ARE INDEPENDENT OF THOSE

REQUIRED UNDER NEPA AND ARE NOT

NECESSARILY FULFILLED BY THE

SUBMISSION OF NEPA. THE EA IS

NOT NECESSARILY DETERMINATIVE OF

THE COMMISSION’S REVIEW OF THE

ARMY CORP’S SUBMITTED CD THOUGH

ANALYSIS IN MAY ASSIST THE

COMMISSION IN DETERMINING

WHETHER IT CONCURS CONDITIONALLY

CONCURS OR OBJECTS TO THE

SUBMITTED CD. SIMILAR TO NEPA

CEQA REQUIRES STATE AND LOCAL

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES TO INFORM

DECISION MAKERS AND THE PUBLIC

ABOUT THE POTENTIAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF

PROPOSED PROJECTS AND REDUCE

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS TO THE

EXTENT FEASIBLE THE. THE EIR IS

NOT DIRECTLY BEFORE US TODAY

BECAUSE CEQA IS NOT A

REQUIREMENT UNDER CZMA. UNDER

THE DOCUMENT THEY HAVE

IDENTIFIED FOUR SIGNIFICANT AND

UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS THREE

RELATING TO AIR QUALITY AND ONE

RELATING TO NOISE AND THEY ALSO

IDENTIFIED CERTAIN MITIGATION

MEASURES TO MITIGATE THE

SIGNIFICANCE OF THOSE IMPACTS

ALTHOUGH THEY STILL CONCLUDED

THEY WERE SIGNIFICANT AND

UNAVOIDABLE. SO BCDC STAFF IS

CURRENTLY REVIEWING AND

COMMENTING ON THE DRAFT EIR AS A

RESPONSIBLE AGENCY AND WILL

CONSIDER IT WHEN THE PORT

APPLIES FOR A BCDC PERMIT. THIS

IS TYPICALLY HOW BCDC HANDLES

ITS CEQA COMPLIANCE BECAUSE

PERMIT APPLICANTS MUST OBTAIN

ALL DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS

BEFORE SEEKING A BCDC PERMIT AND

TYPICALLY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT

PROVIDING ANY LOCAL

DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL SERVES AS

A CEQA LEAD AGENCY. BCDC RELIES

ON THE CEQA DOCUMENTATION

PREPARED BY THE LEAD AGENCY WHEN

ACTING ON A PERMIT APPLICATION

FOR A PROJECT AS A CEQA AGENCY

RESPONSIBLE AGENCY IF A PROJECT

REQUIRES APPROVAL FROM A

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC AGENCY OR

FEDERAL AGENCY THE CEQA

GUIDELINES GENERALLY REQUIRE

PREPARATION OF A JOINT CEQA

DOCUMENT GUIDELINES ACKNOWLEDGE

THAT A FEDERAL AGENCY MAY NOT

COOPERATE IN THE PREPARATION OF

A JOINT DOCUMENT AND MAY REQUIRE

A SEPARATE NEPA DOCUMENTATION.

HERE THE ARMY CORP AND PORT OF

OAKLAND DID NOT PREPARE A JOINT

NEPA CEQA DOCUMENT INSTEAD THE

ARMY CORP PREPARED AN EA PORT

PREPARED AN EIR UNDER ITS CEQA

REQUIREMENTS. THERE IS NO

REQUIREMENT THAT THE

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF A

PROJECT UNDER NEPA COME TO THE

CONCLUSIONS AS THE ENVIRONMENTAL

REVIEW OF THE SAME PROJECT UNDER

CEQA BECAUSE CEQA AND NEPA ARE

DIFFERENT STATUS WITH DIFFERENT

REQUIREMENTS. AGAIN THAT WAS A

LOT OF INFORMATION. JUST TO

SUMMARIZE HERE THE ARMY CORP

SUBMITTED A PHASED CONSISTENCY

DETERMINATION AS REQUIRED AND

ALLOWED BY THE CMA. BCDC MUST

CONCUR INITIALLY CONCUR OR

OBJECT TO THE SUBMITTED CD THAT

THE ARMY CORP’S PROPOSED ACTIONS

ARE CONSISTENT TO THE MAXIMUM

EXTENT PRACTICABLE WITHIN THE

ENFORCEABLE POLICIES OF BCDC,

CZMP. AND AGAIN BCDC CZMP

INCLUDES ENFORCEABLE OF POLICIES

OF MACATEER PETRIS AND THE BAY

PLAN. OBJECTION IS NOT A

DENIAL. THOUGH BCDC MAY SEEK

MEDIATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW.

ARMY CORP PREPARED AN EA UNDER

ITS NEPA AUTHORITY, ALTHOUGH

THIS IS NOT A CZMA REQUIREMENT.

AND THE PORT PREPARED AN EIR

UNDER ITS CEQA AUTHORITY WHICH

IS ALSO NOT A CZMA REQUIREMENT

BUT WILL BE CONSIDERED BY BCDC

WHEN THE PORT NEEDS A BCDC

PERMIT. AND THAT’S THE END OF

MY PRESENTATION.

>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU MICHAEL.

SO, COMMISSIONERS, I HOPE YOU

APPRECIATE THAT MINI CONCISE

TRAINING ON CZMA, CEQA AND NEPA.

IT’S VERY MUCH TO INFORM THE

PROJECT AND HOW THE COMMISSION

STAFF HAS BEEN APPROACHING THE

OAKLAND TURNING BASIN’S WIDENING

PROJECT.

I’M GOING TO GIVE A BRIEF

OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT BECAUSE

THE ARMY CORP IS GOING TO GIVE A

LONGER AND THOROUGH REVIEW OF

THE ARMY CORP PROJECT. IT’S

IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS IS A

JOINT PROJECT OF THE PORT OF

OAKLAND AND THE U.S. ARMY CORP

OF ENGINEERS AS MICHAEL

MENTIONED OR ALLUDED TO, THE

PORT OF OAKLAND WILL BE

REQUESTING A BCDC PERMIT LIKELY

IN 2025, 2026. SO, WE LOOK

FORWARD TO SEEING THIS PROJECT

AGAIN AROUND THE MCATEER-PETRIS

ACT STATUS AND BAY PLAN

POLICIES.

SO, JUST A QUICK NOTE. AGAIN,

THIS IS A FIRST PHASE

CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION. THE

ARMY CORP WILL DESCRIBE FURTHER.

BUT IN THE FIRST PHASE, AT THIS

LEVEL WE’RE LOOKING AT THE

FEASIBILITY STUDY AND THE

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE

PROJECT. THAT MEANS THAT MANY

OF THE DETAILS THAT WE WOULD

NORMALLY RECEIVE IN A PERMIT

APPLICATION HAVE NOT YET BEEN

PROVIDED ALTHOUGH WE HAVE

SEVERAL DETAILS IN HAND. THE

PROJECT IS NOT YET AUTHORIZED OR

FUNDED. SO, WE ANTICIPATE A

SECOND PHASE — WE ANTICIPATE A

SECOND PHASE CONSISTENCY

DETERMINATION IN 2025 OR 2026.

THAT WILL BE AT THE PLANNING

ENGINEERING AND DESIGN PHASE

WHERE MORE DETAILS WILL BE

PROVIDED BY THE ARMY CORP. ONE

OF THE REASONS WE’RE HERE TODAY

IS BECAUSE IN ORDER FOR THE ARMY

CORP OF ENGINEERS TO HAVE THEIR

HEADQUARTERS SIGN WHAT IS KNOWN

AS THEIR CHIEF’S REPORT, THE

COASTAL MANAGEMENT ACT

CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION LETTER

OF AGREEMENT NEEDS TO BE

APPENDED TO THAT REPORT. THEN

LASTLY THIS ACTION HELPS THE

ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS REQUEST

AUTHORIZATION FOR THIS PROJECT

IN THE WATER RESOURCES AND

DEVELOPMENT ACT, 2024, OR LATER,

SHOULD THAT NEED TO HAPPEN AT A

LATER TIME AND FUTURE

APPROPRIATIONS OF THE PROJECT BY

CONGRESS.

THIS IS THE PORT OF OAKLAND.

I’M HOPING MANY OF YOU ARE

FAMILIAR WITH IT. THIS IS A

GRAPHIC FROM THE PORT’S FILES.

BUT IT SHOWS THE OUTER HARBOR TO

THE NORTHERN PART OF MY SCREEN,

THE TOP OF MY SCREEN, WITH THE

OUTER HARBOR TURNING BASINS,

SORT OF IN THE CRUX OF THE OUTER

HARBOR AND THE INNER HARBOR

TRAVELING BETWEEN THE PORT OF

OAKLAND AND THE ISLAND OF

ALAMEDA WITH THE INNER HARBOR

DOWN IN THE LOWER RIGHT HAND

CORNER OF THE SCREEN. THESE TWO

TURNING BASINS ARE THE MAIN

SUBJECT OF THIS CONSISTENCY

DETERMINATION, BECAUSE AT THIS

TIME, LARGE VESSELS THAT ENTER

THE PORT FACE RESTRICTIONS NOT

ALL OF THEM BUT SOME FACE

RESTRICTIONS WHEN THEY’RE

TRAVELING IN AND OUT OF THE PORT

FACILITIES TO BERTH AND OFFLOAD

THEIR CARGO. THIS IS A SHORT

VERSION OF THE PORT OF OAKLAND’S

PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR THE

PROJECT. BUT BASICALLY THEY’RE

LOOKING TO IMPROVE EFFICIENCIES

FOR LONGER VESSELS FOR BOTH THE

CURRENT VESSELS THAT ARE

ENTERING AND LEAVING THE HARBORS

TODAY AND ALSO FOR THE FUTURE

DEEP DRAFT VESSELS THAT MAY CALL

AT THE PORT IN THE FUTURE, AND

ARE ANTICIPATED TO CALL IT THE

PORT. THEY ALSO MAINTAIN WANT

TO MAINTAIN THE COMPETITIVENESS

FOR THE PORT INTERNATIONAL CARGO

SHIPMENTS THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE

THAT VESSELS HAVE FLEXIBILITY

FOR CONNECTING TO SHORE POWER

WHILE THEY’RE AT BERTH

APPARENTLY SOME OF THE SHIPS

ONLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONNECT

TO SHORE POWER ON THE INSIDE SO

THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO TURN AND

MAKE SURE THEY CAN CONNECT TO

SHORE POWER. THIS HELPS SUPPORT

A MOVE TOWARDS ZERO-EMISSIONS IN

THE FUTURE AND THEY WILL ALSO

IMPROVE VESSEL MANUFACTURING AND

SAFETY AND REDUCE ENVIRONMENTAL

RISKS SUCH AS OIL SPILLS THAT

CURRENTLY EXIST IN THE TURNING

BASINS WHEN THEY’RE UNDERSIZED

FOR THE VESSELS THAT ARE

TRANSITING THEM AND ALSO

MEASURES TO MODERNIZE ESSENTIAL

WATERWAY PORT OF OAKLAND FOR THE

NATION AND WITH THE FLEET COMING

AND GOING AND THE GRAPHIC ON THE

RIGHT SHOWS SOME OF THE

DIFFERENCES THAT THE PORT IS

FACING NOW BOTH IN THE FUTURE

VESSELS GET LONGER AND WIDER

WITH THE ABILITY OF VESSELS TO

TRY TO CARRY MORE CARGO.

LOOKING AT THE TWO AREAS OF

ACTION FOR THIS PROJECT SO THE

OUTER HARBOR TURNING BASIN CLOSE

UP OF EARLY DESIGN PHASE BUT THE

TURNING BASIN AS IT EXISTS TODAY

IN THE LIGHT GRAY. THE PROPOSED

TURNING BASIN IN THE DARKER OR

CHARCOAL GRAY TO BLACK.

BASICALLY, THIS REPRESENTS AN

EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING

TURNING BASIN BY 21 ACRES. IT

WOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED BY

DREDGING APPROXIMATELY

1.34 MILLION CUBIC YARDS OF

SHALLOW SUBTIDAL HABITAT THAT’S

CURRENTLY AT 4 TO 5 FEET MEAN

LOW WATER. THAT AREA WILL BE

TAKEN DOWN TO MINUS 50 FEET TO

MATCH THE EXISTING TURNING BASIN

STEPS. AND THE PORT AND CORP

HAVE COMMITTED TO BEN OFFICIALLY

REUSING ALL THE DREDGE SEDIMENT

THAT’S CLEAN AND SUITABLE FOR

REUSE FROM THIS PROJECT AND

PARTICULARLY THE OUTER HARBOR

BECAUSE IT’S ANTICIPATED TO HAVE

FEWER CONTAMINANTS IN THE INNER

HARBOR JUST DUE TO THE NATURE

WAS THE UNDISTURBED SITE. AND

AS PART OF THIS, THEY WILL BE

UPGRADING EXISTING ELECTRICAL

INFRASTRUCTURE NEAR 26, WHICH IS

ADJACENT TO THE SITE.

THE INNER HARBOR TURNING BASIN

FAR MORE COMPLEX THAN THE OUTER

HARBOR TURNING THE BASIN

EXPANSION. SIMILARLY THE

GRAPHIC YOU SEE HERE EXISTING

INNER HARBOR TURNING BASIN IN

LIGHT GRAY. THE PROPOSED

WIDENING EXPANSION OF THE

TURNING BASIN IN BLACK WITH THE

DASHED LINES BEING IN AREAS THAT

ARE WITHIN THE EXISTING 50 FOOT

FEDERAL NAVIGATION CHANNEL AND

THE AREAS THAT ARE YELLOW AND

SOLID BLACK ARE AREAS NEED TO BE

EXCAVATED OR DREDGED AS PART OF

THE PROJECT. IN ORDER TO EXPAND

THE TURNING BASIN AS THE CORP

DID IN THE 50-FOOT DEEPENING

PROJECT — THIS HAS BEEN DONE AT

LEAST ONCE BEFORE — PORTIONS

OF HOWARD TERMINAL WHICH WERE

PUT INTO PLACE IN THE 1980’S

WOULD NEED TO BE REMOVED, 3.9

ACRES. ALAMEDA LAND SITE

OPPOSITE THE CHANNEL WOULD HAVE

6.5 ACRES REMOVED. THERE ARE

TWO WAREHOUSES ON THAT SITE;

YOU CAN SEE THEM THERE IN WHITE.

ON THE LOWER PART OF THE SCREEN

ONE OF THEM SAYS ALAMEDA

PROPERTY THOSE WAREHOUSES WOULD

BE PARTIALLY DEMOLISHED TO

ACCOMMODATE THE WIDER TURNING

BASIN. IN THE WHARFS ON BOTH

SIDES THERE IS A COMBINATION OF

A ROCK DIKE, THOSE AREAS THAT

NEED TO BE REMOVED AS PART OF

THIS PROJECT AND TWO BULK HEADS

WOULD BE INSTALLED ONE ON THE

HOWARD TERMINAL SIDE ONE ON THE

ALAMEDA SIDE TO HOLD THE NEW

SHORELINE. IN ADDITION — AND

IT’S NOT ON THIS SLIDE — IN

ADDITION THERE IS A SMALL NARROW

AREA IN FRONT OF SCHNITZER STEEL

ON THE LEFT UPPER PART OF THE

SLIDE WHERE THE CORP WOULD PLACE

IN WATER RETAINING WALL TO HOLD

BACK THE SLOPE OF THE SHORELINE

SO WHEN THE AREA IS DEEPENED TO

MINUS 50 FEET THE SLOPE WOULDN’T

SLUMP AND CAUSE SLOPE FAILURE.

ONCE THE NEW BULK HEADS ARE IN

PLACE THE PROJECT WOULD DREDGE

APPROXIMATELY 825 CUBIC YARDS OF

SEDIMENT ALSO TARGETED FOR

BENEFICIAL REUSE WHENEVER

SUITABLE AND IT WILL BE DEEPENED

TO MINUS 50 FEET TO MATCH THE

CHANNEL AND EXISTING TURNING

BASIN CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS WOULD

BE DISPOSED OR RECYCLED,

DEPENDING ON ITS TYPE, AND THEY

WOULD NEED TO INSTALL ADDITIONAL

INFRASTRUCTURE AT HOWARD

TERMINAL TO SUPPORT THE PROJECT.

OOPS. WE WENT THE WRONG WAY.

SORRY.

>>STEVEN GOLDBECK: BRENDA, I

THINK YOU MISSPOKE. IT’S

825,000.

>>SPEAKER: DID I SAY MILLION?

>>STEVEN GOLDBECK: —

[INDISCERNIBLE] DREDGING.

I THINK YOU SAID 825.

>>SPEAKER: OH. YEAH, I ALWAYS

DROP OFF THREE ZEROES. MY

APOLOGIES. THAT’S WHAT HAPPENS

WHEN YOU WORK IN THE WORLD OF A

LOT OF ZEROS.

THANK YOU FOR THAT, STEVE.

ONE OF THE BIG QUESTIONS OF THE

PROJECT IS MACING FILLS TAKING

AWAY OF FILL, OVERALL IT’S

REDUCTION OF BAY FILL INCREASE

OF SURFACE AREA VOLUME IN THE

BAY. YOU CAN SEE THE TOP FOUR

LINES LOOKING AT FILL REMOVAL

10.4 ACRES OF THE AREA WOULD BE

REMOVED OVERALL THEN 418,400

CUBIC YARDS OF SOLID FILL WOULD

BE REMOVED. THE FILL PLACED, OR

THE NEXT SET OF NUMBERS

TOTALLING 2.81 ACRES OF FILL

PLACED AND 23,000 ACRE YARDS OF

FILL PLACED THAT RESULTS IN

TOTAL NET OF REDUCTION OF 7.6

ACRES AND NET SOLID FILL

REDUCTION OF 395,400 CUBIC YARDS

REPRESENTING INCREASE IN SURFACE

AREA AND VOLUME OF THE BAY WHICH

IS HELPFUL. I’M GOING TO TOUCH

ON ISSUES THAT THE COMMISSION

WILL NEED TO CONSIDER WHEN IT’S

VOTING TO HELP FRAME ANY PUBLIC

COMMENTS THAT MAY ARISE AND ALSO

FOR YOU TO THINK ABOUT THIS

PROJECT AS YOU’RE HEARING THE

ARMY CORP PRESENTATION. SO THE

PRIMARY ISSUES THE PROJECT IS

CONSISTENT WITH THE LAWS AND

POLICIES, WHETHER THE PROJECT IS

CONSISTENT WITH THE SEAPORT PLAN

WHETHER THE ARMY CORP HAS

CONDUCTED EQUITABLE AND

CULTURALLY RELATIVE OUTREACH TO

THE PUBLIC PARTICULARLY THE

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITY

THAT MAY BE DISPROPORTIONATELY

IMPACTED BY THIS PROJECT AND

WHETHER IT’S CONSISTENT WITH OUR

ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIAL JUSTICE

POLICIES AND THERE IS MITIGATION

FOR THOSE IMPACTS WHERE WE HAVE

AUTHORITY. AND LASTLY, WHETHER

THE PROPOSED DELAY ON ADDRESSING

PUBLIC ACCESS AND SCENIC VIEWS

TO THE NEXT PHASE CONSISTENCY

DETERMINATION IS APPROPRIATE.

A COUPLE MORE SLIDES THEN I’LL

TURN IT OVER TO PHOENIX.

MICHAEL TOUCHED ON THIS I’M NOT

GOING TO BELABOR THE POINT BUT A

QUICK REMINDER THAT WE’RE USING

THE 1996 SEAPORT PLAN FOR THIS

PROJECT AS AMENDED IN 2012. HE

MENTIONED THE CURRENT ONE

REQUIRES COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

REVIEW BEFORE WE CAN USE IT.

SO, JUST A QUICK NOTE THAT THE

SEAPORT PLAN AS IT CURRENTLY

EXISTS SUPPORTS REDEVELOPMENT OF

THE PORT TO IMPROVE WATER BORNE

COMMERCE AND COMMERCE AND

SUPPORT ECONOMY OF THE BAY AREA

ALSO INCLUDES DREDGING TO DEEPEN

AND MAINTAIN NAVIGATION

CHANNELS.

AND THEN IN JUST A MINUTE ON

PUBLIC ACCESS. SO THERE HAS

BEEN CONCERNS AND COMMENTS MADE

ABOUT PUBLIC ACCESS AND WHETHER

OR NOT THE PROJECT SHOULD

PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS. AND AT

THIS POINT IN TIME, IN THE

FEASIBILITY STAGE, THE CORP AND

THE PORT HAVE NOT PROVIDED OR

PROPOSED ANY PUBLIC ACCESS.

IT’S IMPORTANT TO NOTE DIFFERENT

POLICIES THAT SUPPORT THE

COMMISSION STAFF’S VIEW THAT

PUBLIC ACCESS IS AND SHOULD BE

REQUIRED BY THIS PROJECT. SO,

MCATEER-PETRIS ACT SECTION 66602

SPEAKS TO REQUIRING THE MAXIMUM

FEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS

CONSISTENT WITH A PROJECT AND IT

SPECIFICALLY CALLS OUT PORTS AS

ONE AREA WHERE PUBLIC ACCESS

SHOULD BE REQUIRED WHERE

FEASIBLE AND SAFE TO DO SO.

WHEN THE STAFF LOOKS AT PROJECTS

FOR PUBLIC ACCESS THEY LOOK AT

THE POTENTIAL TO AFFECT BOTH

CURRENT AND FUTURE PUBLIC ACCESS

IN THE AREA.

IN LIEU, PUBLIC ACCESS FOR PORT

PROPERTIES IS LIKELY AN OUTCOME

DUE TO THE SAFETY CONCERNS

THAT’S PART OF THE PUBLIC ACCESS

POLICIES AND PUBLIC ACCESS

POLICY 1 AND 2 IT SEEKS IF YOU

CAN’T PROVIDE IT IN PORT

PROPERTIES THAT NEARBY PUBLIC

ACCESS PROJECTS COULD BE

PROVIDED AND IF YOU CAN’T DO IT

NEARBY, THEN PUBLIC ACCESS

SHOULD BE PROVIDED FOR

VULNERABLE OR DISADVANTAGED

COMMUNITIES.

I ALSO WANT TO NOTE THAT THIS

STAFF MET WITH THE CITY OF

ALAMEDA, WHO RAISED SPECIFIC

CONCERNS ABOUT THE STAFF

SUMMARY. AND FRANKLY, THE

TERMINOLOGY USED, WE CALLED IT

ALAMEDA TERMINAL, THE TRUE NAME

IS ALAMEDA LANDING. THE MASTER

LAN FOR THE ALAMEDA LANDING FOR

THE CITY OF ALAMEDA ANTICIPATES

AND ENCOURAGES PUBLIC ACCESS AND

RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AS

PART OF THAT SITE AND IN FACT

MENTIONED THAT IT’S PART OF THE

BAY TRAIL, IN THE FUTURE.

AND THEN LASTLY, THE PORT’S

POLICIES AND THE SEAPORT PLAN

SAY THAT PORT SHOULD BE DESIGNED

WHENEVER FEASIBLE TO PERMIT

PUBLIC ACCESS AND VIEWING

ACTIVITIES THROUGH VIEWING

OPPORTUNITIES FOR PORT

ACTIVITIES THROUGH VIEWPOINTS

AND OPENINGS BETWEEN BUILDINGS

AND OTHER SITE DESIGNS THAT

PERMIT VIEW OF THE MARITIME

ACTIVITIES. JUST WANTED TO CALL

THOSE TO YOUR ATTENTION AS WE

THINK ABOUT THIS PROJECT WITH

THE PROPOSED PUBLIC ACCESS. AND

I’M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO

PHOENIX ARMENTA TO TALK ABOUT

THE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

POLICIES.

>>SPEAKER: WEST OAKLAND IS AN

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY AS

DEMONSTRATED BY CALENVIROSCREEN,

EJ COMMUNITY SCREENING TOOL AND

BCDC COMMUNITIES VULNERABLE MAP

CLOSEST TO THE OAKLAND HARBOR

TURNING BASIN ARE WITHIN THE

70th, 8TH, 90th PERCENTILE IN

TERMS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL

BURDEN IN THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA BCDC SOCIAL

VULNERABILITY MAP SHOWS

COMMUNITIES AROUND THE TURNING

BASIN RANGE FROM MODERATE TO

HIGH SOCIAL VULNERABILITY.

OAKLAND HAS A LONG HISTORY OF

INDUSTRIAL USES PORT EXPANSION

AND IS SURROUNDED BY TWO

FREEWAYS LEADING TO THE HIGHEST

EXPOSURES TO PARTICULATE MATTER

IN THE NATION. NEXT SLIDE.

BCDC ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND

SOCIAL EQUITY POLICIES ADOPTED

IN 2019 OUTLINE REQUIREMENTS FOR

WORKING IN SOCIALLY VULNERABLE

COMMUNITIES FIRST POLICY DIRECTS

COMMISSION TO INCLUDE PRINCIPLES

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND SOCIAL

EQUITY IN ALL ACTIONS AND

ACTIVITIES RELATED TO

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND SOCIAL

EQUITY THAT MAY AFFECT THE

COMMISSION’S AUTHORITY OR

JURISDICTION.

THE THIRD POLICY REQUIRES

MEANINGFUL COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND PROJECT

APPLICANTS WORKING IN SOCIALLY

VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES FOURTH

POLICY REQUIRES THAT LOCAL

GOVERNMENTS AND THE COMMISSION

SHOULD MAKE MEASURES THROUGH

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE

PERMITTING PROCESS WITHIN THE

SCOPE OF THEIR RESPECTED

AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE MITIGATION

FOR DISPROPORTIONATE ADVERSE

PROJECT IMPACT ON THE IDENTIFIED

VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES IN WHICH

THE PROJECT IS PROPOSED. IT’S

IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT POLICY

FOUR IS APPLIED ONLY WITHIN THE

SCOPE OF THE COMMISSION’S

RESPECTIVE AUTHORITY WHEN

CONSIDERING ITS APPLICATION TO

THE OAKLAND HARBOR TURNING

BASIN. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

WITH REGARDS TO MEANINGFUL

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT THE PORT

AND THE U.S. ARMY CORP OF

ENGINEERS HELD A TOTALLY OF NINE

MEETINGS AS PART OF THE NEPA AND

CEQA PROCESSES THEY MET WITH

LOCAL GROUPS SUCH AS THE OAKLAND

ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATOR’S

PROJECT JACK LONDON IMPROVEMENT

DISTRICT AND ACORN PRESCOTT

NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL TO DISCUSS

THE PROJECT THEY ALSO WORKED

CLOSELY WITH ME TO DEVELOP AND

HELP WITH THE OUTREACH

STRATEGIES. NEXT SLIDE.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONCERNS

STILL REMAIN AROUND THE PROJECT

INCLUDING CONCERNS AROUND

SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE EFFECTS

OF AIR QUALITY FROM CONSTRUCTION

AND DREDGING EQUIPMENT CONCERNS

OF WIDENING COULD INDUCE GROWTH

OVER TIME AND CONTRIBUTING TO

WORSENING AIR QUALITY RESIDENTS

DON’T WANT CONTAMINATED SOIL TO

BE PASS ODDS TO OTHER EJ

COMMUNITIES LIKE KETTLE MAN

CITY. IT’S IMPORTANT TO NOTE

THESE CONCERNS ALTHOUGH

IMPORTANT TO ADDRESS DO NOT FALL

UNDER THE SCOPE OF BCDC’S

AUTHORITY. NEXT SLIDE. BCDC

HAS BEEN COORDINATING WITH

AGENCIES TO HAVE SOME AUTHORITY

ON THESE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

CONCERNS TO HELP ADDRESS THEM

OUR STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING WITH

BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT

DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA AIR

RESOURCES BOARD, CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

AND CALIFORNIA WATER BOARDS

CALIFORNIA SUBSTANCES CONTROL

AND US EPA TO WORK ON FINDING

SOLUTIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL

JUSTICE CONCERNS ON THIS

PROJECT. I’LL SEND IT BACK TO

BRENDA TO TALK MORE ABOUT THE

PROJECT.

>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. SO THE

COMMISSION UNFORTUNATELY DOES

NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO ADDRESS

AIR QUALITY ISSUES ASSOCIATED

WITH THIS PROJECT IT’S OUTSIDE

OF OUR SCOPE AND AUTHORITY

HOWEVER BECAUSE WE REALIZED THE

COMMISSION MAY BE CONCERNED

ABOUT THE AIR QUALITY IMPACTS OF

THE PROPOSED PROJECT WE THOUGHT

WE WOULD BRIEFLY LIST OUT SOME

OF THE AGENCIES THAT HAVE THE

ABILITY TO REGULATE THESE ISSUES

IN CALIFORNIA. WE ARE TRYING TO

LAY OUT AREAS WHERE THIS ISSUE

CAN BE ADDRESSED. SO, THE BAY

AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT

DISTRICT REGULATES STATIONARY

EQUIPMENT AND COMMENTS ON

ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS. THE

CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

REGULATES MOBILE EQUIPMENTS,

VEHICLES AND SHIPS IN STATE

WATERS. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY

HAVE REGULATIONS RELATING TO

TRUCKING AND THIS IS THE CARB

REGULATION. SO, ALL OF THESE

LISTED BELOW ARE PRIMARILY

RELATED TO CARB, BECAUSE THEY

ARE ENACTING NEW LAWS AND

POLICIES AND REGULATIONS TO

IMPROVE AIR QUALITY THROUGHOUT

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. SO,

YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY’RE WORKING

TO REDUCE SULFUR OXIDES, NITROUS

OXIDES, REDUCING EMISSIONS FROM

TRUCKS THROUGH INCREASING

IMPROVEMENTS FOR THEIR ENGINES,

FOR LES EMISSIONS. OVER TIME.

AND SO SOME OF THOSE ARE ALREADY

IN PLACE. SOME ARE COMING

ONLINE NOW. VESSEL REGULATIONS

THAT THEY HAVE ENACTED ARE

LOOKING AT RENEWABLE DIESEL

FUEL, AND, AGAIN, IMPLEMENTING

PHASED-IN BETTER ENGINES WITH

LESS EMISSIONS. SIMILARLY FOR

CARGO EQUIPMENT, THEY’RE

DEVELOPING CARGO HANDLING AND

REGULATIONS TO TRANSITION TO

ZERO-EMISSIONS FOR THOSE TYPES

OF EQUIPMENT, AND THEN FINALLY

WITH RAIL, THEY’RE LOOKING AT

IMPROVING LOCATION MOTION SO IT

HAS LESS EMISSIONS AND THEN

ZERO-EMISSIONS OVER TIME. SOME

OF THAT IS BY PHASING OUT OLDER

EQUIPMENT.

LASTLY, BECAUSE CALIFORNIA’S LAW

AND AUTHORITY ONLY GOES TO THE

EXTENT OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA’S JURISDICTION, I

ALSO LOOKED INTO WHAT KIND OF

REGULATIONS APPLY TO OVER —

EXCUSE ME — TO OCEAN GOING

VESSELS THAT MAY COME TO THE

PORT OF OAKLAND WHEN THEY’RE

CALLING ON THE PORT.

SO, THERE ARE CONTROLS WENT 200

MILES OF THE COAST THROUGH THE

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME

ORGANIZATION, THEY’RE LOOKING,

AGAIN, TO REDUCE — EXCUSE ME —

SULFUR OXIDES, AND — [ AUDIO

DISTORTION ] GREENHOUSE GASSES,

U.S. MARINE VESSELS. THE JONES

ACT WHILE NOT SPECIFICALLY

LOOKING AT EMISSIONS IT GOVERNS

DOMESTIC SHIPPING IN THE UNITED

STATES, THERE IS A FEDERAL

MARITIME COMMISSION WHICH

GOVERNS OTHER ASPECTS OF

SHIPPING BUT NOT NECESSARILY

MISSIONS. AND THEN LASTLY,

CALIFORNIA AIR BOARD, JUST A

LITTLE BIT MORE, WITHIN 24

NAUTICAL MILES FROM BASELINE OF

THE STATE, THEY HAVE OCEAN-GOING

VESSEL FUEL REDUCTION

REGULATIONS AND OCEAN GOING

VESSELS AT BERTH REGULATIONS.

SO I WANTED TO BRING THIS TO

YOUR ATTENTION SO THE COMMISSION

DOES HAVE AN AWARENESS OF THE

DIFFERENCE LAWS AND ORGANIZATION

THAT IS WORKING TO REDUCE AIR

QUALITY IMPACTS AT THE PORTS AND

FOR THE COMMUNITIES THAT ARE

AROUND THEM. NEXT STEPS SO YOU

KNOW WHERE WE’RE GOING. NEXT

STEPS ARMY CORP IS GOING TO GIVE

A PRESENTATION ON THE PROJECT IN

MORE DETAIL THAN I HAVE PROVIDED

HERE TODAY THEN WE’LL HAVE

OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM THE

PUBLIC ON THIS PROJECT.

DECEMBER 15TH IS THE DATE WE

ANTICIPATE SENDING OUT THE STAFF

RECOMMENDATION. IT WILL BE

RELEASED BOTH TO THE PUBLIC AND

THE COMMISSION. A.M. IS THE DAY

THAT WE ARE PLANNING TO VOTE ON

THIS PROJECT AND THIS IS A VERY

IMPORTANT DAY, BECAUSE IT’S THE

LAST OPPORTUNITY FOR THE

COMMISSION TO VOTE IN 2023.

AND THEN, LASTLY, SHOULD THE

COMMISSION CHOOSE TO CONCUR WITH

THIS PROJECT, WE WOULD ISSUE THE

LETTER OF AGREEMENT NOT LATER

THAN DECEMBER 31ST, 2023.

SO, THIS IS A PLEA FROM OUR

FRIENDS THE HARBOR SEALS,

COMMISSIONERS PLEASE COME TO THE

MEETING ON A.M. BECAUSE WE NEED

THE 84 TOWEL HAVE A VOTE OR THE

PROJECT WILL BE DELAYED AND

POTENTIALLY NOT MAKE IT INTO THE

REPORT. SO THAT’S A CUTE LITTLE

FACE SAYING PLEASE COME. WE

WOULD LIKE TO SEE YOU AGAIN IN A

COUPLE OF WEEKS. THAT IS IT

FROM ME AND NEXT UP IS THE ARMY

CORP. AND I THINK I’M SHARING

MY SCREEN FOR THEM, AS WELL.

JUST ONE MINUTE. WITH THAT, I

WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE ERIKA

POWELL, FROM THE ARMY CORP OF

ENGINEERS. SHE ALSO HAS MEMBERS

FROM THE PORT OF OAKLAND AND THE

ARMY CORP STAFF WITH HER TODAY

TO ASSIST IN THE PRESENTATION OR

QUESTIONS SHOULD THEY ARISE.

ERIKA?

>>ERIKA POWELL: THANK YOU

BRENDA HELLO EVERYONE MY NAME IS

ERIKA POWELL. THANK YOU

COMMISSIONERS AND BCDC STAFF FOR

ALL YOUR SUPPORT AND OPPORTUNITY

TO PRESENT TODAY ON THE OAKLAND

HARBOR TURNING BASINS WIDENING

FEASIBILITY REPORT AND

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. THIS

STUDY WAS AUTHORIZE WAS FUNDED

BY CONGRESS WHICH ALLOWED THE

ARMY CORE OF ENGINEERS TO ENTER

INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE PORT

OF OAKLAND IN JULY OF 2020 TO

DETERMINE IF THERE WAS A

TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE

ECONOMICALLY JUSTIFIED

ENVIRONMENTALLY ACCEPTABLE

PROJECT THAT WOULD DECREASE

VESSEL TRANSIT INEFFICIENCIES AT

THE OAKLAND HARBOR. SO THAT WAS

THE PURPOSE OF THE STUDY. I AM

JOINED HERE BY — NEXT SLIDE —

>>SPEAKER: IT’S NOT

TRANSITIONING.

>>ERIKA POWELL: I WAS GOING TO

TAKE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO SAY I’M

SO HAPPY TO SEE SO MANY FAMILIAR

FACES. SO, I’M JOINED HERE BY

THE CORP OF ENGINEERS TEAM

MEMBERS. WE HAVE A VERY LARGE

TEAM BUT WE DO HAVE FOLKS HERE

IN PERSON. BARNEY WAIR, WHO IS

OUR TECHNICAL LEAD, ALSO OUR

GEOTECHNICAL EXPERT, ERIK

JOLIFFE, OUR ENVIRONMENTAL LEAD,

AND VIRTUALLY, WE HAVE ELIZABETH

DIONNE. OUR LEAD PLAN

FORMULATOR, AND ELLIE C, WHO IS

OUR ENVIRONMENTAL COLEAD AND

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

SPECIALIST. I’M ALSO JOINED

HERE BY THE PROJECT DELIVERY

TEAM ON THE PORT SIDE. JUSTIN

TASCHEK. I BELIEVE THE PORT

WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A FEW

COMMENTS. IF THAT’S OKAY?

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

YES.

>>JUSTIN TASCHEK: GREAT.

APPRECIATE THAT. GOOD AFTERNOON

HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BCDC

COMMISSION. BCDC STAFF, AND THE

PUBLIC.

MY NAME IS JUSTIN TASCHEK, AND I

AM THE PORT OF OAKLAND PROJECT

ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE PROPOSED

PROJECT TO WIDEN THE OAKLAND

HARBOR TURNING BASINS. WITH ME

MY ESTEEMED COLLEAGUES, EDWIN

DRAPER, LEAD ENVIRONMENTAL

SCIENTIST, CAMERON CHUOP, AND I

WOULD LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU TO

BCDC STAFF FOR THEIR COMMITMENT

AND SUPPORT FOR BRINGING THIS

ITEM BEFORE THE COMMISSION TODAY

AND SECONDLY, I WOULD LIKE TO

TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO THANK

THE U.S. ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS

FOR DETERMINATION AND LEADERSHIP

IN ENSURING THE PORT CONTINUES

TO DELIVER ECONOMIC PROSPERITY

TO THE REGION. THE PORT, IN

COLLABORATION WITH COMMUNITY

MEMBERS, ENVIRONMENTAL

ORGANIZATIONS, INDUSTRY, AND

LOCAL AGENCIES, INCLUDING BCDC,

IS COMMITTED TO A DECARBONIZED

FUTURE AND PROUDLY ALIGNS ITSELF

WITH THE MUTUAL GOAL OF

DELIVERING SUSTAINABLE

TRANSPORTATION INITIATIVES.

WIDENING THE TURNING BASINS IS

ONE SUCH PROJECT THAT HELPS

DELIVER ON THIS COMMITMENT.

WITH WIDENED TURNING BASINS, THE

PORT CAN ACCOMMODATE SAFE

EFFICIENT ACCESS FOR A

TRANSITIONING GLOBAL FLEET THAT

INCLUDES NEWER, LONGER, AND MORE

ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY SHIPS

WHICH ARE SHORE POWER READY.

THAT IS THE SHIPS CAN PLUG IN

AND TURN THEIR ENGINES OFF WHILE

AT BERTH. THANK YOU FOR BCDC’S

ONGOING SUPPORT. OUR SHARED

PURSUIT OF REGIONAL PROSPERITY

AND BAY RESILIENCE UNDERSCORES

THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS AGENDA

ITEM AND WHY WE’RE HERE TODAY.

THE PORT LOOKS FORWARD TO OUR

COLLECTIVE ENDEAVORINGS AS WE

NAVIGATE A COURSE TOWARDS A

THRIVING, SUSTAINABLE, AND

DECARBONIZED FUTURE. AS A

REMINDER, THE PORT, AS LEAD

AGENCY UNDER THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AS

MENTIONED PRIOR, RELEASED A

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT

ON OCTOBER 3RD. COMMENTS ARE

DUE DECEMBER 18TH.

RESPECTFULLY, WE ARE IN THE OPEN

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR THE

CEQA DOCUMENT, AND ALL QUESTIONS

DIRECTED TO THE PORT HERE TODAY

WILL BE INCLUDED AND RESPONDED

TO IN THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT REPORT.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE FOR THE

PUBLIC RECORD, LAST FRIDAY,

DECEMBER 1ST, THE PORT SUBMITTED

A COMMENT LETTER FOR STAFF’S

CONSIDERATION, AS WELL AS THE

COMMISSION’S CONSIDERATION,

FURTHER EXPANDING ON INFORMATION

RELATED TO THIS PROPOSED

PROJECT. WITH THAT I’LL HAND IT

BACK TO ERICA. THANK YOU.

>>ERIKA POWELL: ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU TO THE PORT FOR BEING

HERE TODAY. I AM EXCITED ABOUT

GIVING CREDIT TO BCDC STAFF.

THAT WAS A FANTASTIC

PRESENTATION. THANK YOU SO MUCH

YOU’RE GOING TO MAKE MY JOB SO

MUCH EASIER.

SO, NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

SO, JUST TO KIND OF WALK THROUGH

THIS SLIDE A LITTLE BIT. ON THE

FAR LEFT, FOR THOSE OF YOU NOT

ENTIRELY FAMILIAR WITH THE MAKE

UP OF THE SEAPORT AREA. ON THE

FAR LEFT IS AN ARROW THAT POINTS

TO THE ENTRANCE TO THE

NAVIGATION CHANNEL. ON THE

UPPER PART OF THAT — THE SLIDE,

IS AN ARROW THAT POINTS TO THE

OUTER BASIN AND THEN THE FAR

BOTTOM RIGHT IS AN ARROW THAT

POINTS TO THE INNER BASIN. THE

BLUE DASH LINE SHOWS THE FEDERAL

CHANNEL LIMITS OF THE OAKLAND

HARBOR WHICH INCLUDES DEEP

NAVIGATION CHANNELS AND TWO

TURNING BASINS. A TURNING BASIN

IS VERY SIMILAR TO A CUL-DE-SAC

ON A STREET. RIGHT? SO THE

WHOLE POINT OF A TURNING BASIN

IS TO ALLOW VESSELS ENTERING OR

DEPARTING OR EXITING THE PORT TO

TURN AROUND. SO THAT’S JUST TO

KIND OF GIVE YOU A BIRDS EYE

VIEW OF THE PORT. NEXT SLIDE,

PLEASE.

WE HAD ANOTHER SLIDE SIMILAR TO

THIS ONE, JUST TO KIND OF SPEAK

TO THE PROBLEM. THE EXISTING

TURNING BASINS WERE DESIGNED FOR

CONTAINER VESSEL OF

APPROXIMATELY 1139 FEET.

VESSELS LARGER THAN THAT HAVE

RESTRICTIONS SO THE EXPERIENCED

RESTRICTIONS FOR TODAY WHEN

USING THE EXISTING TURNING

BASINS. THESE RESTRICTIONS

INCLUDE SCHEDULING TRANSITS

AROUND SPECIFIC TIDE, CURRENT,

AND WIND CONDITIONS. LIMITING

TO DAYLIGHT TIMES. USES OF

ADDITIONAL PILOT AND REQUIRED

NUMBER OF VESSEL —

[INDISCERNIBLE] ARE NEEDED,

THAT’S HOW THEY MITIGATE THESE

RESTRICTIONS. THESE CAN DELAY

VESSELS FROM ARRIVING OR

DEPARTING A BERTH. IN ADDITION

VESSELS LONGER THAN 1200 FEET IN

LENGTH ARE USED IN THE HARBOR

TURNING BASIN AND ARE RESTRICTED

TO DOCKING PORT SIDE ONLY

POINTED EAST. THAT CAN IMPACT

THE ABILITY FOR THE VESSEL TO

USE SHORE POWER, AND IF NEEDED,

IT PREVENTS — IT PREVENTS THE

ABILITY TO DEPART IN AN

EMERGENCY. SO, ONE THING THAT’S

KIND OF IMPORTANT HERE TOO THAT

I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT IS

THAT IN THE FUTURE, EXISTING

FLEETS OF SMALLER VESSELS WILL

BE REPLACED BY LARGER VESSELS,

AND WE DO HAVE A SLIDE THAT

SHOWS THAT TREND. WE HAVE DATA

THAT SHOWS THAT TREND. NEXT

SLIDE PLEASE.

SO, THIS IS JUST ANOTHER WAY,

ANOTHER ILLUSTRATION OF THE

VESSELS THAT ARE — OR THE CLASS

OF THAT — THE VESSEL CLASSES

THAT ARE VISITING OR CALLING ON

THE PORT TODAY. SO, ANY VESSEL

ABOVE A THOUSAND FORTY-FIVE

FEET, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE TOP

BLUE TABLE DOESN’T EXPERIENCE

THE RESTRICTIONS THAT WE HAVE

MENTIONED EARLIER. HOWEVER, IF

YOU LOOK AT THE BOTTOM TABLE,

THERE ARE ALL SORTS OF

RESTRICTIONS FOR ANY VESSEL

THAT’S OVER 1200 FEET. AND AS

YOU HEARD MY SAY, THERE IS TIDE,

CURRENT, AND WIND CONDITIONS

THAT IMPEDE THE PROPER

NAVIGATION OF THESE VESSELS.

THEY NEED ADDITIONAL PILOT, THEY

NEED ADDITIONAL TUGBOATS TO HELP

THEM NAVIGATE SAFELY IN AND OUT

OF THE PORT.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

AND I SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED,

TOO, ON THAT LAST SLIDE, THAT

ALL OF THOSE VESSELS ARE COMING

INTO THE PORT TODAY. A BRIEF

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AND I

THOUGHT BRENDA DID A GREAT JOB

IN DETAILING IT PART OF THE U.S.

ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS PLAN

FORMULATION PROCESS IT WAS

DETERMINED THAT THE INNER HARBOR

TURNING BASIN SHOULD BE WIDENED

BY AN ADDITIONAL 334 FEET AND TO

A DEPTH OF 50 FEET WHICH IS

CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT

DEPTH OF THE TURNING BASIN AND

THE INNER HARBOR CHANNEL. THE

PURPLE AREAS WHERE THE LAND

EXCAVATION AND DREDGING OCCUR

BOTH IN THE OAKLAND SIDE AND THE

ALAMEDA SIDE. THE TWO

WAREHOUSES ON THE BOTTOM WHERE

IT SAYS ALAMEDA THEY ACTUALLY,

DEMOLITION WE SAY PARTIAL

DEMOLITION, I DON’T KNOW IF

YOU’RE FAMILIAR WITH THESE

WAREHOUSES, WE HAVE TWO BAYS

THAT WOULD BE IMPACTED IN THE

FRONT AND THREE BAYS IN THE

BACK. THE DARK ORANGE DASH

LINES REPRESENT THE NEW BULK

HEAD AND YOU CAN SEE BOTH ON THE

OUTER EDGE OF THE GREEN CIRCLE

ON THE HOWARD SIDE AND THEN ON

THE ALAMEDA SIDE. THE NEW BULK

HEAD SERVES AS SEPARATION OF

LAND AND WATER. ON THE RIGHT IS

THE SCHNITZER STEEL NOW WHAT IS

CALLED RADIUS RECYCLING THAT IS

AN INWATER STRUCTURE AND THE

POINT OF THAT LITTLE WALL IS TO

PREVENT SLOPE FROM — TO PREVENT

SLOPE FROM SLIPPING THERE. THE

TILL OF THE SLOPE. IT IS

PROPOSED THAT INFRASTRUCTURE

WOULD BE INSTALLED AT THE

SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HOWARD

TERMINAL TO FACILITATE ELECTRIC

DREDGING TO REDUCE CONSTRUCTION

AND EMISSIONS FOR THE PROSED

PROJECT. OKAY. THE LAST THING

I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE WITH YOU

AS A TAKE AWAY FOR THIS IS A

TOTAL OF 2.4 MILLION CUBIC YARDS

OF DREDGE MATERIAL IS EXPECTED,

AND DIRT WILL BE TAKEN FROM THE

INNER AND OUTER BASIN SO THE

TOTAL IS 2.4 MILLION. A LITTLE

MORE THAN 2 MILLION WOULD

ACTUALLY BE TAKEN BY BARGE TO

NEARBY WETLANDS RESTORATION SITE

FOR BENEFICIAL USE AND

APPROXIMATELY 400,000 CUBIC

YARDS WHICH ARE NOT, RIGHT NOW,

ESTIMATED NOT SUITABLE FOR

BENEFICIAL USE, IS PROPOSED TO

BE TAKEN TO A LANDFILL AND/OR

RECYCLED.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

THE OUTER HARBOR TURNING BASIN

WOULD BE WIDEN TO APPROXIMATELY

315 FEET AND AGAIN TO THE SAME

DEPTH AS THE EXISTING CHANNEL

WHEN WHICH IS MINUS 50, THIS

WOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED BY

DREDGING SHOWN IN THE PURPLE

HATCH AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY

REMOVAL OF ANY LAND. IN

ADDITION, AND BASED ON PUBLIC

FEEDBACK SPECIFICALLY FROM THE

BAR PILOTS, THE BASIN WOULD BE

SHIFTED AWAY FROM THE BERTH AREA

TO ALLOW THEM TO HAVE ACCESS.

BERTH 26 IS WHERE WE WOULD

PROPOSE ELECTRICAL

INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ELECTRIC

DREDGING AND BERTH TEN WOULD BE

USED FOR CONSTRUCTION STAGING

AND REHANDLING OF NON-HAZARDOUS

DREDGE MATERIAL THAT REQUIRES

LANDFILL DISPOSAL. NEXT SLIDE

PLEASE.

SO, ACTUALLY BEFORE I TALK ABOUT

THIS SLIDE, I DID WANT TO SAY A

SPECIAL THANKS TO BCDC EPA

REGION NINE AND THE PORT OF

OAKLAND FOR THEIR COLLABORATION

WITH OUR DISTRICT TO ENSURE

MEANINGFUL PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT,

AND EFFECTIVE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT.

WE STARTED MEETING ON A WEEKLY

BASIS. IT’S BEEN A YEAR SINCE

WE STARTED MEETING ON A WEEKLY

BASIS WELL IN ADVANCE OF THE

RELEASE OF THE SECOND DRAFT IFR

EPA INTEGRATED FEASIBILITY

REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

AND TO HIGHLIGHT THE FACT THAT I

BELIEVE IT WAS AROUND THE END OF

2022, THAT WE HAD POLICY

GUIDANCE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL

JUSTICE. SO THAT ALLOWED US TO

STEP UP OUR ENVIRONMENTAL — I’M

SORRY — OUR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT.

SO, WE, THE CORP, ARE TRYING TO

DO MORE THAN THE BEAR MINIMUM

NOW, AS MUCH AS WE POSSIBLY CAN.

SO, WITH THIS NEW GUIDANCE WE

WERE ABLE TO CONSIDER

COMPREHENSIVE BENEFITS. AND

THAT’S AN INTERESTING TERM BUT

WHAT IT SAYS IS WE WERE ABLE TO

LOOK AT ELECTRIC DREDGING DURING

CONSTRUCTION AND BENEFICIAL USE

OF DREDGE MATERIAL, EVEN THOUGH,

FOR EXAMPLE, FOR DREDGE

MATERIAL, WE’RE NOT REQUIRED TO

DO IT AS MITIGATION, BUT THIS IS

SOMETHING THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE

TO GO TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY

OF THE ARMY AND ASK FOR

PERMISSION TO BE ABLE TO COST

SHARE THAT WITH THE LOCAL

SPONSOR. THEY APPROVED THAT, SO

THAT’S A RECOMMENDATION THAT’S

BEING MADE BY THIS REPORT. IN

ADDITION, THE PORT OF OAKLAND IS

ACTUALLY GOING TO BE FULLY

PAYING ENTIRETY FOR THE ELECTRIC

DREDGES. SO THAT’S SOMETHING

THAT THE PORT IS DOING, AS WELL.

AND THAT’S JUST TO POINT OUT

THAT WE HAD AS MANY MEETINGS AS

POSSIBLE. WE HAD SOME

NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL MEETINGS,

WHICH WERE — IT’S NOT SOMETHING

THAT WE TYPICALLY DO BUT WE WERE

ASKED TO BE INVITED TO THEIR

MONTHLY MEETINGS, AND THAT’S ONE

WAY THAT WE WERE TRYING TO REACH

OUT. WE ALSO MET WITH THE WEST

OAKLAND ENVIRONMENTAL

INDICATOR’S PROJECT TWICE, ONCE

IN ’22, AND ONCE IN ’23. NEXT

SLIDE, PLEASE.

SO, ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE

RECEIVED MULTIPLE TIMES, AND

WE’RE TRYING TO ADDRESS THAT,

WAS RELATED TO INDUCED GROWTH.

AND SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE

WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY IS THAT

THE RECOMMENDED PLAN DOES NOT

CHANGE HOW MANY VESSELS CAN BE

ADOPTED AT ANY TIME. SO

INCREASING THE DIAMETER OF THE

TURNING BASINS DOES NOT ADD

BERTHING SPACE.

THE RECOMMENDED PLAN ALSO DOES

NOT CHANGE THE CONTAINER

HANDLING FACILITIES. SO, THE

PORT’S LAND SIDE CONTAINER

HANDLING CAPACITY REMAINS

CONSTANT, REMAINS THE SAME.

THIRDLY, THE RECOMMENDED PLAN

DOES NOT AFFECT CONSUMER

ECONOMIC ACTIVITY IN THE BAY

AREA, OR IN THE CENTRAL AND

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA MARKET.

ECONOMIC FACTORS SUCH AS

RECESSIONS, TRADE AGREEMENTS,

MICRO ECONOMIC DEMANDS,

ECONOMIES OF SCALE AFFECT GLOBAL

SHIPPING SUPPLY AND DEMAND.

WHAT THE RECOMMENDED PLAN DOES

IS IT ALLOWS FOR SHIPS TO TURN

MORE SAFELY, AND FOR SMALLER

SHIPS TO BE PHASED OUT FOR

BIGGER MORE EFFICIENT FLEETS.

THE RECOMMENDED PLAN ALSO ALLOWS

FOR EFFICIENCY IN DEPARTING AND

ARRIVING AT THE PORT WITH FEWER

IDLING SHIPS, FEWER RESTRICTIONS

ON SHIPS ALREADY IN THE HARBOR.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

AND THEN, AS I INDICATED

EARLIER, I WAS GOING TO PROVIDE

YOU WITH A SLIDE THAT

ILLUSTRATES THE TRENDS OF

SHORTER AND LONGER VESSEL CALLS

TO THE PORT OF OAKLAND. IN THIS

GRAPH, IF YOU LOOK ON THE FAR

LEFT, YOU HAVE THE NUMBER OF

CALLS. ON THE BOTTOM, YOU HAVE

THE YEAR STARTING IN 2014 TO

TODAY, AND ON THE FAR RIGHT YOU

HAVE THE TEUS OR THE THROUGHPUT

PER YEAR. SO THE VESSELS ARE

GROUPED INTO TWO CATEGORIES

HERE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE SOLID

NAVY BLUE LINE, THAT IS THE

LONGER VESSELS. THE DASHED LINE

IS THE SHORTER VESSELS, AND

THERE IS A VERTICAL LINE THAT

SHOWS THAT PRIOR TO THE

PANDEMIC, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF

SHORTER UNRESTRICTED VESSELS

CONTINUED ITS DOWNWARD TREND.

AND THEN THROUGH SEPTEMBER OF

THIS YEAR, THE PORT HAS SEEN 406

LONG VESSELS CALL THE PORT,

COMPARED TO 319 SHORTER VESSELS

— OR SHORT VESSELS, I SHOULD

SAY.

THEN THE — OKAY, THE BIG TAKE

AWAY HERE IS THE GRAY SHADED

AREA DEPICTS TOTAL CARGO HANDLE

FOR THE LAST TEN YEARS DURING

WHICH TIME CARGO VOLUME HAS

REMAINED RELATIVELY CONSTANT.

THOUGH THE NUMBER OF VESSELS HAS

CONTINUED TO DECREASE. SO,

THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO

PRESENT THOSE SLIDES. ALLOWING

ME TO PRESENT THOSE SLIDES. I’M

GOING TO HAND IT OFF TO ERIK

JOLIFFE.

>>ERIC JOLIFFE: THANKS ERICA.

THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO

SPEAK TO YOU. WHAT I’M GOING TO

TALK ABOUT HERE HAS ALREADY BEEN

DISCUSSED IN BRENDA’S

PRESENTATION BUT LET’S GO OVER

IT. WHERE WE’RE AT IN OUR NEPA

COMPLIANCE, A LONG TIME AGO IN

SEPTEMBER 2020 WE SENT OUT

REQUESTS FOR COOPERATING

AGENCIES, THE ONLY AGENCY THAT

ACCEPTED WAS EPA SO THEY ARE

CONTRIBUTING AS A COOPERATING

AGENCY IN THIS STUDY. BETWEEN

DECEMBER 17TH AND FEBRUARY 14TH

WAS OUR COMMENT PERIOD FOR OUR

INITIAL DOCUMENT THAT WE

RELEASED, AND BASED ON COMMENT

THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THAT

DOCUMENT, WE CHANGED THE DESIGN

A LITTLE BIT THAT REQUIRED US TO

RERELEASE, AGAIN, IN APRIL 26,

2023 TO JUNE 16TH, 2023 WE HAD

THE COMMENT PERIOD ON OUR SECOND

DOCUMENT THAT WE SENT OUT TO THE

PUBLIC THAT ADDRESSED THE SHIFT

IN ALIGNMENT THAT WE SHOWED YOU,

AND IT ADDRESSED SOME NEW

REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAD TO DO,

WE HAD TO — THE 50 DOCUMENT

DIDN’T REQUIRE GUIDANCE DURING

THE FIRST DOCUMENT DIDN’T

REQUIRE US TO ANALYZE GREENHOUSE

GAS IMPACTS AND THE DOCUMENT NOW

CONTAINS ANALYSIS OF THAT.

AND THAT BRINGS US TO WHERE WE

ARE AT NOW. AND THEN WE ARE IN

THE FINAL PROCESSES OF

ADDRESSING COMMENTS, PUBLIC

COMMENT AND AGENCY COMMENTS, AND

FINALIZING THE DOCUMENT. AND IN

JANUARY, HOPEFULLY ON THE 17th,

WE’LL TRANSMIT THAT TO OUR SOUTH

PACIFIC DIVISION, WHICH IS THE

NEXT LEVEL ABOVE US, AS A FINAL

REPORT. AND SOMETIME AFTER —

THAT’S — AND IN THE PROCESS

THAT THEY TALKED ABOUT GETTING

AWARDED AUTHORIZATION, HOPEFULLY

IN 2024, AND AFTER THAT TIME,

WE’LL BE COMING BACK FOR A PHASE

TWO CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION

ONCE WE HAVE ADDITIONAL

INFORMATION WE’LL HAVE MORE

DETAILED SEDIMENT

CHARACTERIZATION, WE’LL HAVE

MORE DETAILED ENGINEERING

INFORMATION, AND WE’LL HAVE DONE

SOME FURTHER COORDINATION WITH

SOME OF THE AGENCIES. OKAY.

GO AHEAD BRENDA.

SO, THE COMMENTS WE RECEIVED

THROUGH THE BOTH OF THESE

COMMENT PERIODS, SOME OF THEM

WERE FAIRLY CONSISTENT AND FROM

NUMEROUS GROUPS, ESPECIALLY WITH

RELATION TO THE NOTION OF DOING

AN EA, INSTEAD OF AN EIS. AND

IN CONCERT WITH THAT, THE

DECISION NOT TO COMBINE THE

DOCUMENTS IN AN EA EIR.

AND WE DECIDE THAT WE WERE ON

THE RIGHT PATH, THAT THE

DOCUMENT, WE DIDN’T HAVE ANY

SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT WEREN’T

MITIGABLE. SIMILAR IMPACTS TO

AIR QUALITY SIMILAR TO TRUCK

TRAFFIC AND THE PERCEPTION THAT

THIS PROJECT IS GOING TO INDUCE

GROWTH AND INCREASE THE TRUCKS

GOING THROUGH THEIR

NEIGHBORHOODS, THAT WAS STILL

WHAT WE’RE WORKING THROUGH WITH

THE OAKLAND NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS,

ESPECIALLY THE INDICATOR

PROJECT.

THERE WERE CONCERNS ABOUT

IMPACTS TO WATER QUALITY.

TIMING, WE GOT SOME COMMENTS.

BECAUSE THE PORT IS STILL

ELECTRIFYING THINGS, MOST FAST

AS THEY CAN, AND THEY’RE ASKING

US TO DELAY THE PROJECT INTO THE

FUTURE ONCE EVERYTHING’S

ELECTRIC. THERE WERE COMPLAINTS

THAT WE WEREN’T ENGAGING WITH

THE PUBLIC SUFFICIENTLY. SOME

PEOPLE ASKED US ONLY DO THE

OUTER HARBOR TURNING BASIN.

THERE WAS SUPPORT FOR THE

PROJECT FROM A NUMBER OF GROUPS

AND PEOPLE WERE VERY HAPPY THAT

WE WERE COMMITTING TO BENEFICIAL

USE OF EVERYTHING THAT WE COULD.

AND THE SUPPORT FOR THE USE OF

ELECTRIC DREDGING WHICH REDUCES

THE AIR QUALITY IMPACTS OF

CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT.

RESPONSES WILL BE INCLUDED IN

THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE’RE

FINALIZING NOW, AND WE’LL HAVE

ADDITIONAL COORDINATION THAT

I’LL TALK ABOUT IN A LITTLE BIT

THAT WILL BE CONDUCTED IN THE

FUTURE. GO AHEAD, BRENDA.

SO THESE AREN’T REALLY

MITIGATION MEASURES, BUT

AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION

MEASURES THAT WE WILL BE USING.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE APPENDIX,

THIS IS A LONG LIST BUT BRIEF

VERSION OF THAT. RELATED TO

PILE DRIVING, PLACING BULK HEADS

IS GOING TO REQUIRE SHEET PILE

DRIVING, AND WE’RE COMMITTED TO

USING VIBE TORE METHODS FOR THAT

WHICH PRODUCES LESS NOISE AS

MUCH AS POSSIBLE. IT WON’T BE

POSSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING BUT

WE’LL TRY TO MINIMIZE THE

IMPACT. WE’LL BE USING NOISE

ATTENUATION MEASURES FOR IN

WATER NOISE, SO THE BIOLOGICAL

ACOUSTICAL MONITORING AND NOTION

OF USING SOME NOISE — I’M

TRYING TO REMEMBER THE TERM —

>>SPEAKER: DAMPENING.

>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU BRENDA

WE’LL BE COORDINATING WITH THE

PHASE 2C D FOR MARINE MAMMAL

IMPACTS, AND THERE WILL BE HOW

MANY PILES AND LOCATIONS AND

WE’LL GET INTO THAT WITH NOAA

AND WE’LL DEVELOP SOME

REQUIREMENT FOR THE PROJECT TO

PROTECT MARINE MAMMAL

POPULATIONS. WE’LL BE DOING EEL

GRASS SURVEYS IN THE OUTER

HARBOR, THERE IS EEL GRASS

FAIRLY CLOSE TO BE DOING

DREDGING SOLELY PRE AND POST

SURVEY AND SOME LIGHT MONITORING

LIKE WE NORMALLY DO FOR O&M IN

THAT AREA WE’LL BE USING CLAM

SHELL BUCKETS WE WON’T BE DOING

HYDRAULIC DREDGING. THE TUG

MOVEMENT NIGHT TIME ISN’T

CORRECT. WE WERE CONSIDERING

THAT BUT IT TURNS OUT THAT’S NOT

NECESSARY. THAT HAD TO DO WITH

NOISE IN ALAMEDA DURING THE

NIGHT TIME, BUT IT TURNED OUT

THAT SLIPPED IN THERE IT’S NOT

SUPPOSED TO BE THERE. THERE

WERE VARIOUS VMTS FOR REDUCING

PARTICULATE EMISSIONS AND

FUGITIVE DUST. BUT KEEPING A

LOW SPEED LIMIT, LIMITING IDLING

TIME FOR TRUCKS, AS THEY’RE

WAITING FOR STUFF TO LOAD AND

UNLOAD. AND REQUIRING THAT ALL

THE CONTRACTORS USE EQUIPMENT

THAT MEET CARB’S CERTIFICATION

STANDARDS, THINGS LIKE TIER FOUR

ENGINES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

BUT I SHOULD SAY HERE THERE ARE

SOME MITIGATION MEASURES THAT

ARE REDUCING IMPACTS TO LESS

THAN SIGNIFICANT, AND THOSE ARE

THE ONES THAT PEOPLE ARE

PROBABLY MOST INTERESTED IN, AND

THAT WOULD BE THE USE OF SILT

CURTAINS WHICH IS PROBABLY NOT

ON THIS SLIDE, BUT TO PREVENT

EXPOSURE TO MARINE FAUNA, TO

SUSPENDED SEDIMENTS AND TO

POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS THAT MAY

BE CONTAINED IN THERE, IN THE

AREAS WHERE WE EXPECT

CONTAMINATED MATERIALS TO BE,

WE’LL BE DOING THE DREDGING

BEHIND A SILT CURTAIN. THE

OTHER ONE WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT

WITHOUT MITIGATION WOULD BE THE

PILE DRIVING, THE NOISE IMPACTS

FROM THAT, BUT WE’LL BE

DEVELOPING BUBBLE CURTAINS AND

APPROPRIATE DISTANCES WHEN WE

COORDINATE. AND THE OTHER ONE

IS AGREEING TO COMPLY WITH THE

LTMS WINDOW THAT IS ESTABLISHED

FOR AT LEAST IN WATER DREDGING

FOR PROTECTION OF AQUATIC

SPECIES. SO WE HAVE COMMITTED

TO CONFORMING WITH THAT, AS

WELL. OKAY. THAT’S IT.

BRENDA.

SO, THIS IS KIND OF A RECAP OF

WHAT WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT.

WE’RE LOOKING TO GET OUR

CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL IN

JANUARY OF 2024 AND

PRECONSTRUCTION, WE’RE GOING

INTO OUR PRECONSTRUCTION

ENGINEERING AND DESIGN, WHERE WE

FINALIZE THE TECHNICAL

INFORMATION AND DEVELOP A FULL

DESIGN, AND WE’LL COME BACK TO

BCDC FOR OUR PHASE TWO

DETERMINATION ONCE WE HAVE

ENOUGH INFORMATION ABOUT 35%.

WE ASSUME THAT WILL BE IN 2026

COULD BE AS EARLY AS 2025 WE

HOPE TO GO TO CONSTRUCTION IN

JULY OF 2027 THAT WOULD RUN INTO

OCTOBER OF 2029. THANK YOU,

BRENDA.

>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU ERIK AND

ERIKA.

>>SPEAKER: I WANT TO SAY FOR

THE RECORD, ON THAT SLIDE WHERE

WE SAY MITIGATION MEASURES, FOR

THE RECORD, IT’S MINIMIZATION.

SO WE’LL MAKE THAT CORRECTION ON

THE POWERPOINT BEFORE WE SUBMIT

IT, IF THAT’S OKAY.

>>BRENDA GOEDEN: ABSOLUTELY.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.

I WANT TO MENTION ONE THING I

ACCIDENTALLY OMITTED AT THE

OPENING OF MY STATEMENTS, THE

PORT AND CITY OF ALAMEDA, THE

STAFF MET WITH THE CITY OF

ALAMEDA AND PORT OF OAKLAND AND

ARMY CORP REGARDING SOME

CONCERNS AFTER THE STAFF SUMMARY

WAS SENT OUT, AND AS A RESULT

BOTH ENTITIES PROVIDED SOME

IMPROVED LANGUAGE FOR US. THE

PORT OF OAKLAND INCLUDED SOME

VERY EXTENSIVE LANGUAGE WHICH WE

SUMMARIZED IN AN ADDENDUM AND

ATTACHED ERRATA SHEET THAT WAS

SENT OUT TO THE COMMISSIONERS AT

10:00 A.M. THIS MORNING SO IT IS

IN YOUR COMMISSION PACKET. AND

THE CITY OF ALAMEDA INFORMATION

IS INCLUDED SPECIFICALLY

REGARDING THE ALAMEDA LANDING

AREA. I WANTED TO POINT OUT TO

THE COMMISSION THAT WE DO

APPRECIATE ALL THREE ENTITY COME

TOGETHER TO HELP US CLARIFY AND

IMPROVE THE STAFF SUMMARY WHERE

WE HAD SOME CLARITY NEEDS AND

MISUNDERSTANDINGS OF PARTS OF

THE PROJECT. SO I JUST WANT TO

THANK THEM FOR THAT. AND WITH

THAT, CHAIR WASSERMAN, I WILL

GIVE THE MEETING BACK TO YOU.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION.

I WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC

HEARING. ANY MEMBERS OF THE

PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A

PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE LINE UP

AT THE PODIUM OR RAISE YOUR HAND

IN ZOOM. WE WILL START WITH

THOSE IN THE ROOM. REYLINA, DO

WE HAVE ANY IN THE ROOM

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: NO

PUBLIC COMMENT IN THE ROOM.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: HOW

ABOUT ON ZOOM?

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: YES.

ALAN TAI. PLEASE UNMUTE

YOURSELF.

>>SPEAKER: CAN YOU HEAR ME?

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

YES.

>>SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON,

CHAIR WASSERMAN AND MEMBERS OF

THE COMMISSION. MY NAME IS ALAN

TAI, I AM THE PLANNING BUILDING

AND TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR OF

THE CITY OF ALAMEDA WHERE A

PORTION OF THIS PROJECT IS

LOCATED. THE CITY OF ALAMEDA

WANTS THE COMMISSION TO BE WAIR

THAT THE PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO

OUR LOCAL DISCRETIONARY

APPROVALS. THE PROPERTY THAT’S

AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT FALLS

WITHIN THE CITY OF ALAMEDA’S

ALAMEDA LANDING MASTER PLAN

AREA. THE PROPOSED PROJECT

WOULD REMOVE SIX ACRES OR A

THIRD OF THE 18 ACRES THAT THE

CITY HAS PLANNED FOR EMPLOYMENT

LANDS AND THAT’S PART OF THE

MASTER PLAN. SO WE BELIEVE THE

PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH OUR

LOCAL MASTER PLAN AND WILL

REQUIRE A MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT.

AND THAT ACTION IS SUBJECT TO

APPROVAL BY OUR ALAMEDA CITY

COUNCIL. THE CITY ALSO HAS MANY

CONCERNS ABOUT THIS PROJECT ON

MATTERS NOT WITHIN THE BCDC

JURISDICTION, BUT THE PROPERTY

— I’M SORRY — THE PROJECT’S

LACK OF FLOOD AND SEA LEVEL RISE

PROTECTIONS AND WATERFRONT

PUBLIC ACCESS, WHICH ARE WITHIN

THE COMMISSIONS REGULATORY AND

POLICY SCOPE AND AUTHORITY, AND

THE CITY RESPECTFULLY ASKS THE

COMMISSION AND BCDC STAFF TO

TAKE THE CITY’S CONCERNS INTO

CONSIDERATION FOR YOUR UPCOMING

ACTIONS ON THIS PROJECT. THESE

COMMENTS ARE REFLECTED IN A

LETTER ADDRESSED TO YOU BY OUR

MAYOR AZZY ASH CONTRACT AND IS

INCLUDED IN YOUR MEETING

MATERIALS. THANK YOU FOR THE

OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON THIS

ITEM.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: MIKE

JACOB. PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF.

>>SPEAKER: HI I’M MIKE JACOB

WITH PACIFIC MERCHANT SHIPPING

ASSOCIATION WE REPRESENT

TERMINAL OPERATORS DOING

BUSINESS AT PORT OF OAKLAND AND

OBVIOUSLY WE SUPPORT THE

CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION

REQUEST FROM THE ARMY CORP AND

SUBMITTED COMMENTS IN WRITING.

AND JUST FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS

AND TO EXPAND ON SOME OF THE

COMMENTS YOU HEARD FROM THE PORT

AND THE ARMY CORP WITH RESPECT

TO ISSUES REGARDING GROWTH AND

AIR QUALITY. I THINK IT’S WORTH

MENTIONING THAT THE ISSUES FOR

US ARE NOT THAT THE PORT WILL OR

WILL NOT GROW WITH RESPECT TO

THE PROJECT. THE QUESTION IS

WHETHER OR NOT THE PORT WILL

GROW SAFELY, AND WHETHER OR NOT

WILL GROW CONSISTENT WITH THE

TERMS OF OTHER PORTS THAT ARE ON

OUR SAME VESSEL STRINGS AND DO

SO IN A WAY WHICH REDUCES COST

AND INCREASES EFFICIENCY. MAYBE

THE ANALOGY BEST USE IS WHEN YOU

THINK OF A VESSEL STRING PER

CONTAINER LINES LIKE A BUS

SERVICE WE SET UP A ROUTE AND

SERVICE THAT ROUTE FOR OUR

CUSTOMERS AND CUSTOMERS THEN

WILL MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS BASED ON

THOSE SERVICES. THE SIZE OF THE

BUS THAT SERVES THAT ROUTE,

WHETHER IT’S A SMALL BUS, A

LARGE BUS, DOUBLE DECKER BUS,

DOESN’T MATTER IF YOU HAVE TO

GET FROM PLACE A TO PLACE B.

AND IT’S SIMILAR FOR US. YOU

BOOK CARGO, BECAUSE YOU HAVE A

BUSINESS IMPERATIVE TO IMPORT OR

EXPORT CARGO. IT DOESN’T MATTER

TO THE IMPORTER OR EXPORTER THE

SIZE OF THE VESSEL THAT COMES

AND DOES THAT WORK. BUT IT DOES

MATTER TO US, AS THE OCEAN

CARRIER, WHEN YOU HAVE LARGER

VESSELS, YOU HAVE HIGHER

EFFICIENCY, LESS FUEL, AND

BECAUSE YOU’RE BURNING LESS FUEL

PER BOX, YOU’RE ACTUALLY

DECREASING EMISSIONS PER UNIT,

AND OVERALL. WE WANT TO BRING

IN THE LARGER VESSELS. WE WANT

TO BRING IN THE MOST EFFICIENT

VESSELS AND THE NEWEST VESSELS

AND HAVE THEM IN THOSE STRINGS.

AND THAT IS AT THE CORE OF WHY

THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR US, FROM A

COMMERCIAL POINT OF VIEW, IN

ADDITION TO THE REST OF THE

ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO SAFETY.

WE LOOK FORWARD TO PARTICIPATING

IN ADDITIONAL CONVERSATIONS ON

THIS PROJECT, BUT IT’S

IMPERATIVE THAT THIS MOVE

FORWARD. AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR

CONSIDERATION.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: KATRINA

THOMAS. PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF.

>>SPEAKER: I’M KATRINA THOMAS

WITH EARTH JUSTICE ALONGSIDE

WITH WEST OAKLAND ENVIRONMENT AT

INDICATOR’S PROJECT HAS BEEN

ENGAGING ON THIS PROJECT,

COMMENTING TODAY TO URGE BCDC TO

REJECT THE CORP REQUEST FOR

CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION

BECAUSE THE CORP HAS NOT

CONDUCTED EQUITABLE OUTREACH AND

THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ABOUT

IMPACTED COMMUNITY MEMBERS NOR

HAS THE COURT ADDRESSED

COMMUNITY CONCERNS CLEARLY

IDENTIFIED MITIGATION FOR

PROJECTS IMPACTS WHILE

ACKNOWLEDGING THE COURT HAS HELD

PUBLIC MEETINGS ON THIS PROJECT

NONE HAVE CONSISTED OF A

DIALOGUE AND THE COURT HAS NOT

ENGAGED IN COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDER

CONVERSATION ABOUT THE PROJECTS

DURING DRAFTING OF ITS ANALYSIS

TO IDENTIFY MITIGATION MEASURES.

THAT DOES NOT LIVE UP TO THE

COMMITMENTS IN THE WEST OAKLAND

COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN OR BIDEN

ADMINISTRATION’S RECENTLY

ADOPTED EXECUTIVE ORDERS

REQUIRING AGENCIES THAT INVEST

IN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT TO

ALSO IMPLEMENT STRATEGIES THAT

WILL YIELD EQUITABLE OUTCOMES

FOR UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES.

THE COURT’S FAILURE TO

COORDINATE THE ENVIRONMENTAL

REVIEW WITH THE PORT HAS LEFT

COMMUNITY MEMBERS IN THE DARK

WITH INCOMPLETE INFORMATION AND

THE COMERY CORP DATA ANALYSIS

DIDN’T FIND SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

BUT THE PORT OF OAKLAND AND CEQA

REVIEW CONCLUDES THE PROJECT

WOULD HAVE SIGNIFICANT

UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS TO NEARBY

COMMUNITIES EVEN ARCH PROPOSED

MITIGATION. THE FAILURE TO

COORDINATE HAS LEFT QUESTIONS

ENTIRELY UNANSWERED. I ALSO

WANT TO NOTE THE ENVIRONMENTAL

ANALYSIS OF ALL IMPACT AREAS

INCLUDING WATER QUALITY AND

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE IMPACT. WE

DON’T KNOW WHAT THE PROJECT

IMPACTS WILL BE AS MORE SHIPS

BEGIN TO VISIT. ALSO BECAUSE

CORE CONSTRAINTS SCOPE OF

ANALYSIS IS LIMED TO ONE MILE

RADIUS FROM PROJECT SITE IT

DOWNPLAYS BOTH CONSTRUCTION AND

OPERATION IMPACTS TO WATER

QUALITY AND WILDLIFE IN THE BAY.

BCDC SHOULD REJECT THE REQUEST

FOR CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION

BCDC IS NOT BEHOLDEN TO INDUSTRY

INTEREST AND WE ENCOURAGE THE

COMMISSION TO LISTEN TO THE

COMMUNITY CONCERNS AND USE YOUR

AUTHORITY ON THIS PROJECT TO

PREVENT A HOST OF ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACTS. THANK YOU.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: ROBERT

ROGERS. PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF.

>>SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR

WASSERMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE

COMMISSION. THANK YOU FOR THE

OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT. MY NAME

IS ROGER, AND I AM HERE ON

BEHALF OF THE BAY PLANNING

COALITION ALIGNING WITH THE

ORGANIZATIONS MISSION OF

PROMOTING ENVIRONMENTAL

SUSTAINABILITY AND ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT OF THE REGION BCDC

WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS OUR

SUPPORT FOR THE OAKLAND TURNING

BASIN-WIDENING PROJECT BY

INCREASING EFFICIENCY AND

ENHANCING CAPABILITIES AT THE

PORT OF OAKLAND. THE PORT OF

OAKLAND GENERATES 98,340 LOCAL

JOBS AND IS THE SECOND LARGEST

JOB GENERATOR IN THE CITY OF

OAKLAND AND FIFTH LARGEST IN THE

REGION IT REMAINS CRITICAL

SOURCE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY

AND JOBS IN THE NORTHERN

CALIFORNIA MOREOVER VALUE

HIGHLIGHTS FROM BUSINESS REVENUE

CONSUMER SPENDING AND TOTAL

VALUE OF GOODS SERVICES THE PORT

ADDS $174 BILLION IN ECONOMIC

VALUE. THE PROPOSED PROJECT

WOULD IMPROVE NAVIGATIONAL

ACCESS FOR LARGER VESSELS. BY

OPTIMIZING OPERATIONS THE

PROJECT WILL SUPPORT A GREENER

FUTURE FOR OUR COMMUNITIES BY

REDUCING CONGESTION AND

MINIMIZING STAGNANT VESSELS THE

PORT OF OAKLAND IS A VITAL

ECONOMIC HUB FOR THE REGION AND

THE NATION. ALLOWING FOR THE

WIDENING OF THE TURNING BASIN

ENSURES PROSPERING ECONOMIC

CONDITIONS CONTINUE TO THRIVE I

WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR THE

OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON BEHALF

OF THE BAY PLANNING COALITION.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: SEAN

SWENDSEN. PLEASE UNMUTE

YOURSELF.

>>SPEAKER: YES, CAN YOU HEAR ME

ALL RIGHT?

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: YES.

YES.

>>SPEAKER: YES, MY CONCERN IS

VERY BRIEF. WE HEARD FROM THE

CITY OF ALAMEDA TODAY. I

BELIEVE HAS NAME IS ALAN TAI,

AND I’M WONDERING, HE REFERENCED

A LETTER THAT WAS WRITTEN BY THE

CITY OF ALAMEDA TO BCDC FOR

CONSIDERATION AS PART OF THIS

APPROVAL PROCESS, AND I WAS

WONDERING IF YOU WOULD BE SO

KIND AS TO INCLUDE THAT LETTER

IN THE BCDC’S PORTAL OF OTHER

DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THIS

APPROVAL PROCESS SO THAT THOSE

IN THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO

READ THE LETTER CAN ACCESS IT.

THAT’S ALL. THANK YOU.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: EVEY,

PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF.

>>SPEAKER: HELLO. MY NAME IS

EVEY FONG, A MEMBER OF THE

CUSTOMS BROKERS FORWARDERS

ASSOCIATION OF NORTHERN

CALIFORNIA. I WANT TO SPEAK UP

TODAY AND OFFER SUPPORT FOR THE

TURNING BASIN PROJECT. THE

TURNING BASIN IS NECESSARY AND

RESPONSIBLE PROJECT TO ENSURE

THE PORT OF OAKLAND CONTINUES AS

AN ESSENTIAL WEST COAST GATEWAY

TO U.S. COMMERCE. WE, AT THE

PORT OF OAKLAND, IT IS

NECESSARY, AS A REGIONAL PORT

AND WITH THE LARGER COMMERCIAL

SHIPS, THIS WILL ENSURE THE

PORT’S FUTURE AS THE NECESSARY

REGIONAL PORT. DECISIONS MADE

TODAY WILL ENSURE CURRENT

CONTRACTS TO ENDURE AND SUCCEED

INTO THE FUTURE. THIS TURNING

BASIN WILL TAKE ABOUT TEN YEARS.

IT IS NECESSARY THAT THE

DECISIONS MADE WILL GO FORWARD

WITH THE PROJECT. THE FACT THAT

THE EXISTING CHANNEL AND TURNING

BASINS WERE LAST UPDATED 25

YEARS AGO, I THINK IT’S TIME TO

REDESIGN THE PORT INTO THE NEXT

25 YEARS. AND THEN LASTLY,

INFRASTRUCTURE. AS SAID FOR

CARB CONCERNS, THE TURNING BASIN

ACCOMMODATES FOR SHORE POWER

INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AND

OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDED THAT

THE — ANY ENVIRONMENTAL

CONCERNS AND ELECTRIFICATION CAN

BE ACCOMMODATED. THOSE ARE GOOD

THINGS. AND THAT IS THE AIR

QUALITY MEASURES THAT ARE NOW

REQUIRED BY THE STATE. THIS

WILL BE SUSTAINABLE, COMPATIBLE

GROWTH FOR THE PORT AND CITY OF

OAKLAND. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR

ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK TODAY.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: SUNG

LEE. PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF.

>>SPEAKER: HELLO. THIS IS SUNG

LEE. I AM THE VICE CHAIR OF

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT

EXPORT COUNCIL. A PRIVATE

INDUSTRY ADVISORY GROUP

APPOINTED BY THE SECRETARY OF

RAI MONDO OF DEPARTMENT OF

COMMERCE ALSO REPRESENTING HERE

AS PRESIDENT OF NORTHERN

CALIFORNIA CUSTOM BROKERS AND

FREIGHT FORWARDERS ASSOCIATION

THAT CLEARS CUSTOMS AT THE

PORTS. WE’RE SUPPORTING THE

TURNING BASIN AT THE PORT OF

OAKLAND THE PROJECT IS DESIGNED

TO IMPROVE VESSEL TRANSIT

EFFICIENCIES AND NAVIGATIONAL

SAFETY AND WE FULLY SUPPORT THAT

MORE ALSO ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS

INCLUDING REDUCTION OF EMISSIONS

AT THE RATE OF GROWTH OF

EMISSIONS PER CONTAINER AND

DECREASING GHG EMISSIONS BY

BOATING CARGO, THE DIVERSION IS

ONE OF OUR GOALS. I WORK IN THE

CONTAINER SHIPPING INDUSTRY THE

SHIPPING COMPANIES THAT ARE

CALLING PORT OF OAKLAND ARE

PURCHASING PLACING ORDERS ON

NEWER AND CLEANER VESSELS THAT

IS GOING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF

THE LARGER TURNING BASIN THEY

WILL BE COMPLETED ABOUT THE SAME

TIME AS WHEN THE TURNING BASIN

IS COMPLETED SO WE LOOK FORWARD

TO HAVING THE CLEANER SHIPS CALL

OAKLAND THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: SUSAN

RANSOM.

>>SPEAKER: HI EVERYBODY, WITH

SSA TERMINAL IN OAKLAND FIRST I

WOULD LIKE TO THANK ALL THE

PARTIES FOR CONTINUING TO WORK

TOWARDS THE TURNING BASIN THE

DISCUSSIONS ARE GOOD IT’S

ESSENTIAL TO THE FUTURE OF

OAKLAND ECONOMIC ENGINE THAT

SUPPORTS EVERYONE NEAR AND FAR I

HAVE ALL DREDGING EQUIPMENT

NEEDED TO WIDENING THE DURING

BASIN WOULD BE ELECTRIC AND SOIL

WOULD BE REPURPOSED. AS FAR AS

ADDITIONAL CONTAINER TRAFFIC

THAT WOULD BE DICTATED BY THE

MARKETPLACE. THE TURNING

PROJECT CHANGES THE NUMBER AND

TYPE OF SHIPS FACILITATING THAT

COMMERCE. THIS WON’T BE BRING

MASSIVE ADDITIONAL CONTAINERS IT

WILL CONSOLIDATE CARGO WITH

OLDER SMALLER SHIPS BEING

DEPLOYED ELSEWHERE AND THE NEWER

LARGER SHIPS WILL BE MORE

ENVIRONMENTALLY CLEAN COMING

INTO THE PORT ALL OF THE MARINE

TERMINALS IN THE PORT ITSELF ARE

COMMITTED TO DOING BUSINESS

ZERO-EMISSIONS. KEEP IN MIND

THE WIDER THE TURNING BASIN THE

SAFER AND FASTER SHIPS TURN IT’S

A WIN-WIN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

AND ECONOMY. IN ADDITION TO

MANDATES AND REGULATIONS

CALIFORNIA IS PUTTING ON

TRUCKING COMPANIES TO BE RUNNING

0 EMISSIONS, IT’S LIKELY THAT

THE INDUSTRY WILL LOSE ABOUT 25%

OF TRUCK CAPACITY AS MANY WON’T

BE ABLE TO AFFORD THE NEW TRUCKS

SO THERE WILL BE LESS TRAFFIC

OVERALL AND LESS POLLUTION NOT

MORE. ALREADY INVESTING

MILLIONS OF DOLLARS GETTING TO

THE GOAL OF ZERO EMISSIONS AND

VESSELS ARE ALREADY PLUGGING

INTO SHORE POWER ELIMINATING

NEED FOR DIESEL GENERATORS AT

THE PORTS WE HAVE AN

ENVIRONMENTAL TEAM WITHIN OUR

COMPANY WORKING ENDLESSLY WITH

THE PORT AND ALL OTHERS TO MEET

CHALLENGES OF NEW CALIFORNIA

REGULATIONS WE ARE NOT DONE BY

FAR BUT ARE CONTINUING TO

ADVANCE THE GOAL. WE ARE

CRITICAL PARTNERS INCLUDING THE

PORT OF OAKLAND AND ASK THAT IT

BE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT BY THE TIME

THIS PROJECT BREAKS GROUND WE’LL

BE ONE OF THE CLEANEST PORTS IN

THE WORLD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>CLERK, REYLINA RUIZ: NO

FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

THANK YOU, ALL, FOR THAT.

I WOULD NOW ENTERTAIN A MOTION

TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND

A SECOND, PLEASE?

>>SPEAKER: SECOND.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

VICE CHAIR MOVES. AND I’M

SORRY. WHO SECONDED?

OH I SEE SEVERAL HERE. I’LL

TAKE COMMISSIONER GUNTHER’S

SECOND.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU

AGREE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC

HEARING. ANYBODY OPPOSED TO

CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING?

PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.

THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.

WE WILL NOW ENTERTAIN COMMISSION

QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS.

I’M GOING TO RECOGNIZE

COMMISSIONER EISEN FIRST, AND

THEN I’LL GO TO THE SCREEN.

>>V. CHAIR, REBECCA EISEN: I

HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS. I

DON’T KNOW EXACTLY WHO TO DIRECT

THEM TO. AND I DON’T KNOW IF

THEY’RE PREMATURE. BUT THERE

WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT PUBLIC

ACCESS AND, OF COURSE, MIDDLE

HARBOR SITS BETWEEN THESE TWO

TURNING BASINS. AND MIDDLE

HARBOR IS THE BIGGEST AREA OF

PUBLIC ACCESS THAT OAKLAND HAS.

I WAS THERE A WEEK AGO, BECAUSE

IT’S A MASSIVE BIRDING

DESTINATION, AND THE — I DON’T

KNOW IF THIS IS RELATED IN ANY

WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, BUT ALL OF

THE VEGETATION HAD BEEN REMOVED

FROM MIDDLE HARBOR. AND I DON’T

KNOW HOW THAT IS GOING TO BE

IMPACTED BY THIS — WHAT SOUNDS

LOOK A VERY LARGE PROJECT,

WHETHER IT’S GOING TO BE

EXPANDED IN TERMS OF PUBLIC

ACCESS ON OR WHETHER IT’S GOING

TO BE — WE HAVE TALK ABOUT IT

BEFORE ON THE COMMISSION, THAT

IT IS A SAD AND UNHAPPY PLACE,

AND THAT THERE WAS COMMITMENTS

BY THE PORT OF OAKLAND AND

OTHERS THAT THEY WOULD IMPROVE

IT. SO, I’M NOT — I REALLY

WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT

HAPPENS TO MIDDLE HARBOR IN THE

MIDST OF THIS ENTIRE PROJECT.

THAT’S NUMBER ONE. AND, SORT

OF, RELATED, I HEARD FROM ONE OF

THE PRESENTERS THAT ONE OF THE

MITIGATION MEASURES IS TO AVOID

DOING CONSTRUCTION DURING BIRD

BREEDING SEASON. I WONDER WHO

IS GOING TO HELP DETERMINE WHEN

THAT IS AND WHAT KIND OF IMPACT

THAT HAS ON THE PROJECT.

BECAUSE JUST NOT CONSTRUCTING AT

ALL DURING BIRD BREEDING SEASON

IS GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW,

COSTLY, AND DIFFICULT TO

SCHEDULE. SO, I REALLY WANT TO

UNDERSTAND THAT.

BRENDA MENTION THAT WE NEED TO

DECIDE NEXT MEETING SO WE CAN

CONCUR AND THAT CAN BE ATTACHED

TO THE CHIEF’S STATEMENT, I

THINK WAS THE EXPRESSION. AND I

WONDER IF THE CHIEF’S STATEMENT

IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE SUBMITTED TO

CONGRESS, BECAUSE THE TIMELINE

SAYS THAT WE’RE GOING TO BE

ASKING — THE ARMY CORP IS GOING

TO BE ASKING CONGRESS FOR, I

GUESS, VOTE ON THIS IN JANUARY,

WHICH IS JUST TWO WEEKS AWAY.

SO, AND ONLY TEN DAYS AWAY FROM

OUR NEXT MEETING. I’M WONDERING

WHAT THE ANSWER IS TO THE

QUESTION ABOUT WHY WE NEED TO

EXPAND BOTH TURNING BASINS, WHY

IT ISN’T SUFFICIENT JUST TO

EXPAND THE ONE THAT’S IN THE

OUTER HARBOR AND NOT THE ONE

THAT’S IN THE INNER HARBOR. AND

MAYBE ALL OF THIS IS GOING TO BE

ANSWERED AT OUR NEXT MEETING?

OR MAYBE IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR

US TO HAVE ANSWERS TO THESE

PRIOR TO OUR DECISION ON WHETHER

TO CONCUR. THERE IS A LOT OF

COMMENT ABOUT HOW THIS IS GOING

TO BE BENEFICIAL FOR SAFETY

REASONS AND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL

REASONS BUT IT’S NOT NECESSARILY

GOING TO CHANGE, SORT OF, THE

ECONOMICS. BUT I REALLY DON’T

UNDERSTAND SOME BASIC THINGS. I

MEAN, HOW MUCH GROWTH IN THESE

LARGER SHIPS ARE WE SEEING? IS

IT EXPECTED TO CONTINUE? AND

FOR HOW LONG? SO THAT THAT,

SORT OF, DATA, WHETHER THIS IS

REALLY A NECESSARY PROJECT, I

DON’T HAVE THAT. MAYBE IT’S IN

SOME DOCUMENTS, MAYBE SOMEONE

CAN POINT ME TO IT. WITH THAT I

HAVE EXHAUSTED MY TIME ASKING

QUESTIONS

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

WE’LL WORK ON ANSWERS.

>>SPEAKER: I’LL TAKE THE EASY

ONE. THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT

WHEN IT’S GOING TO CONGRESS.

RIGHT NOW THE REPORT IS BEING

FINALIZED AND IT’S GOING TO

HEADQUARTERS IN JANUARY AND THEN

THE CHIEF’S REPORT IS COMPLETED

AND SUBMITTED IN MAY, END OF

MAY, 2024, TO CONGRESS. YEAH,

THE CHIEF’S REPORT THAT GOES TO

CONGRESS.

>>V. CHAIR, REBECCA EISEN: I’M

PRETTY SURE THAT I SAW THAT IT

WAS ON JANUARY ON THE SLIDE.

>>SPEAKER: I THINK IT WAS

INCORRECT, AS WELL. YEAH. SO

IT STARTS — ONCE WE SUBMIT IT

TO HEADQUARTERS IT, SORT OF,

STARTS THAT PROCESS OF GETTING

IT TO — GETTING THE CHIEF’S

REPORT PREPARED AND SUBMITTING

TO CONGRESS FOR CONGRESSIONAL

APPROVAL. WE’LL MAKE A

CORRECTION ON THAT POWERPOINT.

SO THAT WAS THE EASY ONE. ON

THE ENVIRONMENTAL ONE, REGARDING

THE BIRD NESTING SEASON, I’LL

LET ERIK THEN ON THE ECONOMICS

WE’LL BRING JUSTIN UP TO ANSWER

THAT QUESTION. AND ALL OF THIS

IS IN THE REPORT.

>>SPEAKER: YEAH, WE HAVE THE

RESTRICTION ON TIMING FOR BIRDS

WAS RELATED TO PILE DRIVING

ONLY. IT WAS ONLY IN THE

PILE-DRIVING MEASURES. WE’RE

GOING TO ATTEMPT TO STAY WITHIN

THAT WINDOW, THE ONLY BIRDS WE

WOULD BE COMING INTO CONTACT

WITH FROM A NESTING STANDPOINT

AT HOWARD TERMINAL WOULD BE

POTENTIAL PEREGRINE FALCONS THAT

WOULD BE IN THE CRANES BUT IT’S

HIGHLY INDUSTRIALIZED CONTAINERS

BEING MOVED AROUND BY TRUCKS ALL

OVER THE PLACE BUT IT’S IN

MOTION AND COMPLETELY PAVED AND

CONTAINED. WITH INTERRUPTING

FORGING OF SOME BIRDS, WE

BELIEVE IN OUR INNER AND OUTER

HARBOR BASINS ARE NOT PREFERRED

HABITAT FOR THE TURINS. THE

PROJECT SHOWED THAT THE MOST

OVERWHELMING LARGE AMOUNT OF

FORAGING HAPPENS SOUTH OF

ALAMEDA. THERE IS A BIG COLONY

IN ALAMEDA AT THE AIR FIELD

LARGEST COLONY IN NORTHERN

CALIFORNIA, LARGELY FORAGED

WITHIN THREE MILES SOUTH OF THE

ISLAND TOWARDS BAY FARM AND

THAT’S WHERE THE OVERWHELMING

AMOUNT OF THAT HAPPENS SINCE

IT’S NOW STARTING TO HAPPEN IN

THE MIDDLE ONCE WE CREATED THAT

HABITAT DURING THE 50 FOOTWORK.

WE’RE STILL WORKING ON MILL

HARBOR WE’RE DOING EEL GRASS

SURVEYS WE DID PLANTING LAST

YEAR AND ARE ANALYZING POTENTIAL

FOR ADDITIONAL PHASE TWO

PLANTING OF EEL GRASS. WE NEED

TO COMPLETE THE MARSH THAT’S IN

THAT CORNER THAT LOOKS

[INDISCERNIBLE] NOW, WE’RE

COMMITTED TO DOING SOME TIDAL

MARSH FOR INTERPRETATIVE

PURPOSES, AND WITH THE OAKLAND

COMMUNITY CAN COME AND SEE WHAT

THE MARSH IS SUPPOSED TO LOOK

LIKE. WHICH CROSSES BOTH

PROJECTS AT SHORELINE PARK AND

IT WILL ENHANCE THE AREA AND

WE’LL HAVE SOME OPTIONS TO FIX

THAT BEACH AND I CAN’T ANSWER

THE QUESTION ABOUT THE PLANTS IN

THE UPLAND AREAS SOMEBODY AT THE

PORT MIGHT KNOW THE ANSWER TO

THAT ONE.

>>JUSTIN TASCHEK: JUSTIN

TASCHEK, PORT OF OAKLAND I’LL

ADDRESS THE QUESTION RELATED TO

HASH BORE OUTER BASIN ONLY.

THERE ARE TWO TURNING BASINS AND

IT MIGHT HELPFUL TO PULL UP THE

PRESENTATION MATERIAL THAT DOES

HAVE THE SEAPORT OVERVIEW, IF

THAT COULD BE PULLED UP, FROM

BRENDA?

>>SPEAKER: WORKING ON IT. JUST

A SECOND.

>>SPEAKER: WHILE SHE’S DOING

THAT, I WANT TO MENTION HERE

EACH TURNING BASIN PROVIDES ITS

OWN UTILITY FOR TURNING BASINS

FOR THE OUTER HARBOR TURNING

BASIN AND PROPERTIES IN THE

INCARBON TURNING BASIN THESE

PROPERTIES ARE LEASED OUT THAT

OPERATES THE FACILITIES AND

THESE LEASES DO COMPETE FOR THE

BUSINESSES SO THE VESSELS WE

TALKED ABOUT THAT VISIT THE PORT

OF OAKLAND FULL-SIZED VESSELS,

GO TO BOTH THE OUTER AND INNER

HARBOR IT’S INTEGRAL AND

IMPORTANT TO REMAIN COMPETITIVE

THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PORT

COMPLEX TO ALLOW ALL VESSEL

SIZES TO VISIT ALL PROPERTIES

WITHIN THE PORT COMPLEX AS THOSE

ARE MARINE TERMINAL PROPERTIES.

BRENDA COULD YOU PULL UP THE ONE

BEFORE THAT?

>>SPEAKER: THAT ONE?

>>JUSTIN TASCHEK: THE SEAPORT

FIGURE THAT HAS ALL THE

DIFFERENT BOUNDARIES AND LIMITS,

I WOULD MENTION SUZANNE PROVIDED

PUBLIC COMMENT THEY DO OPERATE

THE LARGEST FACILITY IN THE PORT

OF OAKLAND KNOWN AS OAKLAND

INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL

IT IS RIGHT NOW MOVING GREATER

THAN HALF OF THE TOTAL VOLUMES

60% CATEGORY OF THE VOLUMES

THAT’S SERVED EXCLUSIVELY BY THE

INNER HARBOR TURNING BASIN IT’S

VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE DO

PROVIDE THAT COMPETITIVE

LANDSCAPE TO WIDEN BOTH THE

TURNING BASINS. THANK YOU.

BRENDA —

>>SPEAKER: I’M JUST

EMBARRASSING MYSELF AT THIS

POINT. THANK YOU.

>>JUSTIN TASCHEK: THANK YOU.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

COMMISSIONER ECKLUND?

>>PAT EKLUND: THANK YOU VERY

MUCH. FIRST OF ALL, FOR FULL

DISCLOSURE, I WANT TO MAKE SURE

THAT EVERYONE KNOWS THAT I DID

WORK FOR THE U.S. ARMY CORP OF

ENGINEERS FOR EIGHT YEARS, AND

AM VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE

DREDGING ISSUES. AND I ALSO

WORKED FOR THE U.S.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

FOR 35 YEARS WHERE AT ONE POINT

I WAS IN CHANGE OF THE NPDS

PERMITTING PROGRAM SECTION 404

WHICH DEALT WITH A LOT OF

DREDGING, AND A LOT OF OTHER

WATER RELATED ISSUES.

I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT

I’M GOING TO — WOULD LIKE TO

START OUT WITH A COUPLE OF THEM,

AND THEN ASK THAT WE HAVE AN

OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT WRITTEN

QUESTIONS — OR ASK WHEN WE CAN

ALSO SUBMIT WRITTEN QUESTIONS

AFTERWARD AND MAYBE GET SOME

ANSWERS BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING.

BUT WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT

LATER. SO FIRST OF ALL, I AGREE

WITH THE SPEAKER REQUESTING A

COPY OF THAT LETTER OF THE

LETTER FROM THE CITY OF ALAMEDA.

I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A BETTER

UNDERSTANDING ABOUT WHAT

ALAMEDA, CITY OF ALAMEDA’S

CONCERNS ARE. AND I’M NOT QUITE

SURE TO WHAT EXTENT, AND THIS IS

A QUESTION, DOES BCDC NEED TO

MAKE ANY TYPE OF A DECISION

WHERE THAT — THIS ACTION IS

ALSO GOING TO BE IN COMPLIANCE

WITH LOCAL — A NEARBY

JURISDICTION, OR A JURISDICTION

THAT’S GOING TO BE AFFECTED BY

THE ACTIVITY. SO, SHOULD WE —

IS IT REQUIRED THAT WE HAVE A

BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE

IMPACT IS GOING TO BE TO THE

CITY OF ALAMEDA? AND WHAT

REMEDIES ARE POSSIBLY AVAILABLE?

>>BRENDA GOEDEN: I CAN TAKE

THAT ITEM AS A STARTER AND

OTHERS CAN JOIN IN. THE LETTER

FROM THE CITY OF ALAMEDA IS

CURRENTLY POSTED ON OUR WEB SITE

UNDER THE SUPPLEMENTAL

INFORMATION IF YOU GO TO THE

AGENDA THAT’S THE SUPPLEMENTAL

INFORMATION THERE, WE RECEIVED

THREE PUBLIC COMMENTS WRITTEN

BEFORE THE COMMISSION MEETING.

SO THAT WAS ONE OF THEM. ALSO

THE ADDENDUM, WHERE I TRIED TO

EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT BETTER SOME

OF THE INFORMATION WE DIDN’T GET

QUITE RIGHT IN THE STAFF SUMMARY

IS IN THERE. SO REGARDING THE

LOCAL DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL IN

THE CITY OF ALAMEDA. RIGHT NOW

WE’RE AT THE FEASIBILITY STAGE

SO THE CORP FINISHED THE STUDY

OF WHETHER OR NOT IT’S FEASIBLE

FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO

HAVE A PIECE IN THIS AND THEY

HAVE SAID YES FIRST PHASE

CONSISTENCY SO WE’RE LOOKING TO

FIND OUT NEXT MEETING AS THE

COMMISSION SEES THE PROJECT IS

GENERAL CONSISTENT WITH ITS LAWS

AND POLICIES NEPA — EXCUSE ME,

IT DOES REQUIRE THAT THE LAWS

AND POLICIES OF THE COMMISSIONER

MET AS PART OF THE FILL STILL

PART OF THE MCATEER-PETRIS ACT

THERE IS A REQUIREMENT FOR THE

FILL ON THE PROPERTY THAT THERE

IS PROPERTY INTEREST SO WE

CANNOT REQUIRE THE PORT OR CORP

— THE LOCAL SPONSOR THE CORP IS

REQUIRED TO GET THE LAND’S

EASEMENTS AND RIGHT OF WAY

BEFORE THE CORP CAN CONSTRUCT

THE PROJECT SO THAT MEANS THE

PORT OF OAKLAND HAS TO GET THOSE

PROPERTIES THEY WOULD GET THAT I

BELIEVE WORKING WITH THE CITY OF

ALAMEDA AND IN ORDER FOR US TO

ISSUE A PERMIT TO THE PORT OF

OAKLAND FOR THIS PROJECT OF

THEIR UPCOMING APPLICATION IN A

COUPLE OF YEARS, THEY WOULD HAVE

TO PROVIDE THE LOCAL

DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL AND THE

PROPERTY INTEREST BECAUSE THAT

PROJECT IS FULLY UNDER THE

MCATEER-PETRIS ACT AND THE BAY

PLAN AND OUR STATE AUTHORITY

VERSUS OUR FEDERAL AUTHORITY

UNDER CDMZMA. THAT WAS A LOT.

DOES IT MAKE SENSE?

>>PAT EKLUND: YEAH IT IF WE

TOOK ACTION AT THE NEXT MEETING

THAT WOULD STILL ALLOW US AS THE

TIME COMES BACK TO ADD SOME

ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS IF WE

WANTED TO HELP MITIGATE SOME OF.

>>ANDREW FREMIER: IMPACTS?

>>SPEAKER: YES AND WE WILL NOT

BE RECOMMENDING THAT WE ALLOW

THE PROJECT TO GO FORWARD WE

WILL NOT AUTHORIZE ANY WORK AT

THIS TIME SO IF WE DON’T HAVE

THOSE DETAILS.

>>PAT EKLUND: THAT HELPS ME A

LOT. THE OTHER ISSUE THAT IS

PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT LARGER AND

I’M ASSUMING THAT BCDC HAS AN

INTEREST IN IT I WORKED FOR U.S.

EPA, I PUSHED REALLY HARD, WE

TRIED TO SET UP A PROGRAM TO

REUSE THE DREDGE MATERIAL

BECAUSE AS YOU KNOW THERE’S NOT

ENOUGH DREDGE MATERIAL AVAILABLE

TO DO ALL THE WETLAND

INSPIRATION THAT’S NEEDED AROUND

SAN FRANCISCO BAY ESTUARY AREA,

AND SO I SAW IN THE REPORT

THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT NOT ONLINE

LOOKING TO REUSE THE MATERIAL

BUT I DIDN’T SEE SPECIFIC AREAS

OR WHETHER IT’S MARSH LANDS, I

SAW FILL, BUT I DIDN’T SEE ANY

WETLAND RESTORATION. YOU CAN

HELP ME TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THAT

MATERIAL MIGHT OR WHETHER IT HAS

BEEN DETERMINED BECAUSE I KNOW

THEY HAVE TO DO A LOT OF TESTING

FIRST.

>>SPEAKER: FOR BENEFICIAL REUSE

I THINK WE MENTIONED HERE

WETLAND RESTORATION, WE THINK

THEY MIGHT GO TO BENEFICIAL

DEEPER MATERIAL, IT HAS NOT BEEN

IMPACTED BY INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY,

AND HAVE RECEIVED SUSTAINABILITY

DETERMINATION IN THE 1990S THAT

MATERIAL IS CLEAN ENOUGH TO GO

TO BENEFICIAL REUSE. I BELIEVE

THE PORT HAVE BEEN TALKING TO

MONTEZUMA WETLANDS BECAUSE THEY

CAN TAKE BOTH FOUNDATION AND

COVER QUALITY MATERIAL THAT IS

NOT DETERMINED YET BECAUSE WE’RE

NOT AT THAT LEVEL OF DESIGN, IF

BEL MARIN KEYS CAME ONLINE SOME

OF THE MATERIAL COULD GO THERE,

IF COLIN IS OPERATIONAL SOME OF

THE MATERIALS COULD GO THERE,

THERE IS SITES THAT MAY NOT HAVE

BEEN IDENTIFIED, BUT THERE IS

ANTICIPATION COMMITMENT FROM THE

CORP AND THE PORT THROUGH THEIR

BENEFICIAL — I’M NOT

REMEMBERING THE NAME — BUT THEY

DID APPROVAL TO TAKE MATERIAL TO

BENEFICIAL REUSE WE DO

ANTICIPATE THAT TO BE WETLANDS.

>>PAT EKLUND: IS IT GOING TO BE

100% I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE

PROPOSING REUSE FOR FILL VERSUS

WETLAND RESTORATION OR LEVELS OR

WHATEVER.

>>SPEAKER: SORRY THAT WAS NOT

CLEAR. FILL PROPOSED IS PILE

SHEET PILES RIP RAP, IT’S NOT

DREDGE MATERIAL. SORRY THAT WAS

NOT SUPER CLEAR.

>>PAT EKLUND: IS THERE ANY

DREDGE MATERIAL THAT’S BEING

PROPOSED FOR DUMPING IN THE BAY

OR IN THE OCEAN?

>>SPEAKER: NOT AT THIS TIME.

>>PAT EKLUND: DO WE HAVE A

REQUIREMENT THAT THEY HAVE TO

REUSE ALL OF THE DREDGE

MATERIAL?

>>SPEAKER: THAT WOULD COME IN

THE DESIGN PHASE WHEN WE HAVE

BETTER INFORMATION ABOUT THE

QUALITY OF THE MATERIAL, THAT

WOULD BE THE SECOND PHASE

CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION BUT I

BELIEVE THEY’RE COMMITTED IN THE

ROOM THERE, THEY CAN VOUCH

WHETHER OR NOT THIS MATERIAL IS

SUITABLE FOR BENEFICIAL REUSE.

THAT IS MINDING AT THIS TIME.

>>SPEAKER: THIS IS ERIK AGAIN

WE DO HAVE PERMISSION FROM

HEADQUARTERS THAT WE BENEFICIAL

REUSE ALL MATERIAL. THE BULK IS

WETLAND COVER AT THIS POINT

BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS WE HAVE

MADE WHICH TECHNICALLY MEANS

MONTEZUMA AT THIS POINT THEY’RE

THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN TAKE THAT

1.71 MILLION YARDS GOING THERE,

150,000 YARDS OF COVER THAT

COULD GO TO ANY WETLAND

RESTORATION SITE.

>>PAT EKLUND: OKAY GREAT.

THANK YOU. AND THEN, LET’S SEE,

WHAT WAS THE LAST QUESTION? YOU

CAN HELP ME UNDERSTAND AT WHAT

POINT THROUGH THE THIS WHOLE

PROCESS BEFORE FINAL APPROVAL,

IS IT GOING TO BE COMING BACK TO

THE COMMISSION SO THAT IF NEEDED

WE CAN ADD SOME ADDITIONAL

CONDITIONS BECAUSE IF THIS IS

THE ONLY TIME WHERE WE CAN ADD

SPECIFIC CONDITIONS, THEN I

PROBABLY GOING TO LOOK AT THIS

WITH A FINE TOOTH COMB BUT I WAS

HOPING WE GOING TO GET ANOTHER

BITE AT THE APPLE WHICH IS

TYPICALLY WHAT WE HAVE DONE IN

THE PAST BUT I DON’T KNOW IF THE

PROCESS HAS BEEN CHANGED SINCE I

LEFT OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

>>SPEAKER: YES THIS IS A PHASE

CONSISTENCY. FIRST PHASE IS A

GENERAL AUTHORIZATION BUT AS

WRITTEN SO FAR IT’S IN REVIEW.

THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION DOES

INCLUDE SOME GENERAL CONDITIONS

BUT NOT THE FINAL SET. IT ALSO

LISTS OUT SOME POTENTIAL

ADDITIONAL ITEMS THAT ARE NOT

BEING REQUIRED AT THIS TIME BUT

WOULD LIKELY BE REQUIRED. AT

THE SECOND PHASE WHEN WE’RE IN

THE PRECONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING

AND DESIGN PHASE, THE CORP WILL

BE COMING BACK TO US ANTICIPATED

IN 2025, ’26, PROBABLY 2026, WE

WILL HAVE A MORE DEFINITIVE

COMPLETE PICTURE OF THE PROJECT

AND WILL LIKELY MAKE MORE

REQUIREMENTS AT THAT TIME.

>>PAT EKLUND: I DIDN’T SEE IT

IN THE CONDITIONS OR MAY HAVE

MISSED IT THAT THEY WILL REUSE

ALL OF THE DREDGE MATERIAL.

>>SPEAKER: YOU DON’T HAVE TO

YET THAT’S WHY YOU MISSED IT

IT’S COMING OUT IN REVIEW AND

I’M SHARING IT WITH THE CORP IN

THE REPORT THEN YOU WILL SEE IT.

>>PAT ECKLUND: GREAT. SO OVER

TIME IT WILL BE HERE IN 2026

IT’S GOING TO BE HARD TO KNOW

BUT ANYWAY, OKAY. THAT’S GREAT.

IS IT POSSIBLE TO SEND

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS IN WRITING

BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING? OR IS

THAT SOMETHING YOU PREFER NOT TO

DO?

>>SPEAKER: I’M HAPPY TO RECEIVE

WRITTEN COMMENTS. WE’LL DO OUR

BEST TO GET ANSWERS FOR YOU

BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING. I’M

FINE WITH THAT, BUT TO THE CHAIR

AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.

>>PAT ECKLUND: THAT WOULD BE

GREAT. IF I COULD GET FEEDBACK

THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: TWO

COMMENTS BEFORE I GO TO THE NEXT

COMMISSIONER.

YES, CERTAINLY QUESTIONS AND

COMMENTS CAN COME IN. THIS IS

AN ONGOING PROCESS IT MAY NOT

AFFECT THIS VOTE. BUT THIS IS

NOT THE LAST TIME THIS PROJECT

WILL COME BEFORE US, AND THE

SECOND POINT, UNLESS I’M WRONG,

IN ADDITION TO COMING BACK FOR

FURTHER CONCURRENCE ON

CONFORMANCY, OR CONFORMANCE,

IT’S GET TO COME TO US FOR A

PERMIT. SO, WE WILL HAVE MORE

THAN ONE ADDITIONAL BITE AT THIS

APPLE.

COMMISSIONER GUNTHER?

>>ANDREW GUNTHER: THANK YOU

MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU FOR THE

REALLY DETAILED RICH

PRESENTATION. I REALLY

APPRECIATE IT. I JUST HAVE TWO

QUICK QUESTIONS. FIRST OF ALL,

THE ELECTRICAL WORK THAT’S GOING

TO BE DONE AS PART OF BUILDING

THE TURNING BASIN. I MEAN,

ELECTRIFICATION OF OPERATING

DIESEL MOTORS AT THE PORT IS A

VERY, VERY IMPORTANT PART OF

IMPROVING THE HEALTH OF THE

LOCAL COMMUNITIES IN REDUCING

EMISSIONS. SO, IT DOES — DOES

THAT WORK WHICH WAS DESCRIBED AS

FACILITATING THE USE OF

ELECTRICAL DREDGES, DOES THAT

ALSO CONTRIBUTE, SORT OF, AS THE

PORT AS A WHOLE, FOR

ELECTRIFICATION FOR OTHER

PROCESSES AT THE PORT OR FOR

CHARGING SOME OF THE BATTERY

OPERATED MACHINERY THEY HAVE

NOW? I HOPE THAT WE CAN MAKE —

THAT THIS WILL NOT ONLY REDUCE

MISSIONS DURING DREDGING, BUT

ALSO CONTRIBUTE TO REDUCING

EMISSIONS IN THE FUTURE. AND

THEN, SECONDLY, I DIDN’T SEE

MUCH DISCUSSION OF SEA LEVEL

RISE. NOW, I HAVE A FEELING

THAT’S BECAUSE OF THE NATURE —

THAT’S — MAYBE THAT’S IN PHASE

TWO, BRENDA? BUT I JUST WANTED

TO MAKE SURE THAT AS THIS

PROJECT GOES FORWARD AND SO MUCH

OF THE SHORELINE IN THAT REGION

IS ALTERED, BUT IT’S ALTERED IN

A WAY THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH

BUILDING RESILIENCY TO SEA LEVEL

RISE, WHICH I ASSUME IS KIND OF

INTEGRATED INTO OUR PERMIT

DECISION, IF I UNDERSTAND IT

RIGHT?

>>BRENDA GOEDEN: I WILL START

TO ADDRESS THAT. THE CORP AND

PORT CAN BACK ME UP — TRY TO

SAY THAT FIVE TIMES FAST — BUT

I WOULD ALSO ELECT THE PORT TO

ADDRESS THE ELECTRIFICATION

ISSUE BECAUSE I’M UNFAMILIAR

WITH THEIR PLANS. REGARDING SEA

LEVEL RISE, WHICH SAY CONCERN OF

THE CITY OF ALAMEDA AND OTHERS,

THE PORT AND THE CORP VIEW THIS

AS A NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT

PROJECT. THEY’RE NOT PROPOSING

SHORELINE PROPOSE PROTECTION.

THEY’RE BUILDING A BULK HEAD.

AS I UNDERSTAND THE PLANS, AND

THE ARMY CORP’S ANALYSIS OF SEA

LEVEL RISE, UNDER THEIR

GUIDANCE, WHICH IS NOT THE SAME

AS THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

GUIDANCE, IT’S SIMILAR BUT A

LITTLE DIFFERENT, THE PROJECT IS

RESILIENT TO FLOODING THROUGH

ALL PHASES OF THEIR PROJECT, I

BELIEVE, TO 2090. AND I’M

TALKING ABOUT THAT OFF THE TOP

OF MY HEAD RIGHT NOW. SO DON’T

QUOTE ME ON THAT, AND THERE IS

ONLY ONE AREA THAT IS NOT

RESILIENT. SO, THE WAY THEY

PROPOSED TO CONSTRUCT IT, IT’S

AT OR ABOVE THE EXISTING

ELEVATION. THEY DON’T

ANTICIPATE FLOODING IN THAT

REGION. THE OTHER ANSWER, WHICH

CAME UP DURING THE ENGINEERING

CRITERIA REVIEW BOARD — AND I

BELIEVE BARNEY IN THE ROOM, SO

HE MAY WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS

FROM THE ARMY CORP — THE

QUESTION WAS DID YOU INCORPORATE

SEA LEVEL RISE RESILIENCE IN

THIS PROJECT; AND HIS ANSWER

WAS, UNDER THIS FEASIBILITY

STUDY, BECAUSE OF THE NATURE, IT

DOES NOT INCLUDE SHORELINE

PROTECTION. THAT WOULD BE A

DIFFERENT AUTHORITY AND A

DIFFERENT FEASIBILITY FOR THE

CITY OF ALAMEDA. AND THEY COULD

REQUEST THAT OF THE CORP, BUT

THE CORP WOULD HAVE TO FIND A

NATIONAL ECONOMIC INTEREST AND

HAVE THAT AS A SEPARATE KIND OF

PROJECT. IT’S BULKHEAD, NOT

SHORELINE PROTECTION. YES THERE

IS FLOODING ON ALAMEDA FROM OUR

LOOK AT IT COMES FROM A NUMBER

OF OTHER SOURCES NOT

SPECIFICALLY THIS AREA EXCEPT

FOR THE LIMITED HIGH ELEVATION

ISSUE HIGH SEA LEVEL ELEVATION

ISSUE. THAT’S THE WAY THE

COMMISSION STAFF HAS ADDRESSED

IT AT THIS POINT.

>>ANDREW GUNTHER: SO YOU’RE

SAYING BRENDA THAT AS IMAGINED

CURRENTLY, OBVIOUSLY THERE IS

GOING TO BE MUCH MORE WORK DONE

ON THE SPECIFICS OF A PROJECT.

THE PROJECT WILL — WHEN THE

PROJECT IS COMPLETED, THE

SHORELINE IN THAT AREA WILL BE

RESILIENT TO A SEA LEVEL RISE AT

A CERTAIN AMOUNT. I JUST WANT

TO MAKE SURE WE’RE NOT PROPOSING

TO SPEND $500 MILLION IN AN AREA

AND NOT HAVE THAT PRODUCE A

RESILIENT SHORELINE.

>>BRENDA GOEDEN: I UNDERSTAND

WHAT YOU’RE SAYING, AND

APPRECIATE IT. I MEAN BASICALLY

A BULK IS CREATING A NEW

SHORELINE BUT NOT YOU KNOW,

INCREASING THE HEIGHTS OF THE

SHORELINE IT’S SIMPLY INCREASING

THE NEW SHORELINE THERE IS NO

PROPOSED PROJECT THAT RAISES THE

ELEVATION OR PROTECTS THE

SHORELINE FROM SEA LEVEL RISE AT

THIS TIME AND FROM WHAT I

UNDERSTAND FROM THE CORP THAT

WOULD BE A DIFFERENT PROJECT

THAN WHAT IS AUTHORIZED THROUGH

THEIR PROGRAM SO MAYBE THE CORP

OR PORT WANT TO STEP IN AT THIS

POINT AND HELP ME OUT?

>>STEVEN GOLDBECK: I WOULD ADD

THAT POLICIES ON RISING SEA

LEVEL REQUIRE LARGER PROJECTS TO

BE RESILIENT TO MID-CENTURY AND

HAVE AN ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN

TO END THE CENTURY. BUT THAT’S

FOR THE PROJECT, AND THE PROJECT

IS A TURNING BASIN. SO, YOUR

POLICIES WOULD REQUIRE THAT

PROJECT ITSELF THAT BEING THE

TURNING BASIN BE RESILIENT NOT

NECESSARILY PROVIDE PROTECTION

FOR ALL THE SURROUNDING AREAS.

>>BRENDA GOEDEN: THANK YOU,

STEVE. ALSO WE CAN DIRECT YOU

TO POLICY SEVEN WHICH SAYS WHEN

WE’RE IN THIS SITUATION WE DON’T

HAVE A REGIONAL SEA LEVEL RISE

ADAPTATION PLAN PROJECT THAT ARE

REGIONAL BENEFITS INCLUDING

TRANSITION TRANSPORTATION AND

THEN THIS IS THE MARINE

TRANSPORTATION ISSUE.

>>STEVEN GOLDBECK: THAT’S NO

OPINION FROM STAFF ON WHETHER IT

WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE GREATER

PROTECTION OF THE SHORELINE BUT

SIMPLY YOUR POLICIES CALL FOR

THAT.

>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU, STEVE.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

COMMISSIONER SHOWALTER.

>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: I WOULD

LIKE ANOTHER BRIEF UNDERSTANDING

OF A CHIEF’S REPORT. SORT OF,

FROM A HIGH-LEVEL MY

UNDERSTANDING OF THE CHIEF’S

REPORT IS BASICALLY IF IT GIVES

ENOUGH SPECIFICITY THAT THE

HEADQUARTERS OF THE CORP OF

ENGINEERS FEELS CONFIDENT TO ASK

CONGRESS FOR AUTHORIZATION

AND/OR FUNDING TO GO FORWARD

WITH THIS PROJECT, IS THAT

CORRECT?

>>SPEAKER: YES. I THINK I CAN

ANSWER THAT WHEN WE SUBMIT IN

JANUARY IS GOING TO BE A FINAL

REPORT WITH OUR RECOMMENDATION

AND THAT GOES TO HEADQUARTERS

AND THEN WE — WE PRODUCE A

CHIEF’S REPORT THAT WOULD MAKE

— THAT WOULD BE DONE BY THE END

OF MAY OF 2024, AND THAT IS A

RECOMMENDATION TO CONGRESS.

CONGRESS CAN DECIDE WHETHER, AT

THEIR DISCRETION, WHETHER

THEY’RE GOING TO AUTHORIZE IT SO

IT CAN GET INTO [INDISCERNIBLE]

2024 AND AT THEIR DISCRETION

WHETHER THEY WANT TO APPROPRIATE

FUND AS WELL. THOSE ARE TWO

SEPARATE DECISIONS THAT THEY

NEED TO MAKE AND THEY CAN DECIDE

TO SAY NO TO BOTH, SAY YES TO

BOTH, OR THEY CAN AUTHORIZE AND

THEN AT A LATER TIME

APPROPRIATE.

>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: THANK YOU

ERICA. THAT’S WHAT I THOUGHT I

REMEMBERED. BUT I WANTED TO

MAKE SURE. SO, I GUESS WHAT MY

FEELING IS THAT BECAUSE THIS IS

THE PHASE WE’RE AT, IT’S

APPROPRIATE, I FEEL LIKE, FOR US

TO SUPPORT THIS GOING FORWARD AT

THIS PHASE. I MEAN, GRANTED,

WHEN WE GET MORE DETAILS, WE

WILL HAVE A LOT MORE QUESTIONS

AND THERE WILL BE THINGS WE WANT

TO MAKE SURE ARE TAKEN CARE OF.

BUT AT THIS POINT, TO GET — YOU

KNOW, TO GET — MAKE SURE THAT

THIS PROCESS GOING FORWARD IN A

TIMELY MANNER, I’M VERY

SUPPORTIVE OF IT. AND

PARTICULARLY, THE REUSE OF THE

DREDGE SEDIMENT. THAT IS A

WONDERFUL FEATURE. AND

SOMETHING THAT IS VERY, VERY

IMPORTANT FOR OUR OTHER SEA

LEVEL RISE PROTECTION EFFORTS,

PARTICULARLY MARSH RESTORATION

THROUGHOUT THE BAY. SO, I’M

REALLY GLAD TO SEE THIS. AND I

LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING ON IT

FOR QUITE A WHILE. THANK YOU.

>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU

COMMISSIONER.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE

HAVE A HAND, COMMISSIONER

NELSON?

>>BARRY NELSON: [LAUGHTER]

IT KEEPS DROPPING AWAY. TWO

ISSUES FOR STAFF. QUESTIONS

ABOUT — FIRST IS ABOUT HOWARD

TERMINAL. IF I AM REMEMBERING

CORRECTLY, WHEN WE DELETED THE

SEAPORT PLAN DESIGNATION FOR

HOWARD TERMINAL, IT CAME WITH

THE CONDITION THAT IF AS DID NOT

CONSTRUCT A BALLPARK AT HOWARD

TERMINAL, THAT SEAPORT WOULD

REVERT BACK TO PLAN

JURISDICTION.

>>BRENDA GOEDEN: ALMOST. IT

REVERTS BACK TO PORT PRIORITY

USE.

>>BARRY NELSON: IF THAT HAD

HAPPENED LAST MONTH, AND THE AS

MOVED TO LAS VEGAS, AND THEY’RE

NOT BUILDING A TERMINAL THEN THE

PORT PRIORITY DESIGNATION WOULD

BE ON THE SITE AND I ASSUME THE

STAFF WOULD INCLUDE ANALYSIS OF

WHAT THIS MEANS FOR HOWARD

TERMINAL. SOME OF THIS WOULD BE

EXCAVATED, HOWARD TERMINAL WOULD

BE SHORTER, ONLY ACCOMMODATE

CERTAIN SHIPS AND SO FORTH.

THAT DECISION HASN’T BEEN MADE

BY THE CITY AND THE AS, IT SEEMS

LIKE SHOULD WE BE THINKING ABOUT

THAT ISSUE?

>>BRENDA GOEDEN: I WOULD SAY,

AS I LOOK TO MY ESTEEMED

COLLEAGUES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,

EXECUTIVE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, IS

WE’RE CURRENTLY BEHOLDEN TO THE

LAWS AND POLICIES THAT WE HAVE,

BECAUSE THE REVERTING ACTION HAS

NOT TAKEN PLACE, AND IT WILL

LIKELY NOT TAKE PLACE BEFORE

DECEMBER 21ST A.M., WE NEED TO

USE THE POLICIES AND THE

PRIORITY USE AREAS THAT WE HAVE

IN FRONT OF US AT THAT TIME. IF

THE PRIORITY USE AREA REVERTS TO

PORT PRIORITY USE BEFORE THE

NEXT PHASE CONSISTENCY

DETERMINATION, WE WOULD CONSIDER

IT DIFFERENTLY AND LOOK FOR

DIFFERENT INFORMATION. BUT, AT

THIS TIME, THE STAFF

RECOMMENDATION EXPLAINS THAT

THERE IS NO PORT PRIORITY USE AT

HOWARD TERMINAL AT THIS TIME.

>>BARRY NELSON: AND THAT LEAVES

THE QUESTION ABOUT PHASING AND

SEGMENTATION. WHAT HAPPENS IF

WE LOOK AT IT NOW AND SAY

TOTALLY INCONSISTENT WITH OUR

PLAN, AND THEN WE LOOK AT IT IN

A YEAR OR WHENEVER IT COMES BACK

TO US FOR THE NEXT PHASE, AND

THE AS HAVE MADE THEIR DECISION,

PORT PRIORITY USE DESIGNATION IS

BACK ON THE SITE, AT THAT POINT

WE DO AN ANALYSIS ABOUT IMPACTS

ON THE PORT PRIORITY USE. WHAT

HAPPENS IF WE REACH A DIFFERENT

CONCLUSION ON THE SECOND PHASE

BECAUSE THE PORT PRIORITY USE

ISSUE GIVEN THAT WE FOUND

CONSISTENCY OAT FIRST PHASE WITH

DIFFERENT CONSISTENCY — WITH

DIFFERENT DESIGNATION FOR THE

SITE?

>>SPEAKER: I CAN ADD A LITTLE

BIT TO THE CONVERSATION MICHAEL

NG G STAFF ATTORNEY. WE LOOK AT

WHETHER THE CONTINUED PLACEMENT

OR REMOVAL OF PORT PRIORITY USE

AREA DESIGNATION AT HOWARD

TERMINAL HAD ANY PARTICULAR

SIGNIFICANCE OR CONSEQUENCE WITH

THE RESPECT TO REALIZATION OF

OAKLAND TURNING BASIN PROJECT IF

WE PROCEED WE ANALYZED THAT AT

THE TIME OF THE BPA 2/19 WHEN

THAT DESIGN DESIGNATION WAS

REMOVED, AND I BELIEVE OUR VIEW

AT THAT TIME WHICH I THINK IS

STILL OUR VIEW IS THAT IT IS NOT

WHETHER IT’S THERE OR NOT IS NOT

A HINDRANCE TO THE REALIZATION

OF THE TURNING BASIN’S PROJECT I

THINK WHAT YOU’RE REFERRING TO

IS THE A.B. 1191 WHICH WAS THE

SPECIAL HOWARD TERMINAL BALLPARK

PROJECT THAT DOES HAVE THIS,

SORT OF, AUTOMATIC REVERSION

CLAUSE THAT IF THERE’S NO

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN

THE CITY AND THE AS BY 2025 THAT

THE DESIGNATION WILL BE

REINSTATED AS IF IT HAD NEVER

BEEN REMOVED BUT AGAIN WHETHER

IT’S THERE OR NOT GIVEN THE

PURPOSE OF WHAT THE PA

DESIGNATION IS FOR WHICH IS

MINIMIZE MITIGATE PRESSURE FOR

THE INCREASED FILL FOR PORT

PURPOSES I DON’T THINK THAT THIS

PROJECT IMPLICATES THAT POLICY

ISSUE.

>>BARRY NELSON: SECOND

QUESTION. ALAMEDA AND THE

SPEAKER FROM EARTH JUSTICE ON

BEHALF OF WEST OAKLAND

INDICATORS RAISED A NUMBER OF

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROJECT,

LAND USE, OPERATIONS

CONSISTENCY, WITH FEDERAL

POLICIES AND A NUMBER OF OTHER

THINGS. WE HAVE SOME OF THOSE

CONCERNS, SOME ARE OUTSIDE OUR

JURISDICTION, WE HAVE OUR OWN

EQUITY POLICIES THAT MAY OVERLAP

BUT ARE NOT THE SAME AS THE

FEDERAL POLICIES. I DON’T KNOW

IF BRENDA YOU’RE READY TO

DISCUSS THIS NOW OR SOMETHING

STAFF WANTS TO THINK ABOUT

PREPARING FOR THE STAFF

RECOMMENDATION. BUT I WOULD

LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THOSE

CONCERNS RAISED BY ALAMEDA AND

EARTH JUSTICE IN PARTICULAR,

OVERLAP WITH THE COMMISSION’S

POLICIES AND THEIR ISSUES THAT

WE SHOULD BE DISCUSSING AND

CONSIDERING IN MAKING THIS

DECISION OR WHETHER THEY’RE JUST

OUTSIDE OUR AUTHORITY AND

THEY’RE NOT GOING TO BE A PART

OF OUR CONSIDERATION OF THE

PROJECT?

>>BRENDA GOEDEN: I GUESS I

COULD MENTION THEM IN BRIEF.

SO, AS MICHAEL SPOKE TO OR

ACTING UNDER COASTAL MANAGEMENT

ACT, AND AROUND THAT ACT WE ARE

DIRECT TO LOOK AT THE EFFECTS TO

THE COASTAL ZONE, WHICH IN THIS

CASE IS SAN FRANCISCO BAY. AND

WE INVESTIGATED ACTUALLY VERY

THOROUGHLY OVER THE LAST TWO

YEARS WHETHER OR NOT AIR QUALITY

IMPACTS WERE SOMETHING THAT THE

COMMISSION COULD ADDRESS UNDER

CZMA, AND I THINK WE DETERMINED,

MICHAEL, STEVE, CORRECT ME IF I

AM WRONG, DETERMINED THAT WE DID

NOT HAVE NEXUS THAT THE AIR

QUALITY THAT ARMY CORP HAS TO BE

RESPONSIBLE TO THE FEDERAL CLEAN

AIR ACT AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT

THEY INCLUDE THAT INFORMATION AS

PART OF THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL

REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THIS

PROJECT. SO WE DON’T HAVE THAT

NEXUS. WHERE WE HAVE A BIT OF

NEXUS ON AIR QUALITY IN MY

HUMBLE OPINION, AND I’M WAITING

TO FIGURE OUT IF I’M RIGHT IS

THAT PARTICULATE MATTER FROM

EMISSIONS FROM TRUCKS AND SHIPS

ACTUALLY DO IMPACT WATER

QUALITY. AND SO WE’RE DO HAVE A

BRIEF REQUIREMENT LOOKING AT

TRUCK ENGINES FOR REDUCTION OF

PARTICULATE MATTER BECAUSE OF

THE CONNECTION TO WATER QUALITY.

IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION

WE’LL SEE IF YOU AGREE WITH THAT

CONSIDERATION. THE CORP IS

RESPONSIBLE TO THE FEDERAL LAWS.

WE ARE RESPONSIBLE TO CZMA. WE

DO NOT INVESTIGATE VESSEL

TRAFFIC OR REGULATE VESSEL

EMISSIONS WE DO NOT REGULATE

TRUCK TRAFFIC. WE DO NOT

REGULATE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT

BUT WE CAN MAKE REQUIREMENTS

AROUND IMPACTS TO WATER QUALITY,

FIDUCIARY AND WILDLIFE,

CONTAMINANT ISSUES. AND SO

WHETHER THERE IS A NEXUS TO

THOSE ITEMS PER THE POLICIES

THAT WE LAID OUT FOR YOU TODAY,

WE CAN MAKE REQUIREMENTS, BUT

WHERE WE DON’T HAVE POLICIES OR

AUTHORITY, WE DON’T — WE CANNOT

MAKE THOSE REQUIREMENTS. AND

REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

AS PHOENIX LAID OUT, THE WAY OUR

POLICIES ARE WRITTEN — AND I

THINK I’M FROZEN IN SOME

SCREENS, WE HAVE TO ENSURE THAT

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT IS APPROPRIATE

AND CULTURALLY RELEVANT. AND WE

CAN WORK WITH THE FEDERAL AND

LOCAL PROJECT SPONSOR TO

CONTINUE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND

TRY TO WORK HARDER TO MAKE IT,

ENSURE THAT THEY DO CULTURALLY

RELATIVE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND

THAT THEY WORK WITH THE

COMMUNITY TO IDENTIFY MITIGATION

MEASURES WHERE WE HAVE

AUTHORITY. AND, AGAIN, OUR

AUTHORITY IT LIMITED IN THAT

REGARD. AND THEN REGARDING MED

NEED LANDING, I THINK I

MENTIONED EARLIER THAT THE PORT

IS RESPONSIBLE FOR GETTING

PROPERTY RIGHTS AND IF THEY

CAN’T GET PROPERTY RIGHTS THEY

CANNOT GET A PERMIT FROM BCDC.

AND REGARDING THEIR CONCERNS

ABOUT PUBLIC ACCESS. CERTAINLY

THE ALAMEDA LANDING AREA IS AN

AREA THAT BCDC STAFF HAS

IDENTIFIED AND ALREADY TALKED TO

THE PORT AND CORP ABOUT A

POTENTIAL PUBLIC ACCESS AMENITY

AT THAT SITE BECAUSE THEY WILL

BE CHANGING THE CONFIGURATION

SITE VIA REMOVING SOME OF THE

WATERFRONT WHARF AND DEM OCEAN

PORTIONS OF THE TWO WAREHOUSES

WHICH SHOULD OPEN UP VIEWS AND

PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC

ACCESS. AND THEN WE HAVE ALSO

TALKED TO THEM ABOUT THE

POTENTIAL FOR IN LIEU PUBLIC

ACCESS NEARBY. AND POTENTIALLY

PROVIDING PUBLIC ACCESS TO AN EJ

OR DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTED

COMMUNITY, BECAUSE THAT ALSO

PART OF OUR PUBLIC ACCESS

POLICIES. I AM HOPING THAT’S

HELPFUL.

>>BARRY NELSON: YES. THAT’S

ALL OF THOSE THAT WILL BE

ADDRESSED IN THE STAFF

RECOMMENDATIONS WHEN IT COMES

BACK TO US.

>>BRENDA GOEDEN: YES.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

COMMISSIONER GILMORE?

>>MARIE GILMORE: THANK YOU,

CHAIR WASSERMAN.

I WANT THANK BARRY AND BRENDA

BECAUSE YOU ANSWERED QUESTIONS I

WAS ABOUT TO ASK. I WAS, SORT

OF, DISTURBED BY THE OPPOSING

ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS THEY

SEEM TO COME OUT AT EITHER ENDS

OF THE SPECTRUM. BUT THANKS TO

YOUR EXPLANATION, BRENDA I FEEL

BETTER ABOUT IT. I’M ASSUMING

THAT EVERYTHING THAT YOU JUST

DISCUSSED DOES NOT HAVE TO BE

DETERMINED BY THE 21st. WE’RE

GOING TO GET ADDITIONAL BITES AT

PUBLIC MEETINGS, ENVIRONMENTAL

JUSTICE AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS

THAT YOU JUST, SORT OF, LISTED

OFF AND EXPLAINED. RIGHT?

>>BRENDA GOEDEN: YEAH. THAT IS

THE PLAN. RIGHT NOW, I THINK WE

HAVE EIGHT OR NINE REQUIREMENTS,

WHICH ARE GENERAL, IN THE STAFF

RECOMMENDATION WHICH ADDRESS

THESE ISSUES THAT ARE

OUTSTANDING. PARTICULARLY THE

PUBLIC ACCESS ENGAGEMENT, I

THINK IS ONE THAT YOU WILL BE

HEARTENED TO SEE IN SOME

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE

CONTAMINANTS ASSOCIATED WITH

BOTH THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AND

THE DREDGING. AND I’M NOT

REMEMBERING THE REST OF THEM OFF

THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT, YOU

KNOW, THE SILT CURTAINS AND THE

PROTECTIONS FOR THE FISH AND

WILDLIFE AND WATER QUALITY.

>>MARIE GILMORE: OKAY. AND SO

AS WE, ASSUMING THIS PROJECT

MOVES FORWARD, WE WILL — AND WE

FIND OUT MORE ABOUT EXACTLY

WHAT’S BEING PROPOSED, WE CAN

ADD ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OR

TIGHT END UP CERTAIN CONDITIONS.

SO WE’RE LOOKING AT THIS WHOLE

PROJECT ABOUT THE 300 FOOT

LEVEL, AND AS TIME GOES BY WE’RE

GETTING CLOSER AND CLOSER TO

GROUND LEVEL KIND OF THE WAY I

LOOK AT IT.

>>BRENDA GOEDEN: YES.

>>MARIE GILMORE: THANK YOU VERY

MUCH.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY

OTHER QUESTIONS FROM

COMMISSIONERS? I WOULD HAVE

EXPECTED TO YOU HAVE A LOT.

I JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF QUICK

ONES.

I HAVE A LITTLE FAMILIARITY WITH

DREDGING IN THE OAKLAND ESTUARY.

I HAVE BEEN WORKING ON IT SINCE

1978. I, IN PARTICULAR,

REMEMBER A HELICOPTER RIDE WITH

MAYOR LIONEL WILSON AND

CONGRESSMAN RON DELLUMS WHEN WE

WERE FIGHTING FOR FUNDS TO

DREDGE TO THINK IT WAS 38 FEET,

AND THERE WERE MANY PEOPLE WHO

DID NOT BELIEVE THAT WAS

NECESSARY THAT THESE BIG SHIPS

THAT EVERYBODY WAS TALKING ABOUT

WERE SIMPLY NOT ACKNOWLEDGE,

THEY WERE PIE IN THE SKY. OR I

GUESS, IN THE WATER. CLEARLY

THEY ARE INCREASE THEY CAME,

THEY ARE INCREASING IN SIZE.

AND I DO THINK THAT SOME

ADDITIONAL ATTENTION — NOT BY

THE 21st; I’LL ADDRESS IN THAT

MOMENT — BUT AS THIS COMES BACK

TO US IN THE FUTURE ITERATIONS

THAT NEEDS SOME MORE FACTS AND

ATTENTION, AS VICE CHAIR EISEN

INDICATED. I ALSO THINK, AS WE

MOVE FORWARD, WE NEED AS A

COMMISSION TO BE VERY CAREFUL

AND THOUGHTFUL — AND MICHAEL

TOOK US THROUGH A LONG TUTORIAL

EARLIER THIS AFTERNOON, BUT IT

WAS APPROPRIATE, BECAUSE WE HAVE

NOT DONE THIS IN A WHILE, AND

THERE ARE NEW COMMISSIONERS. WE

HAVE GOT FAIRLY LIMITED

JURISDICTION IN A LOT OF THESE

THINGS AND IT’S NOT THAT WE

SHOULDN’T VOICE OUR CONCERNS,

BUT WHEN IT COMES TO DIRECTOR

STAFF AND VOIDING AND VOTING, WE

NEED TO RECOGNIZE THAT AND HERE

WE DO IN TERMS OF RECOMMENDING

OR NOT CONFORMANCE IS QUITE

DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE CAN DO

AND SHOULD DO WHEN IT COMES

BUDGET US FOR A PERMIT AND I

THINK UNDERSTANDING THOSE

DIFFERENCES BUT I WANT TO BE

CLEAR THAT IT’S AN ONGOING

PROCESS AND THAT MEANS THAT THE

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND IN

PARTICULAR THE OUTREACH TO EJ

THAT’S PART OF OUR POLICY

ONGOING PROCESS I’M NOT SAYING

ANYBODY HAS SUGGESTED THAT BUT

THE DIALOGUE IS NOT OVER IT WILL

CONTINUE AS THIS PROJECT GETS

FLESHED OUT AND MORE DETAILS

EMERGE. COMMISSIONER ECKLUND

HAS HER HAND UP.

>>PAT EKLUND: I’M SORRY FOR A

SECOND BITE AT THE APPLE. BUT

YOU TRIGGERED ME TO ASK A

QUESTION. IS THERE A

POSSIBILITY WE COULD GET A

ROADMAP OF WHERE BCDC IS GOING

TO HAVE INPUT ON THIS ISSUE

FIDUCIARY THE NEXT 5, 6 YEARS,

OR WHATEVER? JUST SO WE HAVE A

BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE WE

MIGHT BE ABLE TO BRING DIFFERENT

ISSUES?

THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I

AGREE. THAT’S A VERY GOOD

SUGGESTION.

>>SPEAKER: WE CAN BRING THAT TO

THE NEXT MEETING ON.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ON

THIS WILL COME BACK ON THE 21st

FOR A VOTE ON THE CONFORMANCE

ISSUE FOR THE FIRST PHASE. AND

WITH THAT, I WOULD ENTERTAIN —

I’M SORRY. YOU WANT A LAST

WORD. SURE.

>>SPEAKER: YES. I DID. THANK

YOU SO MUCH. THROUGH THE CHAIR,

WE WANTED TO ADD A COUPLE OF

THINGS FOR THE RECORD, AND ONE

IS GOING TO BE RELATED TO

ELECTRIC DREDGING, AND SINCE THE

PORT IS PAYING FOR THAT 100%,

I’M GOING TO ASK JUSTIN TO COME

UP HERE IN A MINUTE. WE WILL

PROVIDE RESPONSES TO ALL THE

QUESTIONS WE HEARD TODAY TO

BRENDA FOR HER STAFF, TO MAKE IT

EASIER FOR HER STAFF REPORT. TO

ALL THE QUESTIONS WE HEARD TODAY

IT’S NOTHING NEW IT’S ALL IN THE

REPORT AND WE’LL POINT TO WHERE

THEY CAN BE FOUND. SPECIFICALLY

FOR COMMISSIONER EISEN, THE

ECONOMIC APPENDIX HAS REALLY

GOOD INFORMATION. THERE IS AN

ECONOMIC MODEL WE CALL THE

HARBOR SIM MODEL THAT’S USED TO

DETERMINE, LOOK AT PROJECTIONS,

CONSEQUENCES, A FUTURE WITHOUT

THE PROJECT. SO THAT IS A

REALLY GOOD DOCUMENT. AND WE’LL

ALSO PROVIDE SLIDES THAT WILL

HAVE CORRECTIONS IN THERE TO

MAKE IT CLARIFY.

AND I THINK THIS’S ALL I HAVE.

SO, WE WILL PROVIDE

CLARIFICATION DIRECTLY TO BRENDA

AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. AND ONE

LAST THING. ELECTRIC DREDGING

AND BENEFICIAL USE THAT WAS NOT

REQUIRED IS MITIGATION, THIS IS

THE FIRST TIME A CORP OF

ENGINEERS PROJECT HAS SUBMITTED

TO HEADQUARTERS A REQUEST TO

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY

TO COST SHARE THAT WITHOUT BEING

REQUIRED TO DO IT. THIS IS

CALLED COMPREHENSIVE BENEFITS.

IT’S A NEW POLICY. WE WERE THE

FIRST TO DO THAT, FROM WHAT I

UNDERSTAND.

SO, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. WE

REALLY APPRECIATE IT. JUSTIN?

>>SPEAKER: JUSTIN. PORT OF

OAKLAND. DIDN’T WANT TO LEAVE

THAT HANGING. ELECTRIC

DREDGING, THE INFRASTRUCTURE

PROPOSED TO BE INSTALLED

PURSUANT TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

IS DISCRETE AND SPECIALIZED FOR

THE ELECTRIC DREDGERS. BUT REST

ASSURED THAT THE ELECTRICAL

POWER THAT WOULD BE MADE

AVAILABLE FOR THOSE UNITS DURING

CONSTRUCTION WOULD CERTAINLY BE

VALUABLE AS WE ALL STRIVE AND

MOVE FORWARD TO DECARBONIZE THE

PORTS. SO THE DEMANDS FOR

ELECTRICITY WILL ONLY INCREASE

OVER TIME AND REST ASSURED THAT

POWER THAT WILL BE MADE

AVAILABLE FOR THIS PROJECT WILL

BE UTILIZED FOR OTHER THINGS IN

THE FUTURE. THANK YOU.

>>CHAIR, ZACHARY WASSERMAN:

THAT TRIGGERED IN ME TWO QUICK

THINGS. ONE, THANK YOU FOR

EMPHASIZING THE IMPORTANCE IN

PIONEERING EFFORT OF THE

BENEFICIAL REUSE IN THIS

PROJECT. IT IS SOMETHING THIS

COMMISSION HAS CERTAINLY BEEN

STRIVING FOR SOMETIME, AND WE

ARE VERY HAPPY TO HAVE THE CORP

FULLY ON BOARD FOR THIS.

SECOND, WELL, IT MAY OR MAY NOT

BE DIRECTLY RELATED TO THIS

PROJECT — CERTAINLY RELATED TO

CONCERNS, THE PORT OF OAKLAND IS

UNDERTAKING A VERY MAJOR PROJECT

TO REDUCE EMISSIONS, BOTH IN THE

MODERATELY SHORT-TERM AND IN THE

LONGER TERM, REALLY WITH A

ZERO-EMISSION EMPHASIS TO WHICH

POINT THEY HAVE REDESIGNED THEIR

PORT LOGO TO EMPHASIZE THAT.

SO, THIS IS NOT — THE WORDS

THAT HAVE BEEN HEARD HERE BEFORE

ARE BEING LISTENED TO. I THANK

YOU VERY MUCH. I WILL ENTERTAIN

A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

COMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS

MOVES TO ADJOURN. COMMISSIONER

ADDIEGO SECONDS. SEEING NO

OPPOSITION THIS MEETING

ADJOURNS. WE’LL SEE OUT 21st

ENJOY HANUKKAH, ENJOY YOUR TIME.

BE SAFE.

[ADJOURNED]

Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act

As a state agency, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting.

How to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits

Pursuant to state law, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically, (2) all teleconference locations, which will be publicly-accessible, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting.

If you plan to participate through ZOOM, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above, which will be distributed to the Commission members.

Questions and Staff Reports

If you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda, would like to receive notice of future hearings, or access staff reports related to the item, please contact the staff member whose name, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item.

Campaign Contributions

State law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year, and if so, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest.

Access to Meetings

Meetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities, as well.