BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//SF Bay Conservation & Development - ECPv6.17.4.1//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:SF Bay Conservation & Development
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for SF Bay Conservation & Development
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:UTC
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:UTC
DTSTART:20220101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240919T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240919T170000
DTSTAMP:20240903T210655Z
CREATED:20240127T064527Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240903T210655Z
UID:10000106-1726750800-1726765200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:September 19\, 2024 Commission Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/september-19-2024-commission-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240905T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240905T170000
DTSTAMP:20250227T233528Z
CREATED:20240127T064353Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250227T233528Z
UID:10000105-1725541200-1725555600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:September 5\, 2024 Commission Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Commissioners are located at the primary physical location and may be located at the teleconference locations specified below\, all of which are publicly accessible. The Zoom video conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually are also specified below. \nPhysical locationMetro Center375 Beale Street\, Board RoomSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nTeleconference locations \n\n1028 Howard St.\, San Francisco\, CA\n100 Howe Ave.\, Ste. 100\, South Sacramento\, CA 95825\n675 Texas St.\, Ste. 6002\, Fairfield\, CA 94533\nCounty Executive Office: 1195 Third St.\, 3rd Fl\, Napa\, CA 94559\nCaltrans Building District 4: 111 Grand Ave.\, 15th Fl\, Oakland\, CA 94612\nOffice of Supervisor John Gioia: 11780 San Pablo Ave.\, Ste. D\, El Cerrito\, CA 94530 (510) 942-2220\nMountain View City Hall Council Chambers: 500 Castro St.\, Mountain View\, CA 94041\n2379 Sheffield Dr.\, Livermore\, CA 94550\n70 W. Hedding St.\,10th Fl. Conf. Rm.\, San Jose\, CA 95110\n\nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/88956081193?pwd=Qi1H2dbQmezNQfP8acMCZU8u25rnSb.1 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID889 5608 1193 \nPasscode794788 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic 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.(Sierra Peterson) [415/352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nConsent Calendar\n\nApproval of Minutes for the August 15\, 2024 Meeting(Sierra Peterson) [415/352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\n\n\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3611; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing on the Draft Environmental Assessment for the Cargill\, Inc. Solar Salt System Maintenance and Operations Activities Project (BCDC Permit Application 2021.003.00)The Commission will hold a public hearing on the Draft Environmental Assessment to accompany the permit application by Cargill\, Inc. to continue existing its operations and maintenance (O&M) activities\, as well as implement limited new O&M activities\, for their Solar Salt System facilities in Alameda and San Mateo Counties\, primarily in the cities of Newark\, Fremont\, and Redwood City. The Solar Salt System is subject to BCDC jurisdictions in the Bay\, in the 100-foot Shoreline Band\, and in Salt Ponds.(Sam Fielding) [415-352-3665; sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation // Cargill’s presentation\nCommission Consideration and Possible Vote to Approve BCDC’s 2023 Annual ReportThe Commission will consider and possibly vote to approve the 2023 BCDC Annual Report.(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3652; larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing on Enforcement and Compliance ProgramsIn a joint presentation\, the Commission will receive a semi-annual progress report on the Enforcement Program’s activities during the first six months of 2024\, and a briefing on the work performed by BCDC’s Compliance Unit\, including how BCDC has brought into compliance non-compliant permittees.(Greg Scharff) [415/ 352-3655; greg.scharff@bcdc.ca.gov](John Creech) [415/352-3619; john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov]Compliance presentation // Presentation \nBriefing on Environmental Justice Advisors Program Organizational Development ContractThe Commission will receive a briefing on the results of the Organizational Development Assessment of the Environmental Justice Advisors program conducted by MIG and Benchmarq Consulting. Sr. Manager for Climate Equity and Community Engagement Phoenix Armenta will present the findings from the final report and outline the next steps(Phoenix Armenta) [415/352-3604; phoenix.armenta@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation // EJ Advisors Organizational Development Analysis Final Report  \nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				This report lists the administrative permit applications that have been filed and are pending with the Commission. The Executive Director will take the action indicated on the matters unless the Commission determines that it is necessary to hold a public hearing. The staff members to whom the matters have been assigned are indicated at the end of the project descriptions. Inquiries should be directed to the assigned staff member prior to the Commission meeting. \nAdministrative Permit Applications \n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nSausalito Evergreen SPE\, LLC973 Avenida Encinas\, Suite 300Carlsbad\, CA 92008 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.031.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\n08/03/2024\n\n\n90 Day\n11/03/2024\n\n\nLocation\nIn the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot Shoreline Band jurisdictions at 215 Main Street. in the City of Sausalito\, Marin County.\n\n\nDescription\n\nRenovate and repair an existing multi-family residential structure\, including the following activities.In the Bay \n\nRemove existing 36-inch-high wood guardrails on existing balconies and replace with new 42-inch-high guardrails\, and refinish approximately 1\,100 square feet of existing balcony surfaces.\nRepair roof and gutters on existing roof overhangs as needed.\nTemporarily install structure-supported scaffolding\, construction mesh\, and debris catchment system in an approximately 530 square feet footprint.\n\nIn the Shoreline Band \n\nRemove existing 36-inch-high painted wood guardrails from existing exterior walkways and replace them with 42-inch-high wood guardrails\, and refinish approximately 4\,990 square feet of existing exterior walkway and stair surfaces.\nRepair roof and gutters on existing roof as needed and install four new skylights.\nConstruct an approximately 813-square-foot portion of an expanded rooftop terrace.\nImprove the exterior courtyard\, involving removal of the existing 130-square-foot enclosed pool equipment building and replacement with a new 194-square-foot open pool cabana; removal of an approximately 2\,342-square-foot concrete area and replacement with planting beds\, concrete pavers\, and wood decking; construction of an approximately 49-square-foot pool equipment area; repair of non-structural wooden posts; and installation of approximately 162 linear feet of 5-foot-high wooden pool deck guardrails.\nImprove the southern side yard by replacing existing wood steps and retaining walls\, concrete slabs\, and metal storage shed with new timber steps\, new ground cover\, and new wood deck landings; installing a new foot washing station; and replacing two existing wood fences and gates with two new wood fences and gates\, approximately 6-foot high and 5-feet wide.\nInstall landscaping improvements\, including rebuilding an existing concrete planter on the Main Street frontage (north side of property).\nReconfigure the existing stormwater drainage to comply with Marin County’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program.\nConduct interior renovations of existing apartment units.Note: A portion of the project on the Main Street frontage will take place within the City of Sausalito right-of-way and will require an encroachment permit from the City that has not yet been received. City Council approval of the encroachment permit was expected on July 30\, 2024\, but the item was pushed from the agenda due to time constraints. City of Sausalito staff has attested that the permit is likely to be approved and that the BCDC application could be filed pending the City Council resolution. The BCDC permit shall be conditioned to require that the final encroachment permit be submitted to BCDC prior to commencement of work on City of Sausalito property.\n\n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Alyssa Plese; 415/352-3600 or alyssa.plese@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\n\nApplicants\n\n\nDW Burlingame I Owner\, LLCDW Burlingame II Owner\, LLCDW Burlingame III Owner\, LLC301 Howard Street\, Suite 2100San Francisco\, CA 94105\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2024.005.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\n08/23/2024\n\n\n90 Day\n111/21/2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Commission’s 100-foot shoreline band jurisdiction\, at1200-1340 Old Bayshore Highway\, in the City of Burlingame\, San Mateo County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nConduct demolition and site preparation activities\, involving. \n\nIn the Bay\n\nDemolish and remove existing pavement and landscaping over approximately 0.033 acres of previously filled area.\nGrade\, excavate\, and surcharge approximately 0.033 acres of previously filled area to elevations between 9 and 18 feet NAVD88 from existing elevations of between 9 and 12 feet NAVD88. Surcharging will involve placement of approximately 395 cubic yards of cellcrete or similar foamed concrete lightweight fill over 1\,215 square feet of the fill area\, and approximately 50 cubic yards of imported soils.\nPlace approximately 330 linear feet of 2-foot-tall silt fence with straw wattle fiber roll temporary protection barrier along the muted tidal wetland for the duration of site preparation activities.\nInstall approximately 20 linear feet of six-foot-tall chain link construction fencing with screening fabric along the perimeter of the project site for the duration of site preparation activities.\n\n\nWithin the 100-foot shoreline band\n\nDemolish and remove existing commercial and hotel structures\, pavement\, and landscaping over approximately 2.94 acres.\nShoring\, Excavation\, Dewatering\n\nExcavate approximately 9\,560 square feet of the total 48\,800-square-foot footprint of the Center Building to a depth of approximately 11 feet below elevation 11.5 feet NAVD88. Stabilize excavated area with temporary shoring and permanent Mass Soil Mixing (MSM) of in-situ soil with cement grout slurry without soldier beams or tiebacks\, dewater excavated areas\, and treat water before discharging to existing drainage systems.\nExcavate approximately 315 square feet of the total 53\,400-square-foot footprint of the proposed future South Parking Structure site to a depth of approximately 27 feet below elevation 11.4 NAVD88. Stabilize excavated area with temporary shoring and permanent Cutter Soil Mix (CSM) walls approximately 36” wide with steel soldier beams\, dewater excavated areas\, and treat water before discharging to existing drainage systems.\n\n\nGrade and surcharge approximately 2.94 acres of land to elevations between 13 and 26 feet NAVD88 from existing elevations between 8 and 12\, involving the placement of imported soils and cellcrete or similar foamed lightweight fill.The lightweight fill will be used over an approximately19\,176-square-foot area.\nStitch PiersAuger-cast rows made up of approximately 282 total 16-inch diameter sand/cement stitch piers spaced 5 to 7 feet apart along the eastern side of the site and on either side of Easton Creek to depths of approximately -21 feet NAVD88.\nConstruction Staging Utilize an approximately 162\,000-square-foot area north of Easton Creek and an approximately 49\,000-square-foot area north of the muted tidal wetland for construction staging and temporary stockpiling of excavated material.\nProtection Barriers\n\nPlace approximately 950 linear feet of 2-foot-tall silt fence with straw wattle fiber roll temporary protection barrier along both sides of Easton Creek for the duration of site preparation activities.\nPlace approximately 950 linear feet of 4-foot-tall temporary concrete block protection barrier along both sides of Easton Creek for the duration of site preparation activities.\nPlace approximately 320 linear feet of 2-foot-tall silt fence with straw wattle fiber roll temporary protection barrier along the muted tidal wetland for the duration of site preparation activities.\nInstall approximately 2\,930 linear feet of six-foot-tall chain link construction fencing with screening fabric along the perimeter of the project site for the duration of site preparation activities.\n\n\nShoreline Protection\n\nPlace approximately 80 cubic yards of riprap over an approximately 570-square-foot area on the north bank of the muted tidal wetland.\nConstruct a cobble berm over an approximately1\,750-square-foot area on the south bank of the muted tidal wetland consisting of approximately 190 cubic yards of rounded 4-inch by 8-inch cobble at a thickness of approximately 24 inches\, and cover with 18-inch-thick landscaping layer.\n\n\nPublic Access ImprovementsConstruct an approximately 0.27-acre public access area\, including an approximately 1\,228-square-foot amphitheater seating area; approximately 25 linear feet of 10-foot-wide sidewalk; approximately 125 linear feet of 20-foot-wide sidewalk; approximately 1\,348 square feet of pavement; and approximately 8\,680 square feet of landscaping (to replace 150 linear feet of10-foot-wide sidewalk and a 114-linear-foot and 12-foot-wide Bay Trail segment).\nStormwater Infrastructure\n\nConstruct a 997-square-foot bioretention area lined with an impermeable HDPE liner and containing a permeable rock layer\, biotreatment soil mix layer\, and planting.\nConstruct associated storm drain infrastructure\, including approximately 340 linear feet of storm drain pipe\, 50 feet of 4-inch slotted drain pipe\, four overflow inlets\, two cleanouts\, one catch basin\, three approximately 4-square-foot riprap aprons\, and one manhole.\n\n\n\n\n\nNote: The activities described above are part of a demolition and site-preparation project covering a total 12.5-acre project site\, with only approximately 3 acres taking place within the Commission’s jurisdiction. The applicants are the project proponents for the Peninsula Crossing project\, a proposed biotechnology and office project for which a future BCDC major permit application is anticipated. The Peninsula Crossing project has received local discretionary approvals\, including certification of an Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act\, and is currently undergoing permitting with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for proposed work along Easton Creek. \nAs part of the Peninsula Crossing project\, the applicants plan to raise site elevations to account for potential sea level rise impacts\, which will require time for the site to settle before construction could begin. The applicants are seeking authorization for demolition and site preparation activities in advance of the major permit application in order to reduce the overall amount of time between future permit approvals (if received) and completion of the project\, including a number of public access improvements. The work associated with Application No. M2024.005.00 will result in the demolition of all existing site features\, excavations at the sites of the buildings proposed in the Peninsula Crossing project\, and the placement of lightweight fill and imported soils to raise site elevations. It will also create an expanded public access area adjacent to and replacing a portion of an existing Bay Trail segment. If a permit for this work is issued prior to Commission’s consideration of a major permit for the Peninsula Crossing project\, it would not preclude the Commission’s ability to seek changes to\, condition\, or deny the future major permit application\, including with respect to required maximum feasible public access\, associated with the project. \n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Katharine Pan; 415/352-3650 or katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nEdward Dudensing224 Sea Cliff AvenueSan Francisco\, CA 94121 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2024.011.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\n08/13/2024\n\n\n90 Day\n11/11/2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Commission’s 100-foot shoreline band jurisdiction\, at 224 Sea Cliff Avenue\, in the City and County of San Francisco. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nRemove to the greatest extent possible the existing unpermitted concrete staircases\, retaining walls\, and landings\, including. \n\nDemolition by hand of all concrete structures other than those deemed by on-site geotechnical engineers\, geologists\,and structural engineers to be essential for cliff stability.\nReplacement in-kind of existing approximately 223-square-foot shotcrete soil protection between lower and upper patios.\nPlacing a new 8-by-10-foot wire mesh netting and 15-foot-long rock bolts or shotcrete as needed on cliff face near lower stairs to stabilize the rock\, as deemed by on-site geotechnical engineers\, geologists\, and structural engineers to be essential for cliff stability.\nPlace new concrete support wall measuring approximately 6 feet by 10 feet between existing pier and cliff face at concrete outcropping above lower stairs.\nAuthorize the following structures to remain for cliff stability (following removal of paint and hard edges):\n\nConcrete retaining walls and buttresses constructed before 2002\, including:\n\nSeven approximately 8-foot-high buttresses\, measuring 12”x6’8”\, 15”x5’\, 19”x5’6”\, 21”x11’4”\, 11”x2’\, 14”x3’3”\, and 16”x14’3”.\nTwo approximately 4-foot-high retaining walls\, measuring 27’x8’7” and 16’5”x3’7”.\n\n\nTwo approximately 6-inch-deep concrete landings constructed after 2002\, each measuring approximately 17’12”\, 6’8” and 10’3”x8’7”.\nThe base of the a stairway segment measuring approximately 14’9”x6’11”.\n\n\nAuthorize the following ancillary structures to remain:\n\nAn approximately 288-square-foot concrete lower patio.\nAn approximately 90-square-foot concrete staircase between the upper and lower patio.\nAn approximately 100-square-foot portion of the 172-square-foot concrete promenade attached to the lower patio\, following removal of approximately 24 square feet of the existing promenade and 19 feet of the existing eastern wall of the promenade.\n\n\nConstruct a new 3-foot-long and 3.5-foot tall barrier wall on the promenade.\n\nNote: This project is related to BCDC Enforcement Case ER2004.019.00. The project site includes a private parcel\, a parcel owned by the City and County of San Francisco\, and land leased from the State Lands Commission. The project will remove the majority of an unpermitted staircase and related concrete structures from the Commission’s jurisdiction. Some structures have been deemed necessary to remain in place to maintain stability of the cliffside and will be authorized for the minimum amount necessary\, to be determined by on-site geotechnical engineers\, geologists\, and structural engineers\, and approved by BCDC engineering staff. On private property\, some ancillary structures will also be authorized to remain. The portion of the project taking place on land owned by the City and County of San Francisco will require a permit from the San Francisco Department of Real Estate to allow the applicant to conduct work on public property\, which has not yet been received. The BCDC permit will be conditioned to require submission of the Department of Real Estate permit prior to commencing work on public property. The permit will also include conditions to ensure that any remaining structures are as physically and visually unobtrusive as possible. \n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Katharine Pan; 415/352-3650 or katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nTown of Tiburon1505 Tiburon BlvdTiburon\, CA 94920 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.024.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\n08/01/2024\n\n\n90 Day\n10/30/2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Commission’s Bay and Shoreline Band jurisdictions\, at the junction of Main Street and Beach Road\, Tiburon\, in Marin County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nConduct repairs to the Tiburon Main Street Bridge to protect against further deterioration. Approximately 650 square feet of spalled concrete and corroded rebar will be removed and replaced and 7-foot-tall by 65-foot-long vertical steel trench plates embedded approximately four feet into the ground will be installed on the Bridge’s landward side to protect against scour caused by future wave run up. Existing riprap at the toe of the bridge will also be temporarily removed and replaced following construction. The project will be conditioned to minimize impacts to Bay resources and to public access in the area during construction\, including all work to occur at the lowest tide during dry conditions\, use of debris mats\, and restoring all disturbed areas to pre-project conditions. During construction\, the southbound lane on Main Street will be closed for approximately four weeks and traffic will be controlled on the single open lane using flaggers and signage. \n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Sam Fielding; 415/352-3665 or sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nSan Mateo County Parks Department455 County Center\, 4th floorRedwood City\, CA 94063 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2014.015.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\n08/22/2024\n\n\n90 Day\n11/20/2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Commission’s 100-foot shoreline band jurisdiction\, at the Coyote Point Recreation Area at 1701 Coyote Point Drive\, in the City of San Mateo\, San Mateo County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nConduct the following activities to repair a mudslide: \n\nSite preparation and demolition:\n\nRemove an existing walkway and re-grade to a 10-foot-wide pathway with an approximately 1.8-percent slope.\nGrub and re-grade an approximately 210-square-foot landscaped area between the walkway and the retaining wall to an approximately 5-percent slope for approximately 8 to 10 feet.The pre-existing tree on site will be maintained and protected during construction.\n\n\nConstruction\, repairs\, and installations:\n\nConstruct approximately 80 linear feet (80 square feet) of steel soldier pile and concrete lagging retaining wall that will range from approximately 3 to 10 feet in height.\nRepair an approximately 410-square-foot damaged segment of paved pedestrian walkway.\nRe-landscape an approximately 210-square-foot landscaped area.\nPlace approximately 3\,800 square feet of erosion control fabric down-slope of the retaining wall.\nPlace approximately 80 linear feet of cable fencing between the walkway and the retaining wall.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Pierce Abrahamson\, Coastal Program Analyst; pierce.abrahamson@bcdc.ca.gov\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nDepartment of Water Resources715 P Street\, 6th FloorSacramento\, CA 95814 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2024.020.00md \n\n\n\nFiled\n08/20/2024\n\n\n90 Day\n11/29/2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Commission’s Managed Wetland and Bay jurisdictions\, at Property 631 Meins Landing on Montezuma Slough\, 5404 Birds Landing Road\, Birds Landing\, in Solano County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nInstall 825 linear feet of 20-foot-long steel sheet pile bulkhead walls to stabilize 24 exterior levee erosion sites of a managed wetland along Montezuma Slough (representing approximately 5.2% of the site’s full exterior levee). The work will be completed over two seasons: During the 2024 work season\, 553 linear feet of steel sheet pile bulkhead walls will be installed\, and 272 feet during the 2025 work season. The new sheet pile walls will be backfilled with approximately 1\,100 cubic yards of native material from the adjacent managed wetlands and cattail and tule root stock will be planted. The project will result in approximately 206.25 square feet of new fill within a managed wetland of the primary management area. The project will be conditioned to ensure the protection of tidal marsh habitat and Bay resources\, including construction to occur during low tides to minimize in-water work\, adhering to the environmental work window\, and only accessing project sites from land. There are no existing public access requirements in the vicinity\, and no new improvements are proposed as part of this project. \n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Sam Fielding; 415/352-3665 or sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\nEmergency permitsThe Executive Director has issued the following emergency permit since the last listing. \n\nApplicant\n\n\nCity of San Leandro835 E. 14th StreetSan Leandro\, CA 94577\n\nEmergency Permit No. E2024.003.00 \n\n\n\nLocation\nWithin the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot shoreline band jurisdictions\, at the San Leandro Marina\, at 40 Mulford Point\, in the City of San Leandro\, Alameda County.\n\n\nDescription\n\nThe project involved demolition of the former Harbor Master’s Office\, a pile-supported structure at the San Leandro Marina\, which was damaged by a fire on December 27\, 2023. Demolition included removal of the burnt building structure\, the decking\, and the suspended gangway. The burned top portions of the deck piles will be removed\, but the undamaged portions of the deck piles will remain in place for removal at a later date as part of a separate project. Work was conducted from barges and involved use of a containment boom placed around the deck structure to catch any falling debris. The emergency authorization included requirements to follow best management practices to limit potential impacts to Bay resources. The work was authorized through the emergency permitting process on June 14\, 2024\, and work completed on June 20\, 2024. \nKatharine Pan; 415/352-3650 or katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Meeting Minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Video recording\n				\nVideo recording \n \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs 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. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant 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. \nIf 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. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf 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. \nCampaign Contributions\nState 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. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings 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.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/september-5-2024-commission-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240815T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240815T170000
DTSTAMP:20250227T224347Z
CREATED:20240119T041656Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250227T224347Z
UID:10000103-1723726800-1723741200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:August 15\, 2024 Commission Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Commissioners are located at the primary physical location and may be located at the teleconference locations specified below\, all of which are publicly accessible. The Zoom video-conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually is also specified below. \nPrimary Physical Location \nMetro Center375 Beale Street\, 1st Floor Board RoomSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nTeleconference Locations \n\nSonoma County Administration Building: 575 Administration Dr.\, Rm 100A\, Santa Rosa\, CA 95403\n100 Howe Ave.\, Ste. 100\, South Sacramento\, CA 95825\n890 Osos St.\, Ste. H\, San Luis Obispo\, CA 93401\n675 Texas St.\, Ste. 6002\, Fairfield\, CA 94533\nCounty Executive Office: 1195 Third St.\, 3rd Fl\, Napa\, CA 94559\nCaltrans Building District 4: 111 Grand Ave.\, 15th Fl\, Oakland\, CA 94612\nOffice of Supervisor John Gioia: 11780 San Pablo Ave.\, Ste. D\, El Cerrito\, CA 94530 (510) 942-2220\n197 Palmer Ave.\, Falmouth\, MA 02540\n2379 Sheffield Dr.\, Livermore\, CA 94550\nSanta Clara Valley Transportation Authority: 3331 N First St.\, Conf. Rm B104\, San Jose\, CA 95134\n\nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/83520660896?pwd=Vfq5ejQeIC51ZaVwSr0U1hJBLcBB4I.1 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID835 2066 0896 \nPasscode794788 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Agenda\n				\n Call to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic 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.(Sierra Peterson) [415/352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\n Report of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nConsent Calendar\n\nApproval of Minutes for June 20\, 2024 Meeting(Sierra Peterson) [415/352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\nResolution of Appreciation and Gratitude – William (Bill) Holmes\, Retired Engineering Criteria Review Board MemberThe Commission\, through this resolution\, recognizes the contribution of Board member and structural engineer Bill Holmes\, who recently retired from the Engineering Criteria Review Board after ten years of service.(Jenn Hyman) [415/352-3670; jennifer.hyman@bcdc.ca.gov]\nStaff Recommendation: ECRB Membership Appointment and Promotion of Alternate to the BoardFollowing the retirement of Board member and structural engineer Bill Holmes\, the promotion of structural engineer Patrick Ryan from alternate to the Board is proposed as well as the appointment of structural engineer Bill Tremayne to the alternate seat vacated by the promotion of Patrick Ryan.(Jenn Hyman) [415/352-3670; jennifer.hyman@bcdc.ca.gov]\n\n\n Commission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3611; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing and Possible Vote to Initiate Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan Bay Plan Amendment (BPA No. 1-24)The Commission will conduct a public hearing and possibly vote to authorize BCDC staff to initiate Proposed Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-24\, to update the San Francisco Bay Plan by establishing guidelines for the preparation of local subregional Sea Level Rise Plans pursuant to Senate Bill 272 (Laird\, 2023) and by updating and clarifying the Bay Plan’s climate change policies.(Cory Mann) [415/352-3649; cory.mann@bcdc.ca.gov]Public comment // Presentation\nBCDC Intern PresentationsBCDC’s five summer undergraduate interns will present to the Commission a summary of their internship accomplishments\, along with recommendations for BCDC’s internship program.(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3653; larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov]\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				This report lists the administrative permit applications that have been filed and are pending with the Commission. The Executive Director will take the action indicated on the matters unless the Commission determines that it is necessary to hold a public hearing. The staff members to whom the matters have been assigned are indicated at the end of the project descriptions. Inquiries should be directed to the assigned staff member prior to the Commission meeting. \nAdministrative Permit Applications \n\nApplicants\n\n\n\nCalifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife – Bay Delta Region2825 Cordelia Road #100Fairfield\, CA 94534 \n\n\nBCDC Marsh Development Permit Application No. M2024.016.00md\n\n\nFiled\n07/31/2024\n\n\n90th Day\n10/29/2024\n\n\nLocation\nWithin the Commission’s Bay\, 100-foot shoreline band and managed wetland jurisdictions and within the Suisun Marsh Primary Management Area.\n\n\nDescription\nConduct in-kind repair and maintenance along 11\,420 linear feet of exterior levees by placing sediment dredged from adjacent sloughs\, along the levee crown and backslope in seven locations of Joice Island State Game Refuge. The sediment used for the levee maintenance would be mechanically dredged and consists of: (1) 7\,233 cubic yards (cy) of sediment from three locations within the Suisun Marsh Habitat Management\, Preservation and Restoration Plan’s Region 2 “major slough;” and (2) 16\,454 cy of sediment from four “major slough” locations within Montezuma Slough; altogether totaling 23\,687 cy of dredged sediment from approximately 6.14 acres of tidal sloughs adjacent to Joice Island.\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Pascale Soumoy\, Environmental Scientist; 415/352-3660 or pascale.soumoy@bcdc.ca.gov\n\n\n\nApplicants\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSteve ChappellLower Joice Island(Club #424)Suisun ResourceConservation District2544 Grizzly Island RoadSuisun City\, CA 94585 \n\n\nChris BessetteIsland Club(Club # 501)201 E. Wing TerraceSan Francisco\, CA 94118 \n\n\nDonnie ReeveGrizzly Club(Club #502)24961 North Bank RoadAcampo\, CA 95220 \n\n\n\n\nDoug BartmanCal Farms(Club #425) &Tip End(Club #426)1661 Castle Hill RoadWalnut Creek\, CA 94595 \n\nMike TempsMontezuma Duck Club(Club #503)12885 Alcosta Blvd. Suite ASan Ramon\, CA 9483\nClarke RosaFour Winds Duck Club(Club # 506)6357 Calle Montalvo CircleGranite Bay\, CA 95746\n\n\nSteve MarksteinBalboa Farms(Club # 525) &Delta King Ranch(Club # 527)60 Main AvenueSacramento\, CA 95838\nSteve AndersonPintail Ranch(Club # 625)1129 7th StreetRipon\, CA 95366\nMark MoragneGrizzly Hilton(Club # 634)360 Kingsley AvenuePalo Alto\, CA 94301\n\n\n\n\n\nBCDC Marsh Development Permit Application No. M2024.017.00md \n\n\n\nFiled\n07/24/2024\n\n\n90th Day\n10/22/2024\n\n\nLocation\nIn the Commission’s Bay\, 100-foot shoreline band jurisdiction\, and managed wetland jurisdictions\, and within tidal areas of the Suisun Marsh Primary Management Area.\n\n\nDescription\nOver three years\, remove\, clean\, and replace twelve fish screens; conduct maintenance dredging of the twelve fish screen basins; and use the dredged sediment for repair and maintenance of the managed wetland exterior levees. The fish screens are located adjacent to the exterior levees within the tidal areas of Suisun Marsh. The total sediment to be removed is 1\,220 cubic yards over a total of 0.55 acres\, with a project depth of no greater than 4 feet below the current mudline. The levee repair would total not more than 602 feet\, ranging between 50 and 180 feet per managed wetland. The sediment would be placed along the levee backslope and crown at eleven managed wetlands known as Lower Joice Island\, California Farms\, Tip End\, Island Club\, Grizzly Club\, Montezuma Duck Club\, Four Winds Duck Club\, Balboa Farms\, Delta King Ranch\, Pintail Ranch\, and Grizzly Hilton.\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Brenda Goeden\, Sediment Program Manager; 415/352-3623 or brenda.goeden@bcdc.ca.gov\n\n\n\nApplicants\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSteve ChappellLower Joice Island(Club #424)Suisun ResourceConservation District2544 Grizzly Island RoadSuisun City\, CA 94585\nLeen MadsenVolanti Duck Club(Club #219)4600 E. Hidden Valley Dr.Reno\, NV 89502\nSteve CiariSunrise Island Duck Club(Club #405)1054 Elm Street\,San Jose\, CA 95126\n\n\nSteve ZehringAntioch Goldeneye(Club #420)1259 Olive Branch LaneSan Jose\, CA 95102\n\n  \nDoug BartmanCal Farms (Club #425)1661 Castle Hill RoadWalnut Creek\, CA 94595 \n\n\n  \nLarry NewhallJoice Island MallardsFarms (Club #220)1993 Rockville RoadFairfield\, CA 94534 \n\n\n\nAndrew BehrensMrs. Murphy’s Gun Club(Club #128)Cordelia Gun Club(Club #404)415 Mission Street\, Suite 4600San Francisco\, CA 94105\n\n\n\n\n\nBCDC Marsh Development Permit Application No. M2024.018.00md \n\n\n\nFiled\n07/31/2024\n\n\n90th Day\n10/29/2024\n\n\nLocation\nIn the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot shoreline band jurisdictions\, and managed wetland jurisdiction and within the Suisun Marsh Primary Management Area.\n\n\nDescription\nConduct in-kind repair and maintenance managed wetland exterior levees\, totaling 16\,355 linear feet\, through placement of dredged sediment along the levee backslope and crown at 8 managed wetlands known as Mrs. Murphy Gun Club\, Cordelia Gun Club\, Sunrise Island Duck Club\, Antioch Goldeneye\, Volanti Duck Club\, Joice Island Mallard Farms\, Lower Joice Island\, and California Farms.The sediment used for the levee maintenance shall be mechanically dredged and consists of: (1) 4\,451 cubic yards (cy) of sediment from multiple locations within the Suisun Marsh Habitat Management\, Preservation and Restoration Plan’s Regions 1 “minor sloughs;”(2) 1\,278 cy from two locations in Region 2 “major sloughs;” (3) 8\,332 cy of sediment from various areas within Regions 1 and 2 “Dredger’s Cut;”(4) 117 cy of sediment from one location within Montezuma Slough’s “Dredger Cut\,” altogether totaling 14\,178 cy of dredged sediment from approximately 8.79 acres of tidal sloughs adjacent to the managed wetlands.\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\n  Recommend Approval with Conditions. Jaime Lopez\, Environmental Scientist; 415/352-3648 or jaime.lopez@bcdc.ca.gov\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nRich Island Gun Club562 Lyon CourtBenicia\, CA 94510 \n\n\nBCDC Marsh Development Permit Application No. M2024.022.00md \n\n\n\nFiled\n07/25/2024\n\n\n90th Day\n10/23/2024\n\n\nLocation\nWithin the Commission’s Managed Wetland and Bay jurisdictions\, at Rich Island Gun Club (SRCD parcel #802)\, Suisun City\, in Solano County.\n\n\nDescription\nInstall one exterior drain water control structure within the levee of a managed wetland in the Suisun marsh primary management area\, through the following actions: 1) excavate a trench across the crown of the levee; 2) place a pre-assembled water control structure consisting of one 36-inch diameter\, 53-foot-long high-density polyethylene (HDPE) drainpipe and a 36-inch-wide stainless-steel flap gate; and\, 3) backfill the trench. The purpose of the project is to improve the managed wetland water management capabilities through improved gravity drainage and circulation. The new drainage structure will be installed during low tide to minimize impacts to listed fish species in the project vicinity. The project will further be conditioned to ensure the protection of tidal marsh habitat and Bay resources. There are no existing public access requirements in the vicinity\, and no new improvements are proposed as part of this project. The project will result in a net total of approximately 42 square feet (1.56 cubic yards) of new fill\, including 21 square feet (0.78 cubic yards) in a managed wetland of the primary management area and 21 square feet (0.78 cubic yards) in the Bay jurisdiction.\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\nRecommend Approval with conditions.Sam Fielding\, Coastal Program Analyst; 415/352-3665 or sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov\n\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Articles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nCalifornia lawmakers want to build more affordable housing on the coast.  Why it’s controversial\nRising Seas Already Flood Some Bay Area Schools. The Risk Will Only Get Worse\nThese Birds Have Their Own Beach.\nState\, Regional Agencies Join Forces to Prepare Bay Area for Sea Level Rise\, Increased Flooding\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Meeting Minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Video Recording \n				\n\n \n\nTranscript\n\nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nGOOD AFTERNOON\, ALL. AND \nWELCOME TO OUR\, ONCE AGAIN\, \nHYBRID BCDC COMMISSION MEETING. \nMY NAME IS ZACK WASSERMAN\, AND I \nAM THE CHAIR OF THIS COMMISSION. \nI WANT TO THANK COMMISSIONERS \nHERE AT METRO CENTER HERE FOR \nATTENDING THE MEETING IN PERSON\, \nAS WELL AS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THOSE \nWHO ARE PARTICIPATING VIRTUALLY. \nOUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS \nTHE VIDEO. THAT’S WHAT IT SAYS. \n[LAUGHTER] \nROLL THE VIDEO. \n[RECORDED ANNOUNCEMENT]. \n"RECORDING STOPPED" \nONE MOMENT. \nA SLIGHT TECHNICAL GLITCH. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nWELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE \nSAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION \nAND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. \nTHIS MEETING WILL OPERATE AS A \nHYBRID MEETING UNDER THE \nTELECONFERENCE RULES ESTABLISHED \nBY THE BAGLEY-KEENE OPEN MEETING \nACT. COMMISSIONERS ARE LOCATED \nBOTH AT METRO CENTER AND \nPUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE VENUES \nTHROUGHOUT THE BAY AREA AS \nSPECIFIES ON THE MEETING NOTICE. \nTO PARTICIPATE VIRTUALLY WILL \nKEEP THEIR CAMERAS ON IF YOU \nWOULD LIKE TO SPEAK DURING \nPUBLIC COMMENT\, ITEM THREE ON \nTHE AGENDA OR PERIOD RESERVED \nFOR PUBLIC COMMENT DURING \nANOTHER AGENDA ITEM\, YOU WILL \nNEED TO DO SO IN 12 OF WAYS. IF \nYOU ARE ATTENDING VIRTUALLY ON \nZOOM\, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND IN \nZOOM. TO DO SO CLICK THE \nPARTICIPANT ICON AT THE BOTTOM \nOF YOUR SCREEN\, FIND YOUR NAME \nAND SMALL HAND TO THE LEFT AND \nCLICK ON THAT HAND. IF YOU ARE \nJOINING THE MEETING VIA PHONE \nYOU MUST PRESS STAR SIX ON YOUR \nKEY PAD TO MAKE A COMMENT. \nINDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE RAISED \nTHEIR HANDS WILL BE CALLED IN \nORDER THAT THEY HAVE BEEN RAISED \nTHEY WILL BE UNMUTED. THOSE \nMEETING IN-PERSON EITHER AT THE \nMETRO CENTER OR AT A NOTICED \nTELECONFERENCE LOCATION WHO WANT \nTO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION SHOULD \nFOLLOW THE PROTOCOL AT YOUR \nLOCATION. WHEREVER YOU CHOOSE \nTO ATTEND FROM\, PLEASE STATE \nYOUR NAME PRIOR TO PROVIDING \nYOUR COMMENTS. ALL MEMBERS OF \nTHE PUBLIC WILL BE ALLOWED THREE \nMINUTES TO ADDRESS THE \nCOMMISSION AT THE DISCRETION OF \nTHE CHAIR. COMMENTS MUST BE \nRESPECTFUL AND FOCUSED AND EACH \nINDIVIDUAL HAS THE \nRESPONSIBILITY TO ACT IN A CIVIL \nMANNER WITHOUT USING HATE \nSPEECH\, DIRECT\, OR INDIRECT \nTHREATS\, AND/OR ABUSIVE \nLANGUAGE. BCDC HAS ALSO \nESTABLISHED AN E-MAIL ADDRESS TO \nCOMPILE PUBLIC COMMENTS. ITS \nADDRESS IS PUBLIC COMMENT AT \nBCDC.CA.GOV. E-MAILS RECEIVED \nBEFORE TEN THIS MORNING HAVE \nBEEN SHARED WITH COMMISSIONERS \nAND ANY RECEIVED SINCE THEN WILL \nALSO BE SHARED WITH \nCOMMISSIONERS AND THE PUBLIC. \nWELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE \nSAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION \nAND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. \n[RECORDED ANNOUNCEMENT] \n"RECORDING IN PROGRESS" 29:37 \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: OUR \nFIRST — WELL\, OUR SECOND ORDER \nOF BUSINESS IS TO CALL THE ROLL. \nCOMMISSIONERS\, PLEASE BE SURE \nYOUR CAMERA IS ON THROUGHOUT THE \nMEETING IF YOU ARE PARTICIPATING \nVIRTUALLY. AND FOR THOSE WHO \nARE PARTICIPATING VIRTUALLY\, \nPLEASE DO UNMUTE YOURSELVES \nWHICH YOU RESPOND TO ROLL CALL\, \nAND THEN MUTE YOURSELVES AGAIN. \nSIERRA\, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE \nROLL? \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? \nMARK ADDIEGO: PRESENT. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER AMBUEHL? \nDAVID AMBUEHL: PRESENT. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER BURT? \nPAT BURT: PRESENT. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND? \nPAT ECKLUND: PRESENT. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER GILMORE? \nMARIE GILMORE: HERE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER GIOIA? \nJOHN GIOIA: HERE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER? \nANDREW GUNTHER: HERE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER KIMBALL? \nJUSTINE KIMBALL: HERE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nKISHIMOTO? \nYORIKO KISHIMOTO: HERE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER JOHN-BAPTIST? \nALICIA JOHN-BAPTISTE: \nPRESENT. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER PEMBERTON? \nSHERI PEMBERTON: HERE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER RAMOS? \n LARRY GOLDZBAND: SIERRA\, \nCOMMISSIONER RAMOS JUST TEXTED \nME AND SAID HER AUDIO IS NOT \nWORKING. SO\, I CAN SEE HER. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nSAYING SHE IS HERE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: OKAY. \nI CAN COUNT HER. \nCOMMISSIONER RANCHOD? \nSANJAY M. RANCHOD: HERE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER SHOWALTER? \nPATRICIA SHOWALTER: HERE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nVAZQUEZ? \nJOHN VASQUEZ: HERE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: I \nHAVE MISSED ANYONE? PARDON ME. \nVICE CHAIR EISEN. \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nHERE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: AND \nCHAIR WASSERMAN? \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nHERE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: THANK \nYOU COMMISSIONERS. I HAVE \nMISSED ANYONE ELSE? SEEING NO \nHANDS\, YOU HAVE A QUORUM \nPRESENT. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. AND THANK YOU\, ALL\, \nAGAIN\, FOR BEING HERE. NEXT \nORDER OF BUSINESS\, ITEM THREE IS \nPUBLIC COMMENT. THIS IS THE \nTIME TO ADDRESS MATTERS THAT ARE \nNOT ON OUR AGENDA TODAY\, AND \nTHEY’RE NOT SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC \nHEARINGS. IF ANYONE WISHES TO \nADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON \nGENERAL MATTERS\, NOW IS THE \nTIME. BUT WE WILL ALSO \nRECOGNIZE THAT COMMISSIONER \nRANDOLPH HAS JOINED US. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nNOTED. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY \nPUBLIC COMMENT IN THE CENTER \nHERE? IT APPEARS NOT. DO WE \nHAVE ANYONE VIRTUALLY? \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nREGGIE CAN YOU TELL ME IF WE \nHAVE ANY HAND RAISED? I SEEM TO \nBE HAVING SOME TROUBLE WITH MY \nZOOM. WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL OUR \nSPEAKERS? \nSPEAKER: BRUCE BEYERT. \nSPEAKER: BRUCE BEYERT. CHAIR \nOF THE TRACK TRAILS RICHMOND \nACTION COMMITTEE I WOULD LIKE TO \nLET THE COUNCILS OF BOTH \nRICHMOND ALBANY HAVE ADOPTED \nRESOLUTIONS STATING THE SAN \nRAFAEL BRIDGE TRAIL SHOULD \nREMAIN OPEN 24 HOURS SEVEN DAYS \nA WEEK\, THE WEST CONTRA COSTA \nTRANSPORTATION COMMISSION \nADOPTED RESOLUTION WILL BE KEPT \nOPEN 24/7 UNTIL THE OPEN ROAD \nTOLLING AND WILL BE AT LANE \nEXTENSION COMPLETED ON WESTBOUND \nI-580. BAY AREA COUNCIL FORUM \nE-MAILS FLOODING\, THE BRIMMING \nTRAIL IS NOT SIGNIFICANTLY \nINCREASED TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON \n580 WESTBOUND. CALTRANS YOU SEE \nBERKELEY’S PARTNER’S ADVANCED \nTRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY GROUP \nAFTER STUDY MAY 8TH EVALUATING \nTHE IMPACT OF THE PILOT I QUOTE \nPEAK TRAVEL TIMES ACROSS THE \nBRIDGE ONLY INCREASED BY LESS \nTHAN ONE MINUTE DUE TO SLIGHT \nLOWER SPEED ON THE BRIDGE HAVE \nBEEN MORE VARIABLE DUE TO \nINABILITY TO DISABLED VEHICLES \nHOWEVER THESE IMPACTS HAVE NOT \nTRANSLATED INTO SIGNIFICANTLY \nINCREASED CONGESTION UPSTREAM OF \nTHE BRIDGE. [INDISCERNIBLE] \nTHERE IS NO STATISTICAL EVIDENCE \nTHAT THE BRIDGE MODIFICATIONS \nARE PRODUCING LONGER CRASH \nRELATED INCIDENTS OR CHANGING \nLOCATION WHERE CRASHES TEND TO \nOCCUR ON THE BRIDGE. THERE IS \nNO STATISTICAL EVIDENCE THAT THE \nMODIFICATIONS ARE INCREASING THE \nTIME NEEDED TO CLEAR CRASHES. \nFINAL [INDISCERNIBLE] VEHICLE \nEMISSIONS ON I-580 WEST\, \nDEPENDING UPON THE POLLUTANT \nSEASON\, REDUCTIONS IN EMISSIONS \nVARYING 0.2% AND 13% ESTIMATED \nRESULT FROM THE BRIDGE \nMODIFICATION PRIMARILY DUE TO \nREDUCTION IN SHARE OF VEHICLES \nTRAVELING ABOVE 60 MILES AN \nHOUR. STUDY DEMONSTRATES THAT \nBAY ACCESS PROVIDED BY THE TRAIL \nIS FEASIBLE. SHUTTING DOWN THE \nRICHMOND SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE TRAIL \nFOUR DAYS A WEEK WOULD BE \nPRECIPITOUS AND UNJUSTIFIED AND \nWOULD NOT QUALIFY FOR THE \nREQUIRED PERMIT AMENDMENT BY \nBCDC BECAUSE BAY TRAIL CLOSURE \nWOULD BE ANTITHETICAL TO BCDC’S \nLEGISLATIVE MANDATE OF ENSURING \nMAXIMUM FEASIBLE ACCESS TO SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY. THANK YOU FOR \nYOUR TIME\, AND I’LL BE GLAD TO \nANSWER ANY QUESTIONS SHOULD YOU \nHAVE THEM. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. \nSPEAKER: NEXT PUBLIC SPEAKER\, \nSCHUYLER\, GO AHEAD AND UNMUTE \nYOURSELF. \nSPEAKER: HI. THANK YOU. MY \nNAME IS SCHUYLER. I’M AN \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ORGANIZER \nWITH GREENACTION FOR HEALTH AND \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE. WHILE \nI’M EAGER TO READ THE REGIONAL \nSHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN IN \nSEPTEMBER THERE ARE CONCERNS I \nHAVE. I UNDERSTAND THE REGIONAL \nSHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN HAS \nJURISDICTION OVER LOCAL \nGOVERNMENT IN THE BAY AREA \nBECAUSE OF SENATE BILL 272\, BUT \nNOT OVER PRIVATELY OR FEDERALLY \nOWNED LANDS\, WHICH IS A CONCERN \nFOR SITES LIKE HUNTERS POINT \nNAVAL SHIPYARD OWNED BY THE \nUNITED STATES NAVY. THE HUNTERS \nPOINT NAVAL SHIPYARD CONTAINS \nBURIED TOXIC AND RADIOACTIVE \nWASTE THAT’S VULNERABLE TO SEA \nLEVEL RISE AND GROUNDWATER RISE. \nTHE NAVY’S LATEST FIVE-YEAR \nREVIEW REPORT RELEASED LAST \nMONTH CONTINUES TO USE CAPPING \nAND DURABLE COVER OF \nUNACCEPTABLE FORMS OF \nREMEDIATION IN MULTIPLE PARCELS \nOF THE SITE EVEN THOUGH THIS \nWILL LEAVE WASTE BURIED ALONG \nTHE SHORELINE. \nWILL THE REGIONAL SHORELINE \nADAPTATION PLAN INCLUDE \nGUIDELINES OR STANDARDS \nPROHIBITING CAPPING WASTE ALONG \nTHE SHORELINE? AND IF NOT \nALREADY INCLUDED\, IT SHOULD BE \nAN ADDITION THAT I HOPE TO SEE \nIN THE FINAL DRAFT. AND\, ALSO\, \nHOW WILL WE ENSURE THAT AREAS OF \nTHE SHORELINE THAT DO NOT FALL \nUNDER THE JURISDICTION OF SENATE \nBILL 272\, SPECIFICALLY\, THE \nFEDERAL OWNED AND PRIVATELY \nOWNED LANDS WITH CONTAMINATION \nVULNERABLE TO SEA LEVEL RISE AND \nGROUNDWATER RISE TO BE \nPROTECTED\, INCLUDING THE \nSURROUNDING COMMUNITIES. THANK \nYOU. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. NO OTHER PUBLIC \nSPEAKERS? \nSPEAKER: WE HAVE TWO MORE. \nHOLD ON. \nNEXT PUBLIC SPEAKERS\, \nJOHN JOHNSON. \nSPEAKER: HELLO MY NAME IS. \nJOHN JOHNSON\, AND I CAPTAIN A \nSAILBOAT OUT OF ALAMEDA AND I AM \nA FREQUENT USER OF CLIPPER COVE. \nAND\, WHICH IS REALLY A JEWEL IN \nTHE BAY. BUT RECENTLY THE — AN \nORGANIZATION FLOAT LABS HAS PUT \nIN AN EXPERIMENT MOVED IT FROM \nTHE MIDDLE HARBOR ON THE ESTUARY \nAND PLACED IT IN CLIPPER COVE \nAND WHILE MYSELF AND EVERYONE I \nKNOW AND ALL MY FRIENDS WHO USE \nCLIPPER COVE ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT \nTHE GOOD WORK THAT FLOW LABS IS \nDOING AND IMPORTANT RESEARCH \nTHAT’S GOING ON\, UNFORTUNATELY\, \nTHEY HAVE PLACED IT DIRECTLY IN \nTHE MIDDLE OF THE NORTH CHANNEL \nWHICH IS THE ONLY WAY TO ACCESS \nCLIPPER COVE. AT LOW TIDE \nCLIPPER COVE GETS DOWN TO TWO OR \nTHREE FEET. MY BOAT DRAFTS SIX \nFEET WHICH IS NOT UNCOMMON FOR A \nSAIL BOAT. I HAVE FRIENDS THAT \nHAVE REACHED OUT TO FLOAT LABS. \nTHEY INDICATED THAT IT WAS THIS \nCOMMISSION THAT SPECIFIED WHERE \nTHEY SHOULD PLACE IT. SO ON \nBEHALF OF MYSELF AND THE OTHER \nUSERS THAT FREQUENTLY USE \nCLIPPER COVE\, THE PEOPLE THAT \nHAVE TO GO IN AND OUT OF \nTREASURE ISLAND MARIN A I WOULD \nRESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT THIS \nCOMMISSION WORK WITH FLOAT LABS \nTO FIND — THERE IS 100 OTHER \nPLACES THAT YOU COULD PUT THAT \nRESEARCH BE THING\, BUT THAT IS \nTHE ONLY — THE NORTH CHANNEL IS \nTHE ONLY PLACE THAT’S DEEP \nENOUGH FOR A LARGE MAJORITY OF \nTHE BOATS THAT USE THE COVE TO \nGET IN AND OUT. SO\, WHERE IT \nSITS RIGHT NOW\, IT’S A HAZARD TO \nNAVIGATION\, AND I THINK IT WOULD \nTRULY BE A TRAGEDY IF\, YOU KNOW\, \nA BOAT\, YOU KNOW\, TRYING TO \nAVOID IT\, YOU KNOW\, HIT THE \nEXPERIMENT\, COMPROMISED AND \nDAMAGED THE BOAT WHEN IT COULD \nHAVE BEEN PLACED SOMEWHERE ELSE. \nI WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO WORK \nWITH FLOAT LABS TO MOVE IT TO \nFIND A DIFFERENT LOCATION THAT \nIS SAFER AND NOT A HAZARD AND \nNAVIGATION. THANK YOU. \nSPEAKER: NEXT PUBLIC SPEAKER \nGLEN. \nSPEAKER: HI. MY NAME IS GLEN \nDESINSKI. I’M CALLING IN FOR \nTHE SAME REASON AS JOHN\, CALLING \nIN WITH REGARD TO THE FLOAT LAB \nEXPERIMENT. I ALSO OPERATE A \nSAILBOAT IN THE BAY AND USE \nCLIPPER COVE FREQUENTLY FOR \nANCHORING AND WANTED TO POINT \nOUT CONCERNS AROUND \nACCESSIBILITY OF CLIPPER COVE AS \nA RESULT OF THE EXPERIMENT \nITSELF AND ANCHOR LINES GOING \nOUT FROM IT BLOCKING THE DEEP \nCHANNEL. I WON’T GO ANY FURTHER \nI THINK JOHN PUT IT PRETTY WELL\, \nBUT SIMILARLY CONCERNED. THANK \nYOU. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. \nSPEAKER: MAX\, YOU’RE NEXT. \nSPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON. MY \nNAME IS MAX PEREZ\, I HAVE BEEN \nSPEAKING WITH THE DIRECTOR OF \nFLOAT LAB AND WANT TO REITERATE \nWHAT JOHN AND GLEN HAVE RAISED. \nWE DEFINITELY SUPPORT THE AIMS \nAND GOALS OF FLOAT LABS RESEARCH \nDEVICE\, JUST THAT IT DOES IMPACT \nTHE ONLINE CHANNEL IN AND OUT OF \nTHE CLIPPER COVE ANCHORAGE. AND \nI APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE \nDIRECTOR OF FLOAT LAB\, I \nBELIEVE\, IS WORKING WITH A \nREPRESENTATIVE OF BCDC AND THE \nCENTER TO COME UP WITH SOME \nSOLUTION. I APPRECIATE \nCOOPERATION TO RESOLVE THIS \nISSUE. THANK YOU. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ARE \nWE SURE? THANK YOU. \nALL RIGHT. THAT CONCLUDES OUR \nPUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. AND \nBRINGS US TO MY REPORT. \nTHE FIRST MATTER THAT I WISH TO \nREPORT ON IS A REVIEW OF OUR \nFIRST BAY ADAPT SUMMIT HELD LAST \nTHURSDAY AT THE SAN FRANCISCO \nEXPLORATORIA. IT WAS A \nRESOUNDING SUCCESS. THERE WERE \n225 ATTENDEES\, AND 100 PEOPLE ON \nTHE WAIT LIST. SO\, CLEARLY\, IT \nIS A MATTER OF INTEREST AND \nCONCERN. I DO WANT TO THEY \nTHINK OUR PARTNERS\, THE STATE \nCOASTAL CONSERVANCY AND BARC FOR \nFUNDING\, AND THE GREENBELT \nALLIANCE FOR ORGANIZING THE \nAMAZING EVENT\, AND TO THANK THE \nEXPLORATORIA WHICH HOSTED US \nWITHOUT CHARGE IN THEIR \nOBSERVATORY WITH A WONDERFUL \nVIEW OF THE BAY. AND ACCESS TO \nTHE EXHIBITS. \nMORNING TOURS TO VARIOUS SITES \nTHROUGHOUT THE BAY WERE SOLD \nOUT. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE \nPANEL KICKED IT OFF WITH A RANGE \nOF INTERESTING COMMENTS AND \nOBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE CONCERNS \nOF IMPACTED AND UNDERREPRESENTED \nCOMMUNITIES WITH RISING SEA \nLEVEL. THERE ARE BREAKOUT \nSESSIONS ON A RANGE EVER TOPICS\, \nAND THE GENERAL COMMENTS I HEARD \nFROM ALL OF THEM WERE EXCELLENT. \nWE HAD BAY ADAPT AWARDS \nRECOGNIZING CLIMATE CHANGE \nLEADERS WHO ARE MAKING \nSIGNIFICANT STRIVES IN \nADDRESSING THE CRITICAL \nCHALLENGES POSED BY RISING SEA \nLEVELS. AND THE AWARD WINNERS \nWERE VIOLET SAENA\, WHO IS A \nBCDC’S EJ ADVISOR. AND \nDR. CHRIS MAY WHO HAS BEEN A \nPART OF MANY PERMITS AND STUDIES \nFOR US\, AND OUR OWN SUPERVISOR \nAND COMMISSIONER DAVE PINE. \nAND THERE WAS GOOD NETWORKING \nAMONGST PEOPLE AT THE BREAKS AND \nAFTERWARDS\, AND AT THE RECEPTION \nWHERE WE HAD SOME WONDERFUL \nNATURAL WINES FROM A WOMAN WHO \nIS FORMERLY WITH FEMA HERE IN \nTHE BAY AREA AND HAS A WINERY \nDOWN IN MEXICO\, AND A FEW STAYED \nON TO ENJOY AFTER DARK AT THE \nEXPLORATORIA\, WHICH MANY OF YOU \nHAVE NOT DONE. AND IT’S JUST \nFUN A FUN EVENING. IT’S ADULTS\, \nNOT KIDS\, PLAYING WITH THEIR \nARRAY OF EXHIBITS AND \nEXPERIMENTS. \n[LAUGHTER] \nI WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT \nPROPOSITION FOUR ON THE NOVEMBER \nBALLOT PROPOSES TO ALLOCATE \n$10 BILLION TO HELP PREPARE THIS \nSTATE FOR THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE \nCHANGE. INCLUDED IN THE BOND \nARE PROVISIONS TO PROTECT WATER \nQUALITY\, INCREASE WATER \nSUPPLIES\, PREVENT WILDFIRES AND \nREDUCE FIRE IMPACTS\, AND HELP \nFRONTLINE COMMUNITIES ACCESS \nSAFE DRINKING WATER\, SHADE\, AND \nGREEN SPACE\, AND PROTECT AND \nEXPAND NATURAL HABITATS\, SUCH AS \nTHE WETLANDS THROUGHOUT THE BAY. \nWHILE BCDC AS AN ENTITY IS \nUNABLE TO TAKE A POSITION ON THE \nBALLOT PROPOSITION AS A STATE \nAGENCY\, I KNOW THAT MANY OF YOU \nEITHER HAVE OR ARE CONSIDERING \nENDORSING THE BOND MEASURE AND \nCERTAINLY URGE YOU AS AN \nINDIVIDUAL TO SUPPORT THAT. IF \nYOU DO SO\, I REMIND YOU TO DO SO \nAS AN INDIVIDUAL AND NOT AS A \nBCDC COMMISSIONER IN TERMS OF \nIDENTIFICATION. SO WE’RE NOT \nUSING STATE ASSETS IN SUPPORT OF \nA BOND MEASURE. \nI WANT TO LET YOU KNOW ABOUT A \nCOUPLE OF MEETINGS THAT ARE \nCOMING UP THAT ARE LISTED ON OUR \nWEB SITE’S NEW CALENDAR \nFUNCTION. NEXT WEDNESDAY\, THE \nSAND MINING STUDIES COMMISSIONER \nWORKING GROUP WILL MEET \nVIRTUALLY AT 10:00 A.M. TO \nCONTINUE THEIR REVIEW AND \nRESEARCH INTO MANY OF THE ISSUES \nTHAT LIKELY WILL ARISE DURING \nCONSIDERATION OF THE FUTURE SAND \nMINING PERMITS BY ALL OF US NEXT \nYEAR. COMMISSIONERS ARE WELCOME \nTO THAT AND THE LINK CAN BE \nFOUND ON THE WEB SITE. THE NEXT \nMEETING OF OUR RISING SEA LEVEL \nWORKING GROUP IS PROVISIONE \nSCHEDULED FOR THE MORNING OF \nTHURSDAY OCTOBER 17TH\, AND WE \nWILL BE TALKING TO STAFF AND THE \nPUBLIC ABOUT HOW THE DIFFERENT \nTYPES OF CHALLENGES THAT CAN BE \nFACED BY COMMUNITIES AND HOW \nTHEY RELATE TO OUR AUTHORITY AND \nJURISDICTION. WE WILL NOT HAVE \nA COMMISSION MEETING ON \nOCTOBER 3RD\, BECAUSE IT’S THE \nFIRST DAY OF ROSH HASHANAH. OUR \nNEXT MEETING WILL BE \nSEPTEMBER 5TH WHICH IS THE \nTHURSDAY MEDICAL FOLLOWING LABOR \nDAY. AT THAT MEETING WE EXPECT \nTO TAKE UP THE FOLLOWING \nMATTERS\, A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE \nENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT \nASSOCIATED WITH FUTURE PERMIT \nAND POSSIBLE VOTE ON CARGILL’S \nOPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE \nPERMIT IN THE SOUTH BAY AND \nBRIEFING ON SAFETY MEASURES \nINTENDED TO PROTECT BRIDGES \nWITHIN THE BAY FROM VESSEL \nCOLLISIONS IN LIGHT OF THE \nBALTIMORE BRIDGE COLLISION\, AND \nI GUESS IT’S CALLED AN ALLISION \nBECAUSE IT DIDN’T HIT IT JUST \nBRUSHED. IS THAT THE \nDIFFERENCE? \nSPEAKER: I BELIEVE IT’S A \nNAUTICAL TERM\, SO\, A CAR IS \nCOLLIDE\, AND BOATS COLLIDE. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHAT BRINGS US TO THE MOST \nEXCITING PART OF OUR AGENDA EX \nPARTE COMMUNICATION. IF YOU \nHAVE RECEIVED AN EX PARTE \nCOMMUNICATION THAT’S OUTSIDE OF \nA COMMISSION MEETING ABOUT A \nMATTER THAT WE ARE GOING TO \nCONSIDER. YOU DO NEED TO REPORT \nTHAT\, YOU NEED TO REPORT IT IN \nWRITING. YOU MAY REPORT IT NOW. \nYOU DON’T HAVE TO. PLEASE \nREMEMBER THAT THE WRITTEN REPORT \nSHOULD BE DETAILED ENOUGH SO \nTHAT THE PUBLIC HAS SOME SENSE \nOF WHAT WAS COMMUNICATE TO YOU \nDURING THE CONVENTIONS. DOES \nANYONE HAVE AN EX PARTE? \nCOMMISSION ARE RANCHOD? \nSPEAKER: I PARTICIPATED IN \nMEETINGS REGARDING MTC’S \nAPPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION OF \nOPERATION OF THE BIKE PEDESTRIAN \nLANE ON THE RICHMOND SAN RAFAEL \nBRIDGE. THOSE WERE MEETINGS \nWITH BAY COUNCIL AND EAST BAY \nBICYCLE COALITION RESPECTIVELY \nFOR AND AGAINST THE APPLICATIONS \nPROPOSAL. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY \nOTHERS? PEMBERTON. \nSHERI PEMBERTON: I ALSO \nPARTICIPATED IN A COUPLE OF \nMEETINGS REGARDING THE \nAPPLICATION INVOLVING THE \nRICHMOND SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE WITH \nPROPONENTS FOR THE ACTION AND \nALSO INDIVIDUALS IN OPPOSITION. \nTHANK YOU. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \nDON’T SEE ANY OTHERS. \nTHAT BRINGS US TO THE REPORT OF \nTHE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WHO IS \nPARTICIPATING REMOTELY. AND MAY \nHAVE TO LEAVE A LITTLE EARLY\, \nWHICH IS WHY OUR GENERAL COUNSEL \nIS SEATED NEXT TO ME TO MAKE \nSURE YOU DON’T GO TOO FAR OFF \nSCRIPT. GO AHEAD\, LARRY. \nLARRY GOLDZBAND: GOOD LUCK \nWITH THAT. THANK YOU CHAIR \nWASSERMAN. APPRECIATE IT. THE \nNOBLE PRIZE WINNING ECONOMIST \nJOHN NASH WAS FOND OF SAYING \nTHAT YOU DON’T HAVE TO BE A \nMATHEMATICIAN TO HAVE A FEEL FOR \nNUMBERS. THIS DATE DEMONSTRATES \nTHAT AUGUST 15TH\, 1620\, 102 \nBRAVE SOULS BOARDED THE \nMAYFLOWER IN LONDON FOR THEIR \nTRIP TO THE NEW WORLD. 345 \nYEARS LATER ON AUGUST 15TH\, \n1965\, 55\,000 SCREAMING FANS \nPACKED SHAY STADIUM IN QUEENS TO \nSEE BUT NOT HEAR THE BEETLES. \nEXACTLY FOUR YEARS LATER 460\,000 \nPEOPLE BRAVE THE RAIN AND MUD \nAND BAD ACID TO PARTICIPATE IN \nWOODSTOCK MUSIC ART FAIR. I WAS \nREMINDED OF THIS LAST THURSDAY \nAT THE BAY ADAPT SUMMIT THAT \nCHAIR WASSERMAN DISCUSSED. NOT \nTHAT THERE WAS ANY BAD ACID BUT \nTHAT IF BCDC HAD ISSUED \nINVITATIONS TO A RISING SEA \nLEVEL SUMMIT SIX OR SEVEN YEARS \nAGO WE LIKELY COULD HAVE HOSTED \nIT IN OUR BACKYARD. ON THE \nOTHER HAND WE HAD 225 PEOPLE AT \nTHE EXPLORATORIA ON AN AND A \nWIGHT LIST OF 100 WHO COULDN’T \nATTEND. BAY AREA VOTERS \nCONCERNED ABOUT FLOODING\, I \nHESITATE TO SAY THAT BCDC IS \nRIDING A WAVE HERE BUT WE \nUNDERSTAND THAT MORE WAVES ARE \nCOMING IN OUR PROGRAMS ARE \nSTRIKING A CORD. I AM VERY \nHAPPY TO LET YOU KNOW THAT \nRYLAND GERVAIS HAS AGREED TO \nBECOME BCDC’S FIRST DIRECTOR AND \nLEGISLATIVE AND EXTERNAL OF \nCURRENT AFFAIRS IN THE SENIOR \nLEADERSHIP OF THE STATE \nDEPARTMENT WATER PROJECT AT THE \nDEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES \nWHERE HE MANAGES PROJECTS IN THE \nINTERSECTION OF ENGINEERING \nLEGISLATION AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS \nINCLUDING IMPLEMENTING STRATEGIC \nPLAN MANAGING PROJECT PUBLIC \nLEGISLATE I COMMUNICATIONS. \nEARNED HIS GRADUATE DEGREE FROM \nSACRAMENTO STATE\, AFTER WHICH \nTHE HORNET BECAME AN UNRUH \nASSEMBLY FELLOW AND WORKED THEN \nFOR ASSEMBLYMEMBER RON BONTA \nHANDLING A VARIETY OF \nLEGISLATIVE ISSUES. HE LEFT THE \nBUILDING AND SPENT TWO YEARS \nLOBBYING FOR THE CALIFORNIA \nSPECIAL DISTRICT AN ASSOCIATION \nPRIOR TO EARNING HIS \nGUBERNATORIAL APPOINTMENT TO \nDWR. RYAN WILL HANDLE BCDC’S \nLEGISLATIVE PORTFOLIO DEVELOP \nHAS SKILLS AS OUR PUBLIC \nINFORMATION OFFICER AND WORK \nCLOSELY WITH THE PLANNING AND \nREGULATORY DIVISIONS TO REACH \nOUT TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND \nEDUCATE THEM ABOUT BCDC’S \nAUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION. \nRYAN WILL START WITH US IN \nSEPTEMBER. PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE \nTHAT BCDC WILL HIRE BEN FOR OUR \nLONG RANGE PLANNING TEAM \nWATERFRONT PLANNER COMES FROM \nTHE OCEAN PROTECTION COUNCIL \nWHERE HE’S A SEA GRANT FELLOW \nWORKING ON OPCS CLIMATE CHANGE \nPROGRAM ALSO HELPED LAUNCH THE \nOPCS RISING SEA LEVEL LOCAL \nGRANTS PROGRAM ASSISTED WITH \nDEVELOPING THE RECENT RISING SEA \nLEVELS GUIDANCE AND SERVED AS \nOPC REPRESENTATIVE ENGAGING WITH \nBCDC’S BAY ADAPT. HE IS A \nBANANA SLUG\, ONCE AGAIN\, WITH A \nDEGREE IN ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES. \nBEN WILL HELP SUPPORT OUR WORK \nWITH THE STATE LAND’S COMMISSION \nON THE FUTURE OF THE PUBLIC \nTRUST TO THE BAY AS WELL AS \nWORKING ON THE SAN FRANCISCO \nWATERFRONT PLAN PROPOSAL. A FEW \nOF US HAD A SUCCESSFUL SITE \nVISIT WITH FISHERMAN’S WHARF \nWITH THE PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO \nSTAFF AS WE MOVE FORWARD ON \nCOLLABORATION. \nALSO WANT TO NOTE THAT STEVE \nGOLDBECK’S RETIREMENT PARTY WAS \nORIGINALLY SUPPOSED TO BE TODAY\, \nBUT IT’S BEEN RESCHEDULED FOR \nOCTOBER 17TH AFTER THE \nCOMMISSION MEETING. PLEASE SAVE \nTHE DATE. WE’LL REMIND YOU IN A \nMONTH OR SO. \nHOWEVER\, THE NEWS IS NOT PRETTY \nWHEN IT COMES TO STATE BUDGET. \nLIKE ALL DEPARTMENTS BCDC WAS \nREQUIRED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF \nFINANCE TO LIST OUR UNOCCUPIED \nPOSITIONS AND THEN LOSE THE \nFUNDING ASSOCIATED WITH THEM. \nDUE TO GREAT WORK BY OUR \nMANAGERS AND A NEW NHR\, WE HAD \nONLY 1.2 TOTAL VACANT FTES WHICH \nRESULTED IN OUR LOSING LESS THAN \n$100\,000 IN ANNUAL FUNDING. \nHOWEVER\, IN ADDITION TO THE \nVACANCY SUITE EACH DEPARTMENT \nWILL LOSE ABOUT 8% OF ITS \nGENERAL FUND AND OTHER REVENUES \nTHIS YEAR. WE’RE AWAITING \nINSTRUCTIONS REGARDING HOW THIS \nCUT WILL WORK AND KEEP YOU \nINFORMED OF ITS RAMIFICATIONS. \nIT WAS GREAT TO SEE \nCOMMISSIONERS LAST THURSDAY AT \nTHE EXPLORATORIA WHERE WE HELD \nTHE FIRST EVER BAY ADAPT SUM \nTOYOTA HIGHLIGHT AND CELEBRATE \nALL GREAT WORK BEING DONE AROUND \nTHE REGION TO ADVANCE THE BAY \nADAPT JOINT PLATFORM. THE \nMORNING WAS FULL OF TOURS \nTHROUGHOUT THE REGION THE \nAFTERNOON PANELS AND BREAKOUT \nSESSIONS WERE TERRIFIC AND \nAWARDS CEREMONY WAS FANTASTIC \nAND THE DAY WAS CAPPED WITH \nAWESOME RECEPTION AND I WANT TO \nSEND THANKS TO THE GREENBELT \nALLIANCE AND STATE COASTAL \nCONSERVANCY OF THE BAY AREA \nREGIONAL COLLABORATIVE AND \nEXPLORATORY. FINALLY AS NOTED \nIN FEBRUARY\, THIS YEAR NATIONAL \nOCEANIC ATMOSPHERIC AGENCIES FOR \nOFFICE FOR COASTAL MANAGEMENT \nREVIEWING CALIFORNIA’S COASTAL \nZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AS \nREQUIRED UNDER SECTION 312 OF \nTHE FEDERAL COASTAL ZONE \nMANAGEMENT ACT\, NOAA’S 312 \nEVALUATION OCCURS EVERY \nFIVE-YEARS AND ANALYZING \nOPERATIONS MANAGEMENT OF ALL OF \nCALIFORNIA’S THREE COASTAL ZONE \nMANAGEMENT INSTITUTIONS. \nCOASTAL COMMISSION\, COASTAL \nCONVERSANCE AND BCDC. IT \nASSESSES PROGRAMS \nACCOMPLISHMENTS RECOMMENDATIONS \nAND IMPROVEMENTS. THIS YEAR’S \nEVALUATION WILL TAKE PLACE \nDURING LAST WEEK OF AUGUST. \nNOAA WILL ACCEPT WRITTEN \nCOMMENTS ON THE STATE OF THE \nPROGRAM AND WEEK’S EXAMINATION \nWILL INCLUDE A VIRTUAL PUBLIC \nMEETING ON WEDNESDAY \nAUGUST 28TH. BCDC WILL ANNOUNCE \nTHE DETAILS OF THE PUBLIC \nMEETING ON OUR WEB SITE AND \nPROVIDE THAT INFORMATION TO ALL \nCOMMISSIONERS AND ALTERNATES. \nTHAT COMPLETES MY REPORT\, CHAIR \nWASSERMAN. I’M HAPPY TO ANSWER \nANY QUESTIONS. I DO WANT TO \nADD\, HOWEVER\, THAT I WILL BE \nHAVING SOME KNEE SURGERY NEXT \nWEEK. I WILL BE OUT OF THE \nOFFICE THROUGH\, PROBABLY\, MOST \nOF SEPTEMBER\, BUT I WILL BE\, \nJUST LIKE WE DID IN THE \nPANDEMIC\, MANNING THE BCDC \nKITCHEN COUNTER HERE AT THE — \nHERE AT THE GOLDZBAND DIBERT \nHILTON EVERY DAY. SO\, I WILL \nCERTAINLY BE AVAILABLE. THANK \nYOU VERY MUCH. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ARE \nTHERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR OUR \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR? \nSEEING NONE. THAT BRINGS US TO \nTHE NEXT ITEM\, THE CONSENT \nCALENDAR. WE ARE USING THIS NEW \nPROCEDURE PUTTING A BUNCH OF \nNON-CONTROVERSIAL ITEMS ON THE \nCONSENT CALENDAR. AND TODAY \nTHOSE INCLUDE THE APPROVAL OF \nTHE MINUTES AS AMENDED FOR OUR \nJUNE 20TH\, 2024 MEETING\, FOR THE \nENGINEERING CRITERIA REVIEW \nBOARD\, A RESOLUTION OF THANKS TO \nFORMER ECRB MEMBER BILL HOLMES\, \nTHE NOMINATION OF PATRICK RYAN\, \nFORMERLY AN ALTERNATE\, TO A FULL \nPOSITION ON THE ECRB\, AND ON \nNOMINATION OF BILL TREMAYNE TO \nBECOME AN ECRB ALTERNATE. DO WE \nHAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE \nCONSENT CALENDAR? \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NONE \nIN-PERSON\, AND NO HAND RAISED\, \nCHAIR WASSERMAN. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: MAY \nI HAVE A MOTION TO ADOPT\, AND A \nSECOND\, TO ADOPT THE CONSENT \nCALENDAR? \nPAT ECKLUND: I’LL MOVE THE \nCONSENT CALENDAR. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND MOVERS AND \nCOMMISSIONER SHOWALTER SECONDS. \nSPEAKER: I WILL SECOND THE \nCONSENT CALENDAR. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nPLEASE CALL THE ROLL. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? \nMARK ADDIEGO: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER AMBUEHL? \nDAVID AMBUEHL: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER BURT? \nPAT BURT: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND? \nCOMMISSIONER GILMORE? \nMARIE GILMORE: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER GIOIA? \nJOHN GIOIA: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER? \nCOMMISSIONER KIMBALL? \nSPEAKER: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO? \nYORIKO KISHIMOTO: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER PEMBERTON? \nSHERI PEMBERTON: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER RAMOS? OH\, WE HAVE \nNO AUDIO STILL\, I’M ASSUMING. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \nSEE HER LIPS MOVING AND THUMB — \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: WITH \nA THUMB UP WE’LL REGISTER AS YES \nFOR COMMISSIONER RAMOS. \nCOMMISSIONER RANCHOD? \nSANJAY M. RANCHOD: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nRANDOLPH? \nR. SEAN RANDOLPH: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nSHOWALTER? \nPATRICIA SHOWALTER: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nVAZQUEZ? \nJOHN VASQUEZ: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: VICE \nCHAIR EISEN? \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: CHAIR \nWASSERMAN? \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCONSENT CALENDAR PASSES WITH 17 \nYESES\, ZERO NOS\, AND ZERO \nABSTENTIONS. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. ITEM SEVEN \nCONSIDERATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE \nMATTERS WE HAVE RECEIVED AN \nADMINISTRATIVE LISTING ALTHOUGH \nADMINISTRATIVE REGULATORY \nDIRECTOR HARRIET ROSS IS OUT \nTODAY. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: SHE \nIS JOINING US VIRTUALLY\, CHAIR \nWASSERMAN. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: MY \nSCRIPT STANDS CORRECTED. ARE \nTHERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HARRIET? \nI SEE NONE. \nLARRY GOLDZBAND: ARE THERE \nANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NO\, \nCHAIR WASSERMAN. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. SHE WOULD HAVE \nCAUGHT ME. THANK YOU. \nTHAT BRINGS US TO ITEM EIGHT\, \nWHICH IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND \nPOSSIBLE VOTE TO INITIATE A \nREGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION \nBAY PLAN AMENDMENT. \nTHIS AMENDMENT WOULD UPDATE THE \nSAN FRANCISCO BAY PLAN BY \nESTABLISHING GUIDELINES TO BE \nFOLLOWED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS\, \nAS THEY PREPARE THEIR \nSUBREGIONAL SEA LEVEL RISE PLANS \nREQUIRED BY THE ENACTMENT OF \nSENATE BILL 272. THE PROPOSED \nBAY PLAN AMENDMENT WOULD ALSO \nUPDATE AND CLARIFY THE BAY \nPLAN’S EXISTING CLIMATE CHANGE \nPOLICIES IN CERTAIN AREAS. \nJESSICA FAIN\, OUR DIRECTOR OF \nPLANNING WILL INITIATE THE \nBRIEFING. BUT BEFORE THAT\, I’M \nOPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING. \nJESSICA FAIN: THANK YOU CHAIR \nWASSERMAN. GOOD AFTERNOON ARE \nCOMMISSIONERS. I’M JESSICA FAIN \nDIRECTOR OF PLANNING HERE AT \nBCDC PLEASED TODAY TO INTRODUCE \nTODAY A PRESENTATION WHERE WE \nARE REQUESTING YOUR APPROVAL TO \nINITIATE THE BAY PLAN AMENDMENT \nPROCESS FOR THE REGIONAL \nSHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN. \nJOINED TODAY BY MY COLLEAGUES\, \nJACKIE MARTINEZ JOINING US \nVIRTUALLY AS WELL AS CORY MANN \nWHOLE PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THE \nSTATUS OF THE RSAP AS WE LIKE TO \nCALL IT FOLLOWED BY OVERVIEW OF \nTHE PROCESS WE’RE HOPING TO \nENTER INTO THIS FALL. YOU MAY \nBE ASKING YOURSELF WHY ARE \nINITIATING THE RSAP NOW HAVEN’T \nWE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR A \nWHILE THE ANSWER IS YES WE HAVE \nBEEN WORKING ON THIS PROCESS \nTHROUGHOUT THE PAST YEAR AND OUR \nTEAM HAS BEEN WORKING REALLY \nHARD WITH STAKEHOLDERS AROUND \nTHE REGION TO CRAFT THIS PLAN TO \nMAKE IT WORK. THE FOCUS OF THIS \nPRESENTATION AND THE ACTION \nBEFORE YOU IS NOT ON THE CONTENT \nOF THIS PLAN. THERE WILL BE \nPLENTY OF TIME TO DO THAT DURING \nTHE PUBLIC COMMENT AND REVIEW \nPERIOD THAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN \nTHIS FALL. RATHER\, IT IS TO \nSEEK YOUR APPROVAL TO INITIATE A \nBAY PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS AND \nCIRCULATE A DESCRIPTIVE NOTICE \nTO DO SO AS REQUIRED BY A \nREGULATIONS. YOU HAVE RECEIVED \nA NUMBER OF THOUGHTFUL COMMENT \nLETTERS IN YOUR MEETING PACKET \nTODAY REST ASSURED THAT THOSE \nPUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE TAKEN \nINTO ACCOUNT AS WE BRING THIS \nDRAFT IN FINAL VERSION OF THE \nRSAP TO YOU LATER THIS FALL. \nBEFORE I TURN IT OVER TO CORY I \nWANT TO PUT THE PLAN INTO \nCONTEXT. BCDC HAS BEEN DOING A \nLOT OF WORK ON SEA LEVEL RISE \nADAPTATION FOR QUITE SOMETIME \nBUT IT STARTED IN 2011 WHEN YOU \nADOPTED CLIMATE CHANGE POLICIES \nINTO THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY PLAN \nWE WERE THE 50 COASTAL \nMANAGEMENT IN THE COUNTRY TO DO \nSO POLICIES GUIDING PLANNING AND \nPERMITTING WORK TO DATE. ONE OF \nTHESE POLICIES CALLS EXPLICITLY \nFOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A \nREGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION \nSTRATEGY THAT HAS BEEN THE \nFOUNDATION FOR OUR BAY ADAPT \nEFFORTS AND THE REGIONAL \nSHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN THAT \nWE’RE DISCUSSING TODAY. AS \nSHOWN ON THE TIMELINE BCDC HAS \nSUCCESSFULLY DEVELOPED A WIDE \nRANGE OF PROGRAMS\, RELATED \nPOLICY AMENDMENTS\, SUCH AS \nHABITAT AMENDMENT AND \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE SOCIAL \nEQUITY AMENDMENTS\, RESOURCES AND \nTOOLS TO ADVANCE CIVIL RIGHTS \nADAPTATION PLANNING FOR THE \nREGION. THE RSAP FOLLOWS A \nDECADE OF WORK WHICH HAS \nCONSISTENTLY BEEN BASED ON \nCOLLABORATION\, DATA\, SCIENCE \nDRIVEN PLANNING\, AND \nINCREASINGLY INCLUDING BEST \nPRACTICES RELATED TO EQUITABLE \nENGAGEMENT\, AS WELL. OUR LATEST \nEFFORT TO BRING STRONG REGIONAL \nLEADERSHIP TO THE ISSUE OF CIVIL \nRIGHTS ADAPTATION AND HIGHLIGHT \nYOUR STRATEGIC PLAN WITH SB272 \nALSO NOW REQUIRED THAT BCDC \nCOMPLETE THIS WORK BY \nUNDERSTANDS OF THE YEAR. ALSO \nREMIND YOU THAT BAY ADAPT COMES \nFROM JOINT PLATFORM ADOPTED BY \nYOU AS WELL AS 50 OTHER PUBLIC \nAGENCIES NON-PROFITS AND OTHERS \nTHAT LAYS OUT THE CONSENSUS \nDRIVEN STRATEGY FOR HOW THE BAY \nAREA SHOULD ADAPT TO SEA LEVEL \nRISE. SO\, THE RSAP IS REALLY \nIMPLEMENTING FOUR KEY TASKS \nLISTED HERE THE JOINT PLATFORM \nCREATING LONG-TERM REGIONAL \nVISION ROOTED IN COMMUNITIES \nHABITATS AND ECONOMY\, PROVIDING \nINCENTIVES FOR COORDINATED \nADAPTATION PLANS\, THREE \nINCENTIVIZING PROJECTS THAT MEET \nREGIONAL GOALS AND FOR MEASURING \nREGIONAL PROGRESS. WITH THAT \nI’M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO \nJACK WHOA IS GOING TO GIVE YOU \nCONTEXT ON THE RSAP AND \nDEVELOPMENT TO DATE. \nSPEAKER: I WANT TO REMIND US \nALL WHY A REGIONAL APPROACH TO \nTHIS CHALLENGE IS SO IMPORTANT. \nAS YOU ALL KNOW OUR REGION IS \nHIGHLY INTERCONNECT AND WE KNOW \nTHAT ADAPTATION OAR EVEN LACK OF \nADAPTATION IN ONE LOCATION CAN \nCAUSE MASSIVE DISRUPTIONS TO \nAREAS FAR BEYOND TO A SPECIFIC \nPLACE OF IMPACT. FOR EXAMPLE\, \nFLOODING AT ONE SECTION OF STATE \nROUTE 37 CAN LEAD TO TRAFFIC \nDELAYS THAT EXTEND THROUGHOUT \nTHE BAY NORTH BAY SIMILARLY \nDISRUPTION TO A WASTEWATER \nTREATMENT PLANT CAN CAUSE \nFLOODING NEAR AND FAR FROM THE \nSHORELINE AND THE WAY WE PLAN \nAND PREPARE FOR SEA LEVEL RISE \nMUST BE DONE WITH THESE \nRELATIONSHIPS ACROSS OUR REGION \nIN MIND NOT ONLY TO AVOID WORST \nOF THESE RISKS BUT BECAUSE THERE \nARE OPPORTUNITIES THAT ARISE \nWHEN WE COME TOGETHER. PLANNING \nREGIONALLY ENSURES ADAPTATION \nRESPONSES ARE COORDINATED \nPROVIDING PRIORITY RESOURCES TO \nFRONTLINE COMMUNITIES \nMAINTAINING LONG-TERM HEALTH OF \nHABITATS AND WETLANDS\, SUPPORT \nSTRATEGIC PROJECTS DEVELOP \nCOMMON STANDARDS AND METHODS FOR \nPLANNING DELIVER FUNDING TO THE \nPLACES THAT NEED IT MOST AND \nTRACK COLLECTIVE PROGRESS. IN \nON THE SIMPLE LEFT TERMS THE \nRSAP REGIONAL SHORELINE \nADAPTATION PLAN REGION-WIDE PLAN \nFOR BAY AREA SHORELINE THAT \nGUIDES CREATION OF COORDINATED \nREGIONAL GOALS FUNDED BY THE \nOCEAN PROTECTION COUNCIL AND \nSTATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY \nENVISIONED TO SERVE AS A MODEL \nFOR HOW OTHER REGIONS IN \nCALIFORNIA CAN COLLECTIVELY PLAN \nFOR CLIMATE IMPACTS. YOU HEARD \nUS TALK ABOUT SB272 OFTEN BUT \nIT’S WORTH A REMINDER ON WHAT \nTHIS BILL REQUIRES FOR BCDC AND \nHOW THE RSAP IS MEETING THESE \nREQUIREMENTS. LEGISLATION WAS \nPASSED IN OCTOBER LAST YEAR THAT \nREQUIRES LOCAL JURISDICTIONS TO \nDEVELOP SUBREGIONAL RESILIENCY \nPLANS AND FOR BCDC TO DEVELOP \nGUIDELINES THAT THESE PLANS MUST \nFOLLOW. BCDC HAS AUTHORITY TO \nAPPROVE OR DENY THESE PLANTS \nBASED ON CONSISTENCY WITH THE \nGUIDELINES. PLANS ARE ELIGIBLE \nFOR PRIORITIZED STATE FUNDING. \nFURTHER REQUIRES THAT BCDC ADOPT \nGUIDELINES BY DECEMBER 2024 AND \nFOR LOCAL PLANTS BE COMPLETED BY \nJANUARY 2034. WHEN WE WERE \nFUNDED TO INITIATE THE RSAP LAST \nYEAR THE PROJECT WAS FUNDED WITH \nTHIS BILL IN MIND. WE WERE WELL \nUNDERWAY BY THE TIME THIS BILL \nPASSED IN OCTOBER. THE RSAP \nCONTAINS GUIDELINES AS REQUIRED \nBY THIS BILL BUT GOES ABOVE AND \nBEYOND BY INCLUDING TASKS LISTED \nIN THE JOINT PLATFORM AND THE \nFOUNDATIONS OF BCDC’S CLIMATE \nCHANGE POLICIES. THE BILL SETS \nMINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR WHAT \nTHE GUIDELINES SHOULD CONTAIN\, \nINCLUDING BEING BASED IN BEST \nAVAILABLE SCIENCE\, HAVING A \nVULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT WITH \nEMPHASIS ON VULNERABLE \nCOMMUNITIES\, DEVELOPING \nADAPTATION STRATEGIES\, AND \nDESIGNATING IMPLEMENTATION \nLEADS\, AMONG OTHERS\, AND THESE \nASPECTS ARE ALL INCORPORATED \nINTO OUR GUIDELINES. THIS BILL \nAPPLIES TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS \nWITHIN BOTH BCDC AND THE \nCALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION’S \nRESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS\, SO \nAPPLIES TO BOTH OF THE AGENCY \nAND THE JURISDICTIONS WITHIN. \nAND WE HAVE BEEN MEETING WITH \nTHE CALIFORNIA COASTAL \nCOMMISSION STAFF REGULARLY TO \nENSURE THAT WE’RE AS ALIGNED AS \nPOSSIBLE. IT’S IMPORTANT TO \nNOTE THAT OUR AGENCY’S \nAPPROACHES TO MEETING THE \nREQUIREMENTS OF THIS BILL LOOK A \nLITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. THE \nCALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION \nHAS DIFFERENT ENABLING \nLEGISLATION THAN WE DO\, AND THEY \nHAVE AN EXISTING LOCAL COASTAL \nPROGRAM. THEY’RE UPDATING THEIR \nEXISTING GUIDANCE AS A MECHANISM \nTO MEET THE BILL. OUR APPROACH \nIS TO INCLUDE THE GUIDELINES AS \nREQUIRED BY SB272 INTO THE \nREGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION \nPLAN. OKAY. NEXT SLIDE. I \nWOULD LIKE TO GIVE OVERVIEW OF \nTHE MULTIPLE PIECES OF THE RSAP \nAND DIRECT YOU TO THE SCOPE OF \nTHE PROPOSED BAY PLAN AMENDMENTS \nTHAT CORY WILL DISCUSS WITH YOU \nFURTHER. THIS IS THE CURRENT \nPHASE OF OUR WORK. WE HAVE BEEN \nSHARING UPDATES TO THE \nCOMMISSION ON THESE TWO PIECES. \nTHE FIRST IS THE REGIONAL \nAPPROACH WHICH REPRESENTS THE \nBIG PICTURE\, REGION-WIDE ONE BAY \nVISION FOR WHAT THE ADAPTATION \nALONG THE SHORELINE SHOULD LOOK \nLIKE AND IDENTIFIED STRATEGIC \nREGIONAL PRIORITIES FOR EACH \nVISION THAT IDENTIFIES A \nREGIONAL SIGNIFICANT ISSUE THAT \nMUST BE ADDRESSED IN LOCAL \nPLANNING TO ALIGN LOCAL AND \nREGIONAL PRIORITIES. WE SHARED \nONE BAY VISION WITH THE \nCOMMISSION BACK IN FEBRUARY THIS \nYEAR. AND WE HAVE BEEN WORKING \nTO DEVELOP THE PLAN AND \nGUIDELINES AND MINIMUM \nSTANDARDS\, WHICH INCLUDE THE \nREQUIREMENTS OF SB 272. THE \nGUIDELINES LAY OUT A CONSISTENT \nPROCESS STANDARD FOR HOW TO \nCREATE SUBREGIONAL SHORELINE \nPLANS AND DEVELOP ADAPTATION \nSTRATEGIES THAT MEET MINIMUM \nCRITERIA AND ADVANCE THE \nREGION’S PRIORITIES AND OUTCOMES \nOF THE ONE BAY VISION. THESE \nTWO PARTS ARE WHAT WE INTEND TO \nBRING TO BCDC’S COMMISSION FOR \nADOPTION IN DECEMBER. FOLLOWING \nTHE ADOPTION OF THE GUIDELINES \nLOCAL JURISDICTIONS WILL THEN \nBEGIN THE HARD WORK OF \nCONDUCTING AND ADAPTATION \nPLANNING ALONG WITH THE \nSHORELINES WITH COMMUNITIES AND \nTHEIR NEIGHBORS. BCDC STAFF \nWILL TRANSITION TO PROVIDING \nTECHNICAL AND POLICY ASSISTANCE \nTO SUPPORT LOCAL JURISDICTIONS \nIN MEETING GUIDELINES. THERE \nARE A LOT MORE THAT NEEDS TO BE \nDONE TO ADVANCE AND IMPLEMENT \nTHESE STRATEGIES IN THESE PLANS \nFROM DEVELOPING REGIONAL \nINVESTMENT STRATEGY BUILDING \nROADMAP FOR PLANNING AND \nREGULATORY ALIGNMENTS AND MORE \nWE’RE INTENDING TO CONTINUE THE \nLEADERSHIP THAT BCDC PLAYS IN \nTHIS SPACE BY SUPPORTING \nADAPTATION REGION-WIDE. AND\, \nLASTLY\, ONE MORE BACK — JUST \nEMPHASIS THAT COMPONENTS IN THE \nPROPOSED BAY PLAN AMENDMENT \nWOULD BE THE FIRST TWO PARTS\, \nTHE ONE BAY VISION AND THE PLAN \nGUIDELINES. LAST SIDE. NOTE \nBEFORE I TURN IT OVER TO CORY\, I \nWANT TO EMPHASIZE THE OUTREACH \nAND ENGAGEMENT THAT WE HAVE BEEN \nCONDUCTING AS PART OF THE RSAP. \nWE HAVE BEEN LEADING AN ADVISORY \nGROUP OVER 40 EXPERTS ACROSS THE \nREGION DEVELOPED AN EQUITY \nSTRATEGY THAT HAS GUIDED OUR \nEQUITABLE OUTREACH APPROACH\, \nPUBLIC AND LOCAL PLANNING \nPRACTITIONER WORKSHOPS\, HELD \nFIVE WONDERFUL IN-PERSON \nWORKSHOPS PARTNERSHIPS AND \nCOMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS \nWORKING WITH FOLKS ON THE GROUND \nMEETING WITH LOCAL ELECTED \nOFFICIALS ACROSS THE REGION TO \nENSURE THAT MANY FOLKS ARE AWARE \nOF THIS WORK AND MANY VOICES \nHAVE HAD OPPORTUNITY TO SHAPE \nIT. THIS PRESENTATION TODAY IS \nON THE PROPOSAL TO ADOPT THE \nRSAP AS A BAY PLAN AMENDMENT AT \nA FUTURE MIGRATE WILL BE HAPPY \nTO SHARE MORE DETAILS ON THE \nCONTENTS OF OUR RSAP IN THE \nGUIDELINES THEMSELVES BUT FOR \nNOW I HOPE YOU HAVE GREATER \nSENSE OF THE PROJECT OVERALL. \nWITH THAT I’LL TURN IT OVER TO \nCORY. \nCORY MANN: I’LL TALK ABOUT \nTHE PROCESS FOR ESTABLISHING THE \nBAY PLAN AND TIMELINE FOR \nCOMPLETING THIS UPDATE BY THE \nEND OF 2024. I KNOW JACKIE \nSPOKE ABOUT THE REQUIREMENTS OF \nSB272 AND THAT YOU HAVE HEARD \nABOUT IT AT VARIOUS TIMES IN \nLENGTH. I’LL START BY NOTING \nTHAT THE BILL DOESN’T ACTUALLY \nSPEAK TO THE PROCESS FOR THE \nCOMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF THE \nRSAP PLAN. BASED ON \nCONSULTATION WITH BCDC’S LEGAL \nCOUNSEL\, THE EXPECTATION IS THAT \nBCDC WILL USE ITS EXISTING LAWS\, \nREGULATIONS\, AND PLANS\, TO \nIMPLEMENT THE PROVISIONS OF \nSB272. SO HERE IS AN OVERVIEW \nOF THOSE LAWS\, REGULATIONS\, AND \nPLANS. THE MCATEER-PETRIS ACT \nCREATED BCDC TO LIMIT FILLING OF \nTHE BAY PROMOTE PUBLIC ACCESS TO \nITS SHORELINES AND TO CREATE THE \nSAN FRANCISCO BAY PLAN. THE BAY \nPLAN IS A LIVING DOCUMENT IT \nCONTAINS FINDINGS AND POLICIES \nON A RANGE OF TOPICS FROM \nCOMMERCIAL FISHING TO MANAGED \nWETLANDS TO ENVIRONMENTAL \nJUSTICE AND SOCIAL EQUITY AND OF \nCOURSE ON CLIMATE CHANGE. \nPROJECTS THAT REQUIRE PERMITS \nFROM BCDC MUST BE CONSISTENT \nWITH THE POLICIES IN THE BAY \nPLAN. WHEN NEEDED\, THE BAY PLAN \nCAN ALSO INCORPORATE SPECIAL \nAREA PLANS THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO \nCERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE \nSHORELINE\, OR OTHER PLANS \nADDRESSING ESSENTIAL NEEDS. FOR \nEXAMPLE\, YOU WILL RECALL THAT \nTHE SEAPORT PLAN HAS ITS OWN SET \nOF FINDING SAYS AND POLICIES FOR \nPORT AREAS. YOU CAN THINK OF \nTHESE PLANS AS EXTENSIONS OF THE \nBAY PLAN\, BUT ANY SPECIAL AREA \nPLAN\, THE SEAPORT PLAN\, ET \nCETERA\, AND THE BAY PLAN\, \nITSELF\, NEED TO BE CONSISTENT \nWITH THE MCATEER-PETRIS ACT IN \nORDER TO BE ENFORCEABLE. IF YOU \nTHINK OF ALL OF THAT AS THE \nCONTENT THAT WE WORK WITH\, THERE \nIS STILL THE HOW. SO\, THE \nSUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENTS UNDER \nTHE MCATEER-PETRIS ACT ARE \nFLESHED OUT THROUGH REGULATIONS \nTHAT THE COMMISSION HAS FORMALLY \nADOPTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE \nADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT AND \nSUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL BY \nOFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. \nINCLUDES EVERYTHING FROM HOW AND \nWHEN THE COMMISSION MEETS TO \nPERMIT AND ENFORCEMENT \nPROCEDURES TO HOW WE’RE ALLOWED \nTO ADOPT NEW PLANS AND POLICIES. \nTHE QUESTION THEN IS WHERE DOES \nTHE RSAP AND THE SUBREGIONAL \nSHORELINE ADAPTATION PLANS FIT \nINTO THIS FRAMEWORK. \nSO\, BCDC STAFF HAVE CONCLUDED \nAND RECOMMEND THAT THE STRAIGHT \nFORWARD APPROACH TO GIFT RSAP \nLEGAL EFFECT HAS ENVISION SAID \nUNDER SB272 IS TO ADOPT THE RSAP \nTHROUGH THE BAY PLAN AMENDMENT \nPROCESS JUST AS BCDC WOULD ADOPT \nA SPECIAL AREA PLAN OR SEAPORT \nPLAN OR MORE SPECIFIC \nAPPLICATION OF THE BAY PLAN. AS \nMENTIONED ON THE LAST SLIDE \nBCDC’S EXISTING PROCEDURES \nPROVIDE ALLOWANCE FOR \nINCORPORATING MORE SPECIFIC \nPLANS LIKE THIS INTO THE BAY \nPLAN. IN ADDITION TO ADOPTING \nTHE RSAP AS A BAY PLAN AMENDMENT \nSTAFF WILL RECOMMEND AMENDING \nSOME OF THE RELEVANT BAY PLAN \nCLIMATE CHANGE FINDINGS AND \nPOLICIES PARTICULARLY CLIMATE \nCHANGE POLICY SIX\, THE EXISTING \nBAY PLAN CLIMATE POLICY SIX \nSTATES THE COMMISSION SHOULD \nDEVELOP A REGIONAL SHORELINE \nADAPTATION PLAN SINCE THAT’S \nWHAT WE’RE DOING BY ESTABLISHING \nTHE RSAP REVIEWING AND TAKING \nACTION EVENTUALLY ON THE \nREQUIRED SUBREGIONAL SHORELINE \nPLANS WE’RE GOING TO SUGGEST \nUPDATING THE POLICY TO \nACKNOWLEDGE ASSOCIATED FINDINGS \nIN CLIMATE CHANGE SECTION OF THE \nBAY PLAN ALSO ALLOWING US TO \nDESCRIBE REQUIREMENTS OF THE \nSB272 AND HELP CONNECT \nLEGISLATION DIRECTLY TO THE BAY \nPLAN ITSELF THIS WILL TARGET \nUPDATE TO ADOPT AND INCORPORATE \nTHE RSAP RATHER THAN WHOLE \nREVISION OF THE BAY PLAN CLIMATE \nCHANGE POLICIES THIS IS \nIMPORTANT\, THE RSAP AS A BAY \nPLAN AMENDMENT AT THE END OF \nTHIS YEAR WILL NOT ALTER \nPERMITTING PROCESS FOR \nINDIVIDUAL PROJECTS. THIS WOULD \nHAVE NO EFFECT ON HOW INDIVIDUAL \nPROJECTS ARE REVIEWED AND \nPERMITTED. \nBUT\, OF COURSE\, IMPLEMENTATION \nOF THE RSAP\, AS WELL AS BCDC’S \nREVIEW OF SUBREGIONAL SHORELINE \nADAPTATION PLAN IS GOING TO BE \nAN ONGOING PROCESS. THE PURPOSE \nOF AMENDING THE BAY PLAN IN THIS \nMANNER IS TO FORMALIZE THE \nCOMMISSION’S ADOPTION OF THE \nPLAN BUT BEYOND 2024 THERE IS \nSTILL SO MUCH TO DO. FIRST ONE \nTHING TO NOTE ABOUT THE BAY PLAN \nAMENDMENT PROCESS IS THAT IT’S \nSOMEWHAT CUMBERSOME FOR WHEN \nUPDATES TO THE NEEDED. \nTHEREFORE\, AN IMPORTANT STEP TO \nSEEK LEGISLATIVE SOLUTIONS THAT \nCOULD EXEMPT UPDATES TO THE PLAN \nFROM HAVING TO GO THROUGH THE \nENTIRE BAY PLAN AMENDMENT \nPROCESS TO GIVE THEM LEGAL \nEFFECT. SOME STATE AGENCIES \nHAVE LEGISLATIVE CARVE-OUTS THAT \nALLOW THOSE AGENCIES TO ISSUE \nGUIDANCE THAT’S NOT SUBJECT TO \nTHE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT \nOR REVIEW BY THE OFFICE OF \nADMINISTRATIVE LAW. AND WOULD \nSEEK A SIMILAR KIND OF \nLEGISLATIVE CARVE-OUT FOR \nUPDATES TO THE RSAP\, AND THAT \nWOULD PROVIDE US MORE \nFLEXIBILITY TO MAKE SURE WE CAN \nUPDATE THE PLAN REGULARLY WHEN \nNEEDED. WE WOULD BE LOOKING FOR \nA LEGISLATIVELY APPROVED \nAPPROACH THAT WOULD BE \nSTREAMLINED AND PARTICIPATORY \nAND TRANSPARENT TO THE PUBLIC. \nBROADLY BCDC WILL NEED TO ASSESS \nITS AUTHOR AND JURISDICTIONS TO \nCONSIDER HOW BEST TO LINK SEA \nLEVEL RISE PLANNING TO OUR \nREGULATORY PROGRAM. GOAL TWO \nOBJECTIVE ONE OF THE STRATEGIC \nPLAN IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER AND \nHOW BCDC REGULATORY AND PLANNING \nAUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION \nSHOULD EXPAND TO FOSTER LARGER \nSCALE ADAPTATION EFFORTS. THIS \nIS SOMETHING STAFF ARE ALREADY \nBEGINNING TO BRAINSTORM ON \nINTERNALLY. AND WE HOPE TO \nSTART A SERIES OF CONVERSATIONS \nABOUT THESE ISSUES WITH THE \nCOMMISSION AND STAKEHOLDERS \nACROSS THE REGION SOON. \nSO\, ADOPTING THE RSAP AT THE END \nOF THIS YEAR IS AN IMPORTANT \nSTEP BUT THIS IN ITSELF DOES NOT \nALTER BCDC’S PERMITTING PROGRAM \nOR UNDERLYING MCATEER-PETRIS \nAUTHORITY. SO WE’RE BEGINNING \nTO EXPLORE THESE POSSIBILITIES \nAND LOOK FORWARD TO DISCUSSING \nTHIS MORE AT FUTURE MEETINGS. \nTHESE INITIATIVES COULD END UP \nBEING INCLUDED IN FUTURE BAY \nPLAN AMENDMENTS OR FUTURE \nLEGISLATION OR LIKELY BOTH \nHOLISTICALLY INTEGRATING \nPERMITTING AND PLANNING FOR SEA \nLEVEL RISE IN THE YEARS TO COME. \nTHOSE ARE THE THINGS STAFF ARE \nBEGINNING TO THINK ABOUT AND \nWANTED TO FLAG FOR YOU NOW NONE \nOF THE THINGS WE’RE DISCUSSING \nTODAY OR THAT ARE ON THIS SLIDE \nWOULD BE PART OF THE PROPOSED \nBAY PLAN AMENDMENT. HERE IS \nCONCRETE INFORMATION ABOUT THE \nBAY PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS AND \nTIMELINE. SO\, FIRST\, WE \nCIRCULATED A DRAFT DESCRIPTIVE \nNOTICE AND A BRIEF STAFF REPORT \nTO THE COMMISSION ON AUGUST 2ND \nIN ADVANCE OF TODAY’S PUBLIC \nHEARING AND POSSIBLE VOTE ON \nWHETHER TO INITIATE THE BAY PLAN \nAMENDMENT PROCESS. IF THE \nCOMMISSION VOTES TO INITIATE THE \nPROCESS\, THEN WE WILL MAIL THE \nFINAL DESCRIPTIVE NOTICE OUT \nWITH A PUBLIC HEARING DATE TO \nOUR LIST OF INTERESTED PARTIES. \nTHEN IN MID-SEPTEMBER\, STAFF \nWILL CIRCULATE A STAFF REPORT \nWITH A PRELIMINARY \nRECOMMENDATION TO THE \nCOMMISSION. THAT’S GOING TO BE \nBIG. STAFF WILL HAVE SPECIFIC \nPOLICY LANGUAGE THAT WE SUGGEST \nAMENDING IN THE BAY PLAN CLIMATE \nCHANGE POLICIES ALONG WITH THE \nDRAFT REGIONAL SHORELINE \nADAPTATION PLAN ITSELF. SO THAT \nDATE\, SEPTEMBER 13TH\, IS A BIG \nONE AND ALSO MARKS THE BEGINNING \nOF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC COMMENT \nPERIOD IN WHICH BCDC WILL \nRESPOND TO EVERY WRITTEN COMMENT \nRECEIVED. OF COURSE\, WE HAVE \nBEEN AND WILL CONTINUE TO ENGAGE \nSTAKEHOLDERS THROUGH THE THIS \nENTIRE PROCESS\, INCLUDING \nHOLDING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR \nPUBLIC COMMENT TODAY TO \nDETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT TO \nINITIATE THIS PROCESS. \nON OCTOBER 17TH\, WE WOULD HOLD A \nPUBLIC HEARING ON THE DRAFT RSAP \nAS WELL AS THE POLICY REVISIONS \nIN THE BAY PLAN THAT I JUST \nMENTIONED\, AND THE OFFICIAL \nPUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD WOULD \nLIKELY CLOSE AT THE END OF THAT \nMEETING\, AND AFTER THAT STAFF \nWOULD MAKE REVISIONS BASED ON \nPUBLIC AND COMMISSIONER INPUT \nPRIOR TO CIRCULATING A FINAL \nRECOMMENDATION AND A COMMISSION\, \nAND ANOTHER MEETING WITH A \nCOMMISSION VOTE ON WHETHER OR \nNOT TO ADOPT THE RSAP AND THOSE \nRELATED CHANGES TO THE BAY PLAN\, \nTENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR \nDECEMBER 5TH. LIKE ANY BAY PLAN \nAMENDMENT\, UPDATING THE BAY PLAN \nREQUIRES A 2/3 AFFIRMATIVE VOTE \nOF THE TOTAL COMMISSION\, SO\, 18 \nCOMMISSION — 18 POSITIVE VOTES. \nAND THIS TIMELINE WILL ENSURE \nTHAT BCDC FINALIZES THE \nGUIDELINES FOR THE RSAP BY THE \nEND OF THE YEAR PER THE \nREQUIREMENTS OF SB272. IF THE \nCOMMISSION VOTES TO ADOPT THE \nAMENDMENT STAFF WOULD THEN NEED \nTO SUBMIT THE AMENDMENT FOR \nREVIEW BY THE STATE OFFICE OF \nADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND WE MAY \nALSO SUBMIT THE AMENDMENT TO \nNOAA TO INCORPORATE THE \nAMENDMENT INTO BCDC’S FEDERAL \nCOASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. \nTHAT BRINGS US TO THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION. LAST THING TO \nMENTION\, BRIEFLY\, IS THAT IN \nCONTRAST TO THE 2/3 VOTE \nREQUIREMENT FOR ADOPTING A BAY \nPLAN\, THE COMMISSION\, THE \nCOMMISSION ONLY NEEDS A MAJORITY \nVOTE TO INITIATE THE BAY PLAN \nAMENDMENT PROCESS. OF COURSE\, \nBEFORE I READ THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION\, I WILL STOP AND \nWE WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY \nQUESTIONS. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: DO \nWE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: YES\, \nCHAIR WASSERMAN. WE CURRENTLY \nHAVE TWO HAND RAISED. KAREN \nHIGH\, YOU MAY UNMUTE YOURSELF. \nSPEAKER: GOOD MORNING. CAN \nYOU HEAR ME? \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: YES\, \nWE CAN. \nSPEAKER: I MEAN GOOD \nAFTERNOON \n[LAUGHTER] \nKAREN HIGH\, CITIZEN’S COMMITTEE \nTO COMPLETE THE REFUGE THANK YOU \nFOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE \nCOMMENTS WE SUPPORT THE ADOPTION \nOF THE NOTICE TO INITIATE THE \nPROCESS TO AMEND THE BAY PLAN TO \nINCLUDE THE RSAP SINCE 2010 CCCR \nHAS ACTIVELY PARTICIPATED IN THE \nCLIMATE CHANGE AMENDMENT\, \nADAPTING TO RISING TIDES AND BAY \nADAPT PROCESSES AND WE ARE \nCURRENTLY ON THE RSAP ADVISORY \nGROUP. WE WOULD LIKE TO GIVE \nHIGHER-LEVEL COMMENTS REGARDING \nHOW WE ADAPT TO CLIMATE CHANGE. \nONE\, HABITATS OF THE BAY ARE \nVULNERABLE\, ARE THREATENED BY \nSEA LEVEL RISE\, NOT JUST \nCOMMUNITIES. BAY HABITATS \nPROVIDE VITAL BENEFITS FOR \nCOMMUNITIES\, INCLUDING SEA LEVEL \nRESILIENCE AND SHOULD BE \nCONSIDERED IMPORTANT NATURAL \nINFRASTRUCTURE IN OUR EFFORTS TO \nPLAN FOR SEA LEVEL RISE \nADAPTATION. A HOLISTIC APPROACH \nTO PLANNING FOR SEA LEVEL RISE \nRESILIENCE THAT INCLUDES \nPROTECTION OF THE BAY’S EXISTING \nAND FUTURE HABITATS IS CRUCIAL \nFOR BAY AREA COMMUNITIES. AND \nWITH RESPECT TO THE RSAP\, WE \nSUPPORT LANGUAGE FOR STRATEGIC \nREGIONAL PRIORITIES PERTAINING \nTO ECOSYSTEM HEALTH AND \nRESILIENCE AND WE URGE THAT \nECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROVIDED BY \nHABITATS BE INTEGRATED AS A \nTHREAD THAT WEAVES THROUGH THE \nRSAP GUIDELINES LANGUAGE. THE \nDOCUMENT THAT WILL BE USED MAY \nNOT HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO THE \nCONCEPT OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES \nAND THE IMPORTANT ROLE OF \nNATURAL INFRASTRUCTURE BAY \nHABITATS PLAYS IN PROVIDING \nCLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE. IT \nIS IMPORTANT THAT THE \nVULNERABILITY AND CRUCIAL \nRESILIENCE FUNCTIONS OF THE \nBAY’S HABITATS IS CLEARLY \nIDENTIFIED\, AS WELL AS THE NEED \nTO PROTECT THESE FUNCTIONS \nMOVING INTO THE FUTURE. AND \nTHAT THIS BE WOVEN THROUGHOUT \nTHE RSAP. WE LOOK FORWARD TO \nCONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN THIS \nVERY IMPORTANT REGIONAL PROCESS\, \nAND OUR APPRECIATION GOES OUT TO \nSTAFF WHO ARE DEALING WITH THIS \nVERY COMPLEX ISSUE. THANK YOU. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: THANK \nYOU. AND NEXT WE HAVE HANNAH. \nYOU MAY UNMUTE YOURSELF. \nSPEAKER: HELLO. CAN YOU HEAR \nME? \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: WE \nCAN BUT YOU ARE A LITTLE QUIET. \nSPEAKER: OKAY. WELL\, GOOD \nAFTERNOON. I’M HANNA O’KOREEH \nON BEHALF OF SHAH\, YODER\, AND \n[INDISCERNIBLE] AND RANGE. \nTHANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO \nPROVIDE COMMENTS A QUICK \nQUESTION THE DRAFT GUIDELINES DO \nNOT ALLOW SPECIAL DISTRICTS TO \nSUBMIT SEA LEVEL RISE PLANS OR \nPROJECTS CURRENTLY ONLY CITIES \nOR LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ARE ABLE \nTO EXERCISE AUTHOR WHAT \nABILITIES DO SPECIAL DISTRICTS \nHAVE IN TERMS OF ADDRESSING SEA \nLEVEL RISE WITHIN THE GUIDELINES \nIS THERE ROOM FOR AMENDING THE \nGUIDELINES TO INCLUDE SPECIAL \nDISTRICTS? \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: THANK \nYOU FOR YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT. I \nSEE NO OTHER HANDS RAISED AT \nTHIS TIME CHAIR WASSERMAN. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. COMMENTS OR \nQUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND? \nSPEAKER: THANK YOU VERY MUCH\, \nCHAIR. GREAT PRESENTATION\, AND \nA LOT OF GOOD INFORMATION. I \nGOT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. \nACTUALLY\, IT’S A SERIES OF \nQUESTIONS. FIRST ALL\, HAVE THE \nLOCAL JURISDICTIONS THAT ARE \nGOING TO BE REQUIRED TO DEVELOP \nTHIS PLAN BEEN NOTIFIED THAT \nTHEY’RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO SO? \nAND THAT THE GUIDELINES THAT ARE \nGONNA BE ESTABLISHED TO HELP IN \nDETERMINING WHETHER THE PLAN \nWILL BE APPROVED OR NOT BY BCDC \nAND THE COASTAL COMMISSION IS \nGOING TO BE DECIDED UPON BETWEEN \nNOW AND DECEMBER? THE REASON I \nASK THAT QUESTION IS BECAUSE I \nWOULD — I WOULD ASSUME THAT ANY \nCITY OR COUNTY THAT HAS ANY — \nTHAT TOUCHES THE BAY AT ALL\, \nWOULD HAVE TO DEVELOP A PLAN. \nSO\, THE CITY\, MY CITY\, CITY OF \nNOVATO\, HAVE NOT NOTIFIED THE \nCOUNCIL THAT WE’RE GOING TO BE \nREQUIRED TO DEVELOP A PLAN. SO \nJUST KIND OF CURIOUS AS TO WHAT \nLEVEL OF CONTACT WE HAVE HAD\, \nAND HOW — WHERE THE LOCALS ARE \nRELATIVE TO THIS PROCESS. \nSPEAKER: I CAN START WITH \nTHAT ONE. SO WE HAVE BEEN \nTRYING OUR HARDEST TO WORK WITH \nAS MANY LOCAL JURISDICTIONS AS \nPOSSIBLE. THERE IS 41 CITIES \nAND NINE COUNTIES THAT TOURISTS \nTHE BAY. SO THAT’S ABOUT 50 \nJURISDICTIONS. \nWE HAVE DONE THIS IN A VARIETY \nOF WAYS SO FAR. WE HAVE BEEN \nDOING OUTREACH MEETINGS\, MAYOR’S \nCONFERENCES THROUGHOUT THE \nREGION. I THINK WE HAVE HIT \nEIGHT OF THE NINE COUNTIES AT \nTHIS POINT. SO\, WE HAVE USED \nTHAT AS A FORUM TO TRY TO GET \nTHE WORD OUT. A FEW WEEKS AGO \nWE HOSTED A WORKSHOP WITH \nPLANNING DIRECTORS. WE REAPED \nREACHED OUT TO EVERY PLANNING \nDIRECTOR IN THE BAY AREA SUBJECT \nTO THIS AND INVITED THEM TO \nPARTICIPATE IN THE WORKSHOP\, A \nCHANCE FOR THEM TO LEARN ABOUT \nTHE PROCESS AND ALSO FOR US TO \nLEARN FROM THEM AND UNDERSTAND \nHOW THIS CAN WORK IN THEIR \nCOMMUNITIES. ALSO HAVE ADVISORY \nCOMMITTEES AND OTHER FORUM WHERE \nIS MANY LOCAL JURISDICTIONS \nPARTICIPATED BUT WOULDN’T SAY \nALL NECESSARILY. OPPORTUNITY \nFOR US TO FORMALLY MAKE SURE \nTHAT EVERYONE IS ON NOTICE SO \nTHAT’S SOMETHING WE CAN DO. \nPAT ECKLUND: CAN WE GET A \nLIST OF THOSE 41 CITIES? I \nWOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHICH ARE IN \nTHE AREA THAT I REPRESENT. SO I \nCAN MAKE SURE THAT THOSE \nJURISDICTIONS ARE AWARE OF IT. \nSPEAKER: SURE. HAPPY TO \nSHARE THAT. \nPAT ECKLUND: AND SO\, ARE \nTHESE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THAT ARE \nGOING TO BE HAVING TO DEVELOP A \nPLAN\, IS THERE GOING TO BE ANY \nFUNDING FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO \nDEVELOP THAT PLAN? \nSPEAKER: SO\, FUNDING IS \nCURRENTLY AVAILABLE FOR CITIES \nTHROUGH THE OP\, THE OCEAN \nPROTECTION COUNCIL’S SB1 GRANT \nPROGRAM. AND JUSTIN COMPANY \nKIMBALL IS AVAILABLE TO ANSWER \nSPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT \nGRANT PROGRAM BUT IN SHORT \nFUNDING AVAILABLE NOW IT’S OPEN \nON A ROLLING BASIS. SO THERE IS \nQUARTERLY GRANT APPROVAL \nPROCESSES. IT’S A \nNON-COMPETITIVE GRANT\, SO IF YOU \nDO ALL THE THINGS YOU’RE \nSUPPOSED TO DO\, THEY WILL FUND \nIT AND SEVERAL BAY AREA CITIES \nHAVE ALREADY RECEIVED IT\, AND IN \nANTICIPATION OF THIS FUNDING\, \nAND USING THAT PROGRAM. I WOULD \nSAY IF THAT’S SOMETHING YOU’RE \nCITY NEEDS\, LOOK INTO THAT\, \nWE’RE HAPPY TO CONNECT YOU WITH \nTHOSE FOLKS AT OPC\, AS WELL. \nPAT ECKLUND: SINCE THERE IS \nONLY 41 CITIES OUT OF THE 488 — \nWELL\, I DON’T KNOW HOW MANY ARE \nIN THE BAY AREA — SO THERE’S \nONLY 41 CITIES\, THEN NOT EVERY \nCITY THAT HAS CONNECTION TO THE \nBAY IS REQUIRED TO DEVELOP A \nPLAN. IS THAT CORRECT? \nSPEAKER: THAT’S CORRECT. \nONLY ONES WITHIN BCDC’S \nJURISDICTION. \nPAT ECKLUND: THAT ARE IN \nBCDC’S JURISDICTION. OKAY. GOT \nIT. IS NOVATO SUBJECT TO THIS? \nI JUST — \nSPEAKER: YES. \nPAT ECKLUND: WE ARE? \nINTERESTING. I REALLY WOULD \nLIKE A LIST OF THE 41 CITIES AS \nSOON AS POSSIBLE\, SO THAT I CAN \nMAKE SURE THAT THE PEOPLE THAT \nARE AT THE GOVERNANCE LEVEL HAVE \nSOME IDEA THAT THIS IS BEING \nREQUIRED. AND\, SO\, I REALLY \nWOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT AS SOON \nAS POSSIBLE. BECAUSE THIS \nWHOLE\, YOU KNOW\, HAVING WORKED \nFOR EPA FOR OVER 35 YEARS\, WE \nDEVELOPED GUIDELINES AND WE WERE \nVERY CAREFUL TO MAKE SURE THAT \nALL THE JURISDICTIONS THAT HAD \nTO COMPLY WITH THE GUIDELINES \nWERE GOING TO BE INVOLVED IN THE \nDEVELOPMENT OF THEM. I \nDEPARTMENT KNOW MY CITY WAS \nGOING TO BE REQUIRED TO DO THIS \nPLAN. MAYBE MY FAULT\, BUT \nREGARDLESS WHOSE FAULT IT IS\, \nIT’S JUST WE REALLY NEED TO GET \nUP TO SPEED QUICKLY. ESPECIALLY \nIF THEY’RE SUPPOSED TO BE \nAPPROVED BY THE END OF THE \nCALENDAR YEAR\, JUST SORRY — \nSPEAKER: OUR GUIDELINES THAT \nARE REQUIRED TO BE BY THE END OF \nTHE YEAR\, CITIES HAVE UNTIL \n2034. \nPAT ECKLUND: 2034. I \nUNDERSTAND THAT BUT THE \nGUIDELINES ARE GOING TO BE \nCRITICAL TO DIAGRAM HOW THE \nCITIES DEVELOP THEIR PLAN. SOME \nCITIES DON’T HAVE THAT \nEXPERTISE. LIKE OUR CITY\, WE \nHAVE AN ANNUAL DEFICIT OF 3 \nMILLION\, MINIMUM SO WE DON’T \nNECESSARILY HAVE ALL THE \nRESOURCES THAT WE NEED\, AND \nOTHER CITIES ARE IN THE SAME \nCONDITION AS WE ARE. I’M JUST \nREALLY ANXIOUS TO GET THAT \nINFORMATION\, SO THAT THEN I CAN \nHELP START SPREADING THE WORD SO \nTHAT WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT OUR \nCITIES ARE PREPARED AND ARE \nINVOLVED EACH STEP OF THE WAY. \nAND ARE WE GOING TO BE NOTIFIED \nOF ALL OF THE PUBLIC VENUES \nWHERE WE’RE GOING TO BE \nDISCUSSING THE GUIDELINES? OR \nCOULD WE BE NOTIFIED IN ADVANCE \nSO WE CAN PUT IT ON OUR \nCALENDARS AND FOLLOW THE \nPROCESS. \nSPEAKER: ABSOLUTELY. YES. \nPAT ECKLUND: OKAY GREAT. \nBECAUSE THAT’S A VERY \nINTERESTING PROCESS TO ME\, \nHAVING BEEN AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL \nFOR SO LONG\, IT’S GOING TO BE \nFUN PARTICIPATE WITH BCDC. \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER GIOIA? \nJOHN GIOIA: MY UNDERSTANDING\, \nBCDC HAS DONE SOME OUTREACH I \nKNOW WE MADE A PRESENTATION AT \nCONTRA COSTA\, STAFF AND BCDC \nSTAFF AT THE CONTRA COSTA \nCONFERENCE A COUPLE OF MONTHS \nAGO\, EMBARKING ON REACHING OUT \nTO COUNTY MAYORS CONFERENCES\, \nYOU HAVE BEEN DOING THAT. \nSPEAKER: YES EIGHT OR NINE OF \nTHE COUNTIES\, THE COUNTY WE HAVE \nREACHED OUT TO WE HAVE GONE TO \nMAYOR’S CONFERENCE\, AND MARIN\, \nALAMEDA\, CONTRA COSTA\, NAPA\, \nSONOMA\, SALON OH I THINK WE HAVE \nSAN MATEO AND STILL HAVE SANTA \nCLARA. \nJOHN GIOIA: RIGHT. I BELIEVE \nIT’S UP TO THE MAYORS FROM THOSE \nCITIES WHO ARE AT THESE \nCONFERENCES TO REPORT BACK TO \nTHEIR JURISDICTIONS ABOUT THIS \nREQUIREMENT. ARE YOU GOING TO \nBE DOING ANY MAILING AS WELL? \nMY UNDERSTANDING IS THE CITIES\, \nYOU HAVE HELD REGIONAL MEETINGS \nTO GET INPUT ON ALL OF THIS? \nSPEAKER: YES WE HAD A NUMBER \nOF REGIONAL MEETINGS\, AS I \nMENTIONED\, THE PLANNING \nDIRECTOR’S MEETING WE HELD A FEW \nWEEKS AGO AND WE’LL CONTINUE AS \nWE ENTER THE PUBLIC COMMENT \nPHASE AND CONTINUE TO DO THAT \nOUTREACH AS WE ENTER THIS FORMAL \nPART OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. \nJOHN GIOIA: AND YOU HAVE BEEN \nTAKE INPUT FROM THESE PUBLIC \nMEETINGS INCLUDING FROM CITIES? \nSPEAKER: CORRECT. \nJOHN GIOIA: ALL RIGHT. IT’S \nGETTING DUE DILIGENCE THERE. \nTHANK YOU. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY \nOTHER — COMMISSIONER SHOWALTER\, \nAND THEN COMMISSIONER GUNTHER. \nPATRICIA SHOWALTER: YEAH\, I \nAM GOING TO FOLLOW UP ABOUT THE \nSPECIAL DISTRICTS. REALLY WHAT \nSEA LEVEL RISE IS\, IS COASTAL \nFLOOD PROTECTION. WE USED TO \nCALL IT COASTAL FLOOD \nPROTECTION\, AND FRANKLY LITTLE \nWAS DONE\, AND NOW WE CALL SEA \nLEVEL RISE\, AND WE’RE DOING LOTS \nWHICH IS GREAT. FLOOD \nPROTECTION IT’S COVERED BY A \nPATCHWORK QUILT OF AGENCIES \nHERE\, NOT ALL DONE BY THE \nCITIES. SO\, I THOUGHT THE IDEA \nOF CREATING THE SPECIAL RELEVANT \nDISTRICTS\, PARTICULARLY SANTA \nCLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT IS \nREALLY GERMANE\, IT SEEMS LIKE \nALL THE THINGS I WORKED ON WITH \nBCDC\, WE HAVE BEEN VERY OPEN TO \nTHAT\, AND WE HAVE DONE THAT. \nSO\, I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM \nTHAT INDEED WE WERE — YOU KNOW\, \nWE WERE REALLY REACHING OUT \nEVERYBODY TO WHO IS IN THE FLOOD \nPROTECTION SPACE. IS THAT \nRIGHT? \nSPEAKER: THAT’S CORRECT. THE \nLEGISLATION\, ITSELF\, SAYS THAT \nLOCAL JURISDICTIONS MUST ADOPT \nTHESE SUBREGIONAL PLANS. SO \nTHAT’S IN THE LEGISLATION. BUT \nAS WE’RE DEVELOPING THESE \nGUIDELINES\, WE KNOW WHO MANAGES \nOUR SHORELINE IS DIVERSE\, IT’S A \nMIX OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS\, AND \nFLOOD CONTROL DISTRICTS\, AND \nPRIVATE PROPERTIES\, AND A WHOLE \nMESS OF DIFFERENT ENTITIES THAT \nARE RESPONSIBLE AND OWN AND \nMANAGE THAT LAND GUIDELINES ARE \nTRYING TO CALL OUT HOW WE MAKE \nSURE THOSE COORDINATE WITH ONE \nANOTHER AND SPECIAL DISTRICTS \nARE CALLED OUT AS THE KEY \nENTITY. \nPATRICIA SHOWALTER: THAT’S \nIMPORTANT. AND MY OTHER \nQUESTION IS WHERE PLANS ARE \nGOING TO BE WRITTEN I THINK \nTHAT’S 2034 THAT’S A NUMBER WE \nSHOULD ALL KEEP IN OUR HEADS. \nIT’S ONE THING TO GET THE \nGUIDELINES\, BUT YOU KNOW\, THAT’S \nTEN YEARS TO THINK ABOUT IT. \nTHAT’S REALLY A LONG\, LONG TIME. \nI’M HOPING THAT WE CAN PROVIDE \nINCENTIVES TO GET THOSE PLANS \nDONE MUCH FASTER. AND I \nWONDERED IF YOU HAD A FEW WORDS \nOF WISDOM ABOUT INCENTIVES WE \nMIGHT PROVIDE? \nSPEAKER: SURE. AND I THINK \nOF THE LEGISLATION\, THAT’S \nPROBABLY THE PART OF IT THAT \nMAKES US A LITTLE UNHAPPIEST. \nBUT THAT IS WHAT THE \nLEGISLATIONS SAYS. BUT WE THINK \nAND HOPE THAT WE CAN RALLY THE \nBAY AREA TO DO THESE PLANS \nFASTER. A LOT OF CITIES ALREADY \nHAVE PLANS AND WE WANT TO MAKE \nTHAT PROCESS EASY FOR THEM. WE \nALSO ARE GOING TO BE DEVELOPING \nA TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM \nAS\, SORT OF\, THE NEXT PHASE OF \nTHIS. SO THAT WILL BE A WAY WE \nCAN WORK WITH CITIES AND HELP \nPUSH THESE ALONG. AS I \nMENTIONED\, THE OPC FUNDING IS \nAVAILABLE\, AND HOPEFULLY THAT \nINCENTIVIZES FOLKS. AND LASTLY \nTHE LEGISLATION ITSELF SAYS THAT \nCITIES WHO HAVE THESE PLANS IN \nPLACE THAT ARE APPROVED BY BCDC \nAND THE COASTAL COMMISSION WILL \nBE PRIORITIZED FOR STATE FUNDING \nAND THAT’S WHERE THE REAL \nDOLLARS ARE IN TERMS OF PROJECT \nIMPLEMENTATION. HOPEFULLY WE \nCAN GET THE MESSAGE SOONER IF \nYOU GET THE PLANS IN PLACE\, THE \nSOONER YOUR PROJECTS CAN BE \nINCENTIVIZED FOR THAT BIGGER \nTICKET. \nPATRICIA SHOWALTER: I KNOW IN \nMOUNTAIN VIEW\, WE ARE GOING TO \nSIGN UP AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. \nBECAUSE THE MONEY IS AN ISSUE. \nWE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF \nBUILDING A SEA LEVEL RISE \nPROJECT. WE HAVE 14 PROJECTS IN \nIT. YES. I TOLD YOU. WE’RE \nREALLY BUSY BUILDING THEM. BUT \nTHEY GET MORE EXPENSIVE EVERY \nYEAR. SO\, THE MONEY WILL BE \nVERY\, VERY ENTICING. THANK YOU \nSO MUCH. THIS IS VERY\, VERY \nVALUABLE WORK. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER. \nANDREW GUNTHER: THANK YOU\, \nMR. CHAIRMAN. JESSICA\, I WANT \nTO CONGRATULATE YOU ON YOUR VERY \nFIRST SLIDE\, WHICH SET THAT \nCONTEXT FOR HOW LONG WE HAVE \nBEEN WORKING ON THIS ISSUE. AND \nI THINK THAT’S REALLY IMPORTANT\, \nA DRUM TO BEAT CONSTANTLY. IT \nGOES BACK EARLIER THAN THAT\, \nBECAUSE TRAV WAS WORKING ON IT \nEARLIER THAN THAT. AND I THINK \nAS TIME GOES ON IT’S GOING TO \nBECOME MORE AND MORE IMPRESSIVE \nAND IT CAN BECOME A VALUABLE \nPIECE OF INFORMATION FOR \nCONVINCING PEOPLE THAT WE HAVE \nTHOUGHT THIS OUT AND THAT — \nTHAT IT’S — I MEAN\, WE’RE \nVIRTUALLY AT THE FIRST \nGENERATION ALREADY RETIRING IN \nTHE NEXT GENERATION PICKING THIS \nUP. AND I — I HAVE BEEN VERY\, \nVERY INFLUENCED BY TONY \nLAZAROWITZ’S REFERENCES TO \nCLIMATE ADAPTATION LIKE \nCATHEDRAL BUILDING IN THE MIDDLE \nAGES\, AND THE PEOPLE WHO BUILT \nTHE FOUNDATIONS KNEW THEY WERE \nNEVER GOING TO SEE THE COMPLETED \nSTRUCTURE\, BUT THAT DIDN’T \nMATTER. THAT WAS PART OF WHAT \nTHEY WERE SIGNING UP FOR. AND I \nREALLY THINK THAT WE NEED TO \nBUILD THIS INTO EVERYTHING WE \nDO\, EVEN IF IT’S HALF A SENTENCE \nIN THE MEMO YOU WROTE\, REFERRING \nBACK TO 2011 OR 2008\, OR \nWHEREVER YOU WANT TO PICK UP THE \nSTORY\, BUT SOMEWHERE BACK THERE. \nYOU CAN START WHEN ZACK ASKED ME \nTO COME AND TALK TO THE \nCOMMISSION ABOUT SEA LEVEL RISE\, \nWHENEVER THAT WAS\, IN 2007 OR \nSOMETHING. \nAND SECONDLY\, I WANT TO VERIFY \nTHAT TODAY IS NOT THE DAY FOR ME \nTO BE BEATING THE DRUM ABOUT \nSOMETHING THAT I WANT IN THE \nRSAP. THERE WILL BE TIME FOR \nTHAT SERENADE AT A LATER MOMENT. \nI HAVE SOME FUNDAMENTAL \nTHOUGHTS\, I WANT TO MAKE SURE I \nGET IN ON THE GROUND FLOOR WITH \nSTAFF WITH IDEAS TO THROW AT \nYOU. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO? \nYORIKO KISHIMOTO: YES\, THANK \nYOU. I WANTED TO WEIGH IN A BIT \nON THIS QUESTION ABOUT OUTREACH. \nBECAUSE AS ALWAYS\, IN CITY AND \nGOVERNMENT AGENCIES KNOW\, \nOUTREACH IS SO DIFFICULT TO \nREACH EVERYONE TO GET THEIR \nATTENTION. AND IT IS TRUE. I \nMEAN\, REACHING EVERY COUNTY IS \nDIFFERENT FROM ACTUALLY REACHING \nEACH COUNCIL MEMBER — EACH CITY \nCOUNCIL\, AND CITY. SO IT MIGHT \n— YEAH\, I DO DISAGREE IT’S KIND \nOF WORTH A LITTLE OUTREACH IN A \nLIMITED NUMBER OF CITIES TO \nCONTACT EACH CITY SPECIFICALLY. \nAND THEN ON THE SPECIAL \nDISTRICTS\, ACTUALLY\, I SERVE ON \nTHE BOARD OF MID-PEP OPEN SPACE. \nAND THEN THERE IS VALLEY WATER\, \nOF COURSE\, AND SUCH\, AND\, SO — \nEVEN I’M A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT \nWHAT OUR ROLE FOR THE SPECIAL \nDISTRICTS IS\, BECAUSE WE DO OWN \nTHE LAND ON THE SHORE\, ACTUALLY. \nAND\, SO\, IT’S WORTH\, AT LEAST — \nARE YOU GOING — MAYBE THE \nQUESTION WOULD BE\, ARE WE GOING \nTO HAVE AT LEAST FAQ ON THERE \nFOR\, YOU KNOW\, WHICH ENTITY ARE \nGOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE\, YOU \nKNOW\, WHAT IS — AND ALSO THE \nCOST OF DOING THESE — WELL\, \nDOING THE PLAN\, AND THEN\, YOU \nKNOW\, THE RESOURCES FOR\, YEAH\, \nGETTING THE FUNDING FOR ACTUALLY \nDOING THE ACTUAL PROJECTS. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND? \nPAT ECKLUND: THANK YOU VERY \nMUCH. I JUST WANTED TO THANK \nSTAFF\, AGAIN\, FOR ALL THE WORK \nTHAT YOU’RE DOING ON THIS. I \nTHINK SINCE THERE IS ONLY 41 \nCITIES OUT OF THE 401 IN THE BAY \nAREA\, I THINK PERSONAL CONTACT \nMAY BE VERY HELPFUL. AND I WILL \nDEFINITELY GO BACK AND FORM ALL \nTHE CITIES IN MARIN AND SONOMA \nAND SOLANO AND NAPA AS SOON AS I \nGET THE LIST. I WILL PERSONALLY \nCONTACT THEM\, SO THEY CAN MAKE \nSURE THAT THEY ARE AWARE THAT \nTHERE IS AN ACTUAL PLAN THAT \nNEEDS TO BE DEVELOPED. I THINK \nTHAT PEOPLE KNOW THAT WE’RE \nWORKING ON BAY ADAPT AND SEA \nLEVEL RISE\, BUT I’M NOT SURE HOW \nMUCH IT SUNK IN THAT WE ACTUALLY \nHAVE TO DEVELOP A PLAN THAT \nMEETS STATE GUIDELINES\, BCDC’S \nGUIDELINES. AND THAT THERE IS \n— MAY OR MAY NOT BE FUNDING \nAVAILABLE. SO\, I THINK THAT’S \nIMPORTANT. SO\, THANK YOU VERY \nMUCH\, IN ADVANCE. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \nTHINK ALL OF THESE COMMENTS ARE \nIMPORTANT. I WOULD ALSO NOTE \nTHAT IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY ON \nSTAFF OF THE LOCAL JURISDICTIONS \nTO INFORM. AND IT’S A LOT OF \nTHE EFFORT THAT WE HAVE MADE \nTHAT\, OUR STAFF HAS MADE\, IS \nREACHING OUT TO STAFF. IT’S NOT \nEXCLUSIVELY THAT\, AS HAS BEEN \nPOINTED OUT. THERE HAVE BEEN \nMEETINGS WITH THE MAYOR’S \nCOUNCILS IN EACH OF THE \nCOUNTIES. IT’S NOT FOCUSING \nSIMPLE LE ON COUNTY\, BUT TRYING \nTO LIMIT THE JURISDICTION SO \nTHAT YOU CAN EFFECTIVELY \nCOMMUNICATE\, AND AS COMMISSIONER \nGIOIA INDICATED\, WE HAVE ALSO \nFOR THOSE MAYOR’S COUNCILS\, DONE \nA WIDER REACH FOR PEOPLE WHO MAY \nBE AVAILABLE. I THINK THE \nSPECIAL DISTRICT DISCUSSION IS \nAN IMPORTANT ONE. STAFF HAS \nCERTAINLY BEEN AWARE OF THAT AND \nREACHING OUT TO THEM. THEY’RE \nNOT REQUIRED TO HAVE PLANS \nPURSUANT TO 272. AT THE SAME \nTIME\, PARTICULARLY SOME FLOOD \nCONTROL DISTRICTS AND SOME OTHER \nSPECIAL DISTRICTS\, DO HAVE \nSIGNIFICANT RESPONSIBILITIES. I \nWOULD BE WILLING TO WAGER THAT \nTHOSE WHO HAVE THOSE \nRESPONSIBILITIES ARE AT LEAST IF \nNOT MORE AWARE OF THIS THAN SOME \nCITY STAFF. BUT OUTREACH HAS \nBEEN SIGNIFICANT AND IT WILL \nCONTINUE TO BE. \nSEEING NO OTHER COMMENTS\, WILL \nYOU PUT UP THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION\, PLEASE? \nSPEAKER: SO THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMISSION \nVOTE TO ADOPT THE NOTICE TO \nINITIATE THE AMENDMENT TO THE \nSAN FRANCISCO BAY PLAN TO \nESTABLISH THE REGIONAL SHORELINE \nADAPTATION PLAN OR RSAP \nINCLUDING GUIDELINES FOR THE \nPREPARATION OF SUBREGIONAL \nSHORELINE ADAPTATION PLANS BY \nLOCAL GOVERNMENTS WITHIN BCDC \nJURISDICTION AS REQUIRED BY \nSENATE BILL 272 SEA LEVEL RISE \nPLANNING AND ADAPTATION AND BAY \nPLAN SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING \nTO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED \nAMENDMENT. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: DO \nI HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: I \nAPOLOGIZE COMMISSIONER WASSERMAN \nDO WE NEED TO CLOSE OUR PUBLIC \nHEARING. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: OF \nCOURSE WE DO. NO APOLOGY \nREQUIRED. \nPAT ECKLUND: I WOULD LIKE TO \nMAKE A MOTION. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nBEFORE THAT WE NEED TO HAVE A \nMOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC \nHEARING. \nYORIKO KISHIMOTO: MOTION. \nSPEAKER: SECOND. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nMOTION MADE BY KISHIMOTO AND \nSECONDED BY COMMISSIONER \nGUNTHER. IS THERE OBJECTION TO \nCLOSING THE HEARING? THE \nHEARING IS CLOSED. NOW GO AHEAD \nYOU MAY MAKE YOUR MOTION. \nPAT ECKLUND: I WOULD LIKE TO \nMOVE THE MOTION BUT ALSO HAVE \nTHAT MOTION INCLUDE THAT EVERY \nCITY AND COUNTY WHO IS SUBJECT \nTO DEVELOPING A PLAN\, BE GIVEN A \nCOPY OF THE NOTICE TO INITIATE \nTHIS AMENDMENT BUT THE ELECTED \nOFFICIALS AND THE CITY MANAGER. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nPAT\, I’M GOING TO ASK YOU NOT TO \nDO IT TO ALL THE ELECTED \nOFFICIALS\, BECAUSE I THINK \nTHIS’S GOING TO PUT A BURDEN ON \nSTAFF. CERTAINLY SOMEONE AT THE \nCITY MAY BE REASONABLE. \nSPEAKER: YEAH. \nPAT ECKLUND: OKAY. THE CITY \nMANAGER. \nSPEAKER: STAFF CAN REVIEW OUR \nINTERESTED PARTIES LIST PRIOR TO \nMAILING THE DESCRIPTIVE NOTICE\, \nAS WELL AS THE DRAFT PLAN WHEN \nIT GETS — \nPAT ECKLUND: THAT’S PERFECT. \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: IS \nTHERE A SECOND. \nCOUNSEL: LET’S CLARIFY THE \nMOTION EXACTLY WHAT’S UP HERE \nAND WE JUST AGREED TO THAT STAFF \nWILL DO THAT\, RIGHT? THERE IS \nNO CHANGES TO THE ACTUAL MOTION. \nPAT ECKLUND: NO CHANGES TO \nTHE MOTION. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. \nR. SEAN RANDOLPH: SECOND. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I’M \nSORRY. COMMISSIONER RANDOLPH \nBEAT YOU TO IT. THANK YOU. \nCOMMISSIONER RANDOLPH SECOND. \nPLEASE CALL THE ROLL. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? \nMARK ADDIEGO: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nAMBUEHL? \nDAVID AMBUEHL: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: BURT? \nPAT BURT: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nECKLUND? \nPAT ECKLUND: AYE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nGILMORE? \nMARIE GILMORE: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nGIOIA? \nJOHN GIOIA: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER? \nANDREW GUNTHER: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nKIMBALL? \nSPEAKER: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nKISHIMOTO? \nYORIKO KISHIMOTO: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nPEMBERTON? \nSHERI PEMBERTON: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nRAMOS? ARE WE STILL ON THE \nTHUMB’S UP THEORY HERE. SORRY I \nHAVE TO MOVE SCREENS. THUMB’S \nUP. ALL RIGHT. AMAZING. SORRY \nABOUT THAT. COMMISSIONER \nRANCHOD? \nSANJAY M. RANCHOD: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nRANDOLPH. \nR. SEAN RANDOLPH: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nSHOWALTER? \nPATRICIA SHOWALTER: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nVAZQUEZ? \nJOHN VASQUEZ: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: VICE \nCHAIR EISEMAN? \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: CHAIR \nWASSERMAN? \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: 17 \nYESES\, ZERO ABSTENTIONS AND ZERO \nNOS. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. THAT WILL MOVE US \nFORWARD TO IMPORTANT PROCESS \nBRINGS US TO 9A BRIEFING FOR US \nBY THE BCDC SUMMER UNDERGRADUATE \nINTERNS THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO \nHAVE BEEN WORKING WITH STAFF \nTHIS SUMMER THIS IS BCDC’S \nFOURTH SUMMER COHORT AND I AM \nSURE YOU WILL AGREE THAT HOSTING \nAND PAYING INTERNS IS AN \nIMPORTANT PART OF ANY AGENCY’S \nPUBLIC PARTICULARLY TO HELP \nTRAIN AND ENCOURAGE FUTURE \nPUBLIC SERVANTS. I WOULD LIKE \nTO NOW HAND THE MICROPHONE OVER \nTO THE INTERNS. \nSPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON\, \nCOMMISSIONERS. WE ARE BCDC’S \nSUMMER 2024 INTERNS. AND WE ARE \nVERY PLEASED TO BE HERE TODAY AT \nTHE COMMISSION MEETING. SO\, WE \nHAVE\, TODAY\, A PRESENTATION \nCULMINATING THE END OF OUR \nINTERNSHIP HERE\, TALKING ABOUT \nSUMMER PROJECTS WE HAVE WORKED \nON\, AS WELL AS GOING OVER OUR \nINTERNSHIP HIGHLIGHTS\, \nSTRENGTHS\, AND RECOMMENDATIONS\, \nAS WELL. SO WE’LL GO AROUND \nFIRST WITH OUR NAMES. MY NAME \nIS JASMINE CASSIE. \nSPEAKER: MY NAME IS BET \nWITTOCK. \nSPEAKER: MY NAME IS GABRIELA \nCIAO. \nSPEAKER: MY NAME IS OLIVIA \nLAMB. \nSPEAKER: I’M OTESSA SHERVANI. \nSPEAKER: THANK YOU\, JASMINE\, \nFOR THE INTRODUCTION. \nTHANK YOU SIERRA. THIS SUMMER I \nHAVE BEEN ADAPTING TO RISING \nTIDES INTERN\, TO THE DATA AND \nSCIENCE TEAM LED BY CORY C\, AND \nI HAVE RECEIVED A GREAT DEAL OF \nHELP FROM KATIE FALLON I WOULD \nLIKE TO GIVE HER SOME \nACKNOWLEDGMENT AS WELL\, I AM A \nFOURTH YEAR AT UC BERKELEY STUDY \nCONSERVATION AND RESOURCE \nSTUDIES\, MINOR IN GIS MY \nINTERESTS ARE PRIMARILY NATURAL \nRESOURCE MANAGEMENT \nENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AS WELL \nAS ECONOMICS\, OUTSIDE OF WORK \nAND SCHOOL\, I’M A JAZZ PIANIST\, \nI PLAY GUITAR\, DJ A LITTLE BIT\, \nI REALLY ENJOY HIKING AND \nCAMPING. I LOVE OUTDOORS\, AND \nPARTIALLY THAT’S WHY I’M HERE. \nOVER THE COURSE OF THE SUMMER I \nHAVE BEEN FOCUSING ON BUILDING \nAN INVENTORY OF SEA LEVEL RISE \nPOLICIES FOUND IN GENERAL PLANS \nFROM ACROSS 55 CITIES IN ALL \nNINE BAY AREA COUNTIES. PAST \nINVENTORIES CREATED BY BCDC AND \nOTHER ORGANIZATIONS HAVE \nCONSIDERED VULNERABILITY \nASSESSMENTS\, AS WELL AS OTHER \nPLANNING DOCUMENTS IN PURSUIT OF \nADAPTING TO SEA LEVEL RISE. \nHOWEVER\, OUR INVENTORY\, WE \nCOVERED SPECIFICALLY GENERAL \nPLANS\, BECAUSE OF THE BROAD \nFOCUS IN SUBJECT MATTER THAT \nTHEY TEND TO COVER BY CALIFORNIA \nLAW. \nTHE INVENTORY LOOKED AT \nINDIVIDUAL POLICIES\, AS WELL AS \nTHE DIFFERENT SORTS OF \nSCIENTIFIC OUTCOMES THAT EACH \nCITY IS PLANNING FOR. AND THE \nWAY THAT WE CONDUCTED THIS WORK \nIS REALLY BASED OFF OF PRIOR \nSTUDIES FROM UC DAVIS\, AS WELL \nAS A CURRENT STUDY BEING \nCONDUCTED BY THE OCEAN AND \nCOASTAL POLICY CENTER AT UCSB \nWHO WE HAVE DIRECTLY INTERFACED \nWITH MULTIPLE TIMES OVER THE \nSUMMER AND WE’RE LOOKING FORWARD \nTO THEIR WORK PRODUCT FINALLY \nBEING RELEASED IN SEPTEMBER. IT \nCOVERS A LOT OF THE SAME SUBJECT \nMATTER THAT WE DO\, EXCEPT FOR ON \nTHE — FOR THE ENTIRE STATE\, FOR \nTHE ENTIRE COAST. \nFOR EACH POLICY\, THEY WERE \nSORTED BOO ONE OR MORE POLICY \nCATEGORIES\, IF ANYWHERE \nAPPLICABLE TO THE POLICY\, YOU \nCAN SEE A LITTLE GRAPHIC\, A \nLITTLE SCREENSHOT OF THE \nMONSTROUS SPREADSHEET I WAS \nEDITING FOR MOST OF THE SUMMER. \nLARRY CAUGHT ME A COUPLE OF \nTIMES LOOKING AT THAT\, AND HE \nWAS TAKEN ABACK A LITTLE BIT. \nTHESE POLICY CATEGORIES ARE \nDEVELOPED FROM THE WAY BAY \nVISION\, A FOUNDATIONAL DOCUMENT \nFORTUNATE REGIONAL SHORELINE \nADAPTATION PLAN AND ULTIMATELY \nTHESE WILL BE USED TO GENERATE \nMETRICS FOR THE DATA DASHBOARD \nWHICH WILL BE RELEASED LATER \nTHIS YEAR AND ALLOW RESIDENTS \nAND JURISDICTIONS IN THE BAY \nAREA ALIKE TO LOOK AND SEE HOW \nTHEIR JURISDICTION\, COUNTY\, IS \nDOING ADAPTING TO SEA LEVEL \nRISE. AND A LARGE COMPONENT HOW \nWE COMMUNICATE THAT IS THROUGH \nVISUALIZATIONS LIKE THESE MAPS I \nHAVE CREATED ON THE LEFT. THE \nDIFFERENT SORTS OF SEA LEVEL \nRISE PROJECTIONS THAT CITIES ARE \nUSING WITHIN THEIR GENERAL PLAN \nSPECIFICALLY TO THINK AND \nCONSIDER WHILE THEY’RE CREATING \nSEA LEVEL RISE POLICIES. ON THE \nRIGHT\, AS WELL\, YOU SEE \nSPECIFICALLY THE POLICIES\, THE \nDIFFERENT SORTS OF ADAPTATION \nSTRATEGIES THAT CITIES ARE \nLAYING OUT WITHIN THEIR GENERAL \nPLANS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF ALL \nTHE OTHER ELEMENTS OF CITY \nGOVERNANCE AND CITY PLANNING \nTHAT JURISDICTIONS HAVE TO \nCONSIDER WHILE CREATING THESE \nGENERAL PLANS. WHAT ARE THE \nDIFFERENT SORTS OF ADAPTATION \nPATHWAYS THAT THEY’RE \nCONSIDERING\, ARE THEY \nCONSIDERING GRAY INFRASTRUCTURE \nSUCH AS SEA WALLS\, ARE THEY \nATTEMPTING TO RESTORE TIDAL \nMARSHES\, TIDAL WETLANDS\, OR ARE \nTHEY DOING A MIX OF BOTH. YOU \nCAN SEE GREAT DISPARITIES \nBETWEEN JURISDICTIONS IN BOTH \nTHE SCIENTIFIC ASPECTS OF \nPLANNING\, AS WELL AS DIFFERENT \nPATHWAYS THAT THEY’RE SELECTING. \nAND WITH THAT\, I’LL HAND IT OVER \nTO GABRIELA. \nSPEAKER: AWESOME. THANK YOU \nVERY MUCH. MY NAME IS GABRIELA \nI WAS ON THE BAY RESOURCES TEAM \nIN THE SUMMER REGULATORY UNIT \nAND MY TEAM LEADS WERE ASHLEY\, \nAND JULIE CONSERVATION RESOURCE \nSTUDIES AT BERKELEY\, ACADEMIC \nINTERESTS INCLUDE INDIGENOUS \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND ALSO \nOUTSIDE OF SCHOOL\, I LIKE TO \nREAD\, PAINT\, AND HIKE I LOVE \nREPTILES THAT’S A PICTURE OF MY \nGECKO. THIS SUMMER MY PROJECT \nWAS TO CREATE SPECIAL STATUS \nSPECIES REPORTS WHICH ARE \nBASICALLY ANY SPECIES THAT MIGHT \nBE IMPACTED BY DIFFERENT PERMITS \nAND COULD HAVE HABITAT OR \nCONSERVATION CONCERNS AND I ALSO \nCREATED A TEMPLATE OUT OF WHAT \nYOU SEE ON THE RIGHT IN WORD SO \nTHAT OTHER SPECIES THAT’S COME \nUP IN THE FUTURE CAN BE ADDED TO \nTHE FILE. AND THE MAIN PURPOSE \nOF THIS PROJECT WAS SO THAT \nPERMIT ANALYSTS AND OTHER STAFF \nAT BCDC HAVE A ONE-STOP-SHOP FOR \nCHECKING THE ENVIRONMENTAL \nCONSEQUENCES AND EFFECTS THAT \nDIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS \nOR PERMITS CAN HAVE ON ENDANGERS \nSPECIES OR SPECIES OF CONCERN IN \nSOME OTHER WAY AND SOME OF THE \nTHINGS THAT THESE SHEETS \nHIGHLIGHTED INCLUDE BASIC \nINFORMATIONS IN THE SIDE BAR ON \nTHE RIGHT SO THAT INCLUDES \nCURRENT ENDANGERED OR THREATENED \nSTATUS OF THE SPECIES\, A BIT \nABOUT APPEARANCE AND LIFE \nHISTORY OF THE SPECIES ALSO \nRANGE AND HABITAT THEN I ALSO \nFOCUSED ON WORK WINDOWS AND \nMITIGATION RATIOS FOR DIFFERENT \nDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE PAST \nAND PULLED OUT SOME OF THE \nRELEVANT POLICIES IN THE BAY \nPLAN AND SUISUN MARSH PLAN. \nAND THEN MY SECONDARY PROJECT \nWAS TO WORK WITH BAY RAT WHICH \nIS A GIS TOOL USED BY BCDC STAFF \nTO ACCESS PERMIT INFORMATION AND \nJURISDICTIONAL INFORMATION AND \nMY GOAL WITH THAT PROJECT WAS \nBASICALLY JUST TO INPUT ANY OF \nTHE MISSING PERMITS OR \nAMENDMENTS THAT HAVE ALREADY \nBEEN ISSUED TO KEEP THE MAP \nACCURATE AND UP-TO-DATE ALSO \nADDED MISSING LOCATIONS AND U ON \nRAILS TO CLEAN UP THE DATA AND \nMAKE IT MORE ACCESSIBLE AND \nTHROUGH THIS I WAS ABLE TO \nFAMILIARIZE MYSELF WITH PERMIT \nSTRUCTURE AND APPLICATION OF GIS \nMAPPING TOOLS AND POLICY \nORGANIZATION. \nSPEAKER: THANK YOU GABRIELLA. \nHI. MY NAME IS JASMINE CASSIDY\, \nI AM PART OF ADOPTING TO RISING \nTIDES TEAM. MY SUPERVISOR WAS \nTODD HOLLENBECK. AND I ALSO GOT \nA LOT OF HELP FROM MY MENTOR \nKATE LYONS. I AM ALSO PART OF \nTHE CSU COAST INTERNSHIP PROGRAM \nAS WELL AS BEING AN INTERN AT \nBCDC. COAST STANDS FOR COUNCIL \nOCEAN AFFAIRS SCIENCE AND \nTECHNOLOGY. THIS WAS A \nCOMPETITIVE INTERNSHIP PROGRAM \nFOR STUDENTS THAT ATTEND THE \nCALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY \nSYSTEM. SO\, I WAS SELECTED TO \nBE ONE OF THE 21 INTERNS THIS \nSUMMER. AND A BIT ABOUT MYSELF\, \nFOURTH YEAR AT CAL POLY SAN LUIS \nOBISPO. I AM AN ENVIRONMENT \nMANAGEMENT PROTECTION MAJOR \nMINOR IN SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT \nSOME OF MY INTERESTS INCLUDE \nENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING URBAN \nRESILIENCE RELATED TO SEA LEVEL \nRISE HOBBIES INCLUDE HIKING \nTRAVELING VON VOLUNTEERING \nLEARNING ABOUT GEOGRAPHY\, YOU \nCAN SEE PICTURES ON THE RIGHT OF \nME HOLDING MY PET BUNNY BRONCO. \nHE IS MASSIVE. MY PROJECT THIS \nSUMMER WAS TO HELP MOVE ALONG \nTHE SHORELINE ADAPTATION PROJECT \nMAP ALSO KNOWN AS SAP MAP \nCOMPILATION OF ONGOING AND \nCOMPLETED SHORELINE ADAPTATION \nPROJECTS BCDC JURISDICTION SETS \nNINE COUNTIES IN THE BAY AREA \nAND MY PROJECT WAS TO USE \nDATABASE ONLINE PUBLICLY \nACCESSIBLE DATABASE CALLED ECO \nOUTLETS\, I WAS ABLE TO USE A \nTOOL THROUGH ECO OUTLETS CALLED \nPROJECT TRACKER\, AN EXAMPLE OF \nPROJECT TRACKER ON THE RIGHT \nTHAT’S WHAT THE DASHBOARD LOOKS \nLIKE AND THIS WAS A PROJECT I \nADDED IT’S THE REDWOOD CITY \nFERRY TERMINAL PROJECT. SO\, I \nUSED DATA THAT WAS COLLECTED IN \nEARLY 2024 FROM LOCAL OUTREACH \nTHAT WAS IN COLLABORATE WITH \nMTC’S PLANNED BAY AREA PROJECT. \nAND I ALSO DID SOME RESEARCH TO \nCREATE ALL OF THE PROJECT \nABSTRACTS FOR THE NEW PROJECTS. \nAND THIS DATA WAS STORED IN A \nSPREADSHEET THAT I MANAGED TO \nTRACK ALL THE PROGRESS AND\, \nALSO\, KEEP TRACK OF ALL MY \nQUESTIONS FOR REVISITING \nPROJECTS. AS WELL AS THIS\, I \nFACILITATED COMMUNICATION WITH \nOTHER ENTITY IN THE BAY. THIS \nIS SAN FRANCISCO BAY JOINT \nVENTURE\, SAN FRANCISCO BAY \nRESTORATION AUTHORITY\, CALTRANS\, \nAND THE WATER BOARD\, AND I \nHELPED THEM UPDATE ANY OTHER \nPROJECTS\, AND JUST KEEPING IN \nCLOSE COMMUNICATION WITH THEM. \nAND THE REASON WHY THIS PROJECT \nIS IMPORTANT IS BECAUSE IT’S \nCENTRAL INPUT FOR BCDC’S MAJOR \nPROJECTS\, THE RSAP\, AS WELL AS \nTHE FUNDING INVESTMENT STRATEGY. \nAND THE LAST MAP IS BCDC’S SAP \nMAP PROJECT. ALL OF THE ONGOING \nAND COMPLETED ONES ARE ORGANIZED \nBY SITE STATUS. ALL THE ONES IN \nGREEN ARE COMPLETED\, AND JUST TO \nGIVE A SCOPE OF MY INPUT\, I \nADDED 66 NEW PROJECTS AND \nUPDATED 21 EXISTING PROJECTS. \nSO\, THAT IS WHAT I DID THIS \nSUMMER. \n[LAUGHTER] \nAND\, SOME OF THE OTHER PROJECTS \nAND HIGHLIGHTS OF MY SUMMER WAS \nI GOT TO GO ON A FIELD TRIP TO \nTHE BAY MODEL IN SAUSALITO. IT \nWAS MY FIRST TIME GOING AND GOT \nTO LEARN ABOUT THE BAY’S \nHISTORY\, AND I WENT WITH THE \nADAPTING TO RISING TIDES AND \nDATA SCIENCE SO I GOT TO NETWORK \nWITH THEM AND GET TO KNOW THEM. \nAND TODAY ABOUT BEFORE THIS \nCOMMISSION MEETING I ATTENDED \nTHE ECO ATLAS PROJECT TRACKER \nAND DATA ADMINISTRATOR’S USER \nWALK WORKSHOP. SO I USED THE \nPROJECT TRACKER THE ENTIRE \nSUMMER. SO\, IT WAS GREAT TO \nATTEND THIS MEETING. AND HELPED \nRUN THE WORKSHOP SMOOTHY. I \nMANAGED A JAM BOARD TOOK NOTES. \nTHEN LASTLY AS A COAST INTERN\, I \nHAD PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT \nWORKSHOPS\, HAD OPPORTUNITY TO \nNETWORK WITH PANELISTS FROM \nNOAA\, AGENCIES NGOS AND GRAD \nSTUDENTS. TOMORROW\, I’LL \nPRESENT AT THE SECOND ANNUAL \nCOAST SYMPOSIUM. SO THAT THE \nOTHER COAST INTERNS\, SUPERVISORS \nOR ANYONE THEY INVITE CAN HEAR \nWHAT WE WORKED ON THIS SUMMER. \nHERE ARE SOME PICTURES OF THE \nBAY MODEL\, THE FERRY TO \nSAUSALITO\, THEN SCREENSHOT FROM \nONE OF THE COAST MEETINGS. I’LL \nPASS IT ON TO OLIVIA LAMB. \nSPEAKER: THANK YOU JASMINE. \nMY NAME IS OLIVIA LAMB. I WAS \nWORKING WITH THE PUBLIC ACCESS \nTEAM UNDER REGULATORY UNIT AS \nSHORELINE DEVELOPMENT INTERN \nWITH ASHLEY AND VICTORIA I AM A \nSENIOR AT LOYOLA MARY MOUNT \nUNIVERSITY LOS ANGELES WHERE I’M \nWORKING TOWARDS DEGREES IN \nENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES AND \nPOLITICAL SCIENCE INTERESTED \nRELATE TO INTERSECTION BETWEEN \nPOLICY AND ENVIRONMENT\, \nSUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. I LOVE \nTRAVELING\, I SPENT ABOUT FIVE \nMONTHS BEFORE COMING TO BCDC \nLIVING IN LONDON\, TRAVELLING AND \nSTUDYING IN EUROPE THAT WAS \nAMAZING. I ALSO LOVE SINGING\, \nCOOKING\, READING AND \nPHOTOGRAPHY. SO\, THE BULK OF MY \nSUMMER I SPENT ANALYZING A SET \nOF PERMITS WITH SPECIAL EVENTS \nPROVISIONS CONTRACTING \nINFORMATION WHETHER EVENTS ARE \nCOURT ORDER\, UNCONTROLLED \nPRIVATE EVENTS AND HOW OFTEN OR \nFREQUENT EVENTS ARE ALLOWED TO \nTAKE PLACE AND TRENDS FOR FUTURE \nPERMITTING. OVER HALF OF THE \nPERMITS THAT WERE ANALYZED HAVE \nMULTIPLE SPACES FOR EVENTS. AND \nBY HAVING MULTIPLE PUBLIC ACCESS \nSPACES FOR SPECIAL EVENTS\, IT \nENSURES THE SAME PUBLIC ACCESS \nSPACES ARE NOT CONTINUOUSLY USED \nFOR SPECIAL EVENTS. AND GOING \nFORWARD WE SHOULD AIM TO FIND \nADDITIONAL SPACES FOR EVENTS \nWHEN AUTHORIZING SPECIAL EVENTS \nIN PERMITS. THE REASON THIS IS \nRELEVANT IS BY HAVING CONSTANT \nSHUTDOWNS OF PUBLIC ACCESS \nSPACES IT MAY DETER PUBLIC FROM \nUTILIZING AND CIRCULATING WITHIN \nACCESS SPACES. 33% HAVE HIGHER \nLEVELS OF PUBLIC IMPACT\, SOME \nAVERAGE PROPERTIES THAT ARE \nSMALLER IN TERMS OF ACREAGE BUT \nALSO AMOUNT OF PUBLIC ACCESS \nSPACE ON THEIR PROPERTIES THIS \nMEANS THAT PROPERTIES WITH LESS \nPUBLIC ACCESS SPACES CLOSURES \nARE LIKELY LESS DETRIMENTAL TO \nPUBLIC CIRCULATION ABILITY GOING \nFORWARD IN THE FUTURE WE MAY BE \nABLE TO USE SIZE OF PROPERTY TO \nDETERMINE THE LEVEL OF IMPACT \nTHEY SHOULD BE AUTHORIZED TO \nHAVE AS WRITTEN IN THEIR \nPERMITS. I HAVE BEEN WORKING \nWITHIN BAYRAT AND GIS KEEPING \nUP-TO-DATE\, THIS ENTAILS MAPPING \nPUBLIC ACCESS SPACE PRESIDENCY \nASSOCIATED WITH EXISTING PERMITS \nAS SEEN IN THE TOP IMAGINE\, AND \nADDING NEW AND MISSING PERMITS \nRELATED TO PUBLIC ACCESS. THIS \nIS HELPFUL FOR BCDC STAFF IT \nHELPS MAKE INFORMATION \nACCESSIBLE SO THEY DON’T HAVE TO \nSEARCH THE INTERNAL DATABASE TO \nEXTRACT EACH PERMIT TO FIND \nGENERAL INFORMATION. I’M GOING \nTO HAND IT OVER TO TESSA. I’M \nOTESSA. I WAS THE ENVIRONMENTAL \nJUSTICE INTERN WITH BCDC THIS \nSUMMER WORKING WITH PHOENIX \nARMENTA. I AM AN INCOMING \nSOPHOMORE AT STANFORD UNIVERSITY \nPLANNING ON MAJORING IN EARTH \nSYSTEMS MY INTEREST INCLUDE \nCLIMATE JUSTICE HEALTH EQUITY \nWATER MANAGEMENT CLIMATE \nCOMMUNICATION AND MY FREE TIME I \nLOVE ALL THINGS OUTDOORS ENJOY \nPHOTOGRAPHY AND READING AND \nPADDLE BOARDING. THIS SUMMER MY \nMAIN PROJECT WAS RUNNING BCDC’S \nINSTAGRAM MY MAJOR GOALS WERE TO \nPROMOTE COMMUNICATION AND \nEDUCATION ABOUT THE AGENCY AND \nSEA LEVEL RISE ISSUES. MY POST \nFELL INTO THREE BUCKETS. I DID \nSOME EDUCATIONAL POSTING WHICH \nINCLUDED INFORMATION ON \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE\, BCDC’S \nPERMITTING ACTIVITIES AND THINGS \nLIKE THE SOCIAL VULNERABILITY \nMAPPING RESOURCE AS WELL\, AND I \nALSO DID ANOTHER BUCKET \nINTRODUCTIONS TO NEW STAFF AT \nBCDC\, WHICH WAS REALLY FUN. I \nREACHED OUT TO NEW STAFF AND \nPOSTED LITTLE BLURBS ABOUT \nTHEMSELVES WITH PHOTOS. THEN\, \nTHE LAST IS MISCELLANEOUS. I \nINCLUDED REELS ABOUT WHAT WAS \nHAPPENING AT BCDC\, HIGHLIGHTS \nFROM VARIOUS SITE VISITS. \nJASMINE DID A DAY IN THE LIFE \nREEL\, WHICH WAS AWESOME. I \nHIGHLY RECOMMEND WATCHING. AND \nI CAN PLAY THIS VIDEO HERE\, JUST \nSCROLLING THROUGH. I PERSONALLY \nDO NOT HAVE INSTAGRAM\, SO OF ALL \nOF THE GEN Z THAT BCDC COULD \nHAVE CHOSEN FOR THIS ROLE\, YEAH\, \nINTERESTING CHOICE. \n[LAUGHTER] \nI LEARNED A LOT. OKAY. \nIT’S LAGGING. THERE WE GO. \nOKAY. SO\, I ALSO DID A VARIETY \nOF SMALLER PROJECTS THIS SUMMER. \nSEVERAL OF THESE ARE ON THE \nSLIDE. SO\, ONE THESE WAS I \nINTERVIEWED AND VISITED SOME OF \nTHE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE \nADVISORS FOR BCDC\, WHICH WAS A \nGREAT OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN MORE \nABOUT THEIR ROLES BOTH INSIDE \nTHE AGENCY AND OUTSIDE. I ALSO \nDID A STAFF TRAINING TEACHING \nABOUT THE HISTORY OF \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE. I \nSUPPORTED THE REGIONAL SHORELINE \nADAPTATION PLAN AND THE RACIAL \nEQUITY ACTION PLAN\, AND THEN AS \nBCDC IS PLANNING ON DOING A \nCOUPLE OF SHORELINE LEADERSHIP \nACADEMIES IN THE UPCOMING YEAR\, \nI HELPED WITH THE OUTREACH. I \nWATCHED THE PREVIOUS TRAININGS \nFROM THE PILOT PROGRAM AND \nHELPED WITH A GLOSSARY FOR THAT \nACADEMY. \nSO\, NOW WE’RE GOING TO MOVE INTO \nTHE NEXT PHASE OF OUR \nPRESENTATION\, PROGRAM \nRECOMMENDATIONS THAT INTERNS \nCAME UP WITH. SO\, MOST OF THESE \nHAVE TO DO WITH ONBOARDING. THE \nFIRST ONE\, WE ALL NOTICED THAT \nAS A STATE AGENCY\, BCDC USES A \nLOT OF ACRONYMS AND TECHNICAL \nTERMS\, AND THAT KIND OF MADE A \nBIT MORE OF A CHALLENGE TO GET \nINTO THE PROGRAM. SO\, WE WOULD \nHAVE REALLY APPRECIATED A \nSTRONGER ONBOARDING PROCESS WITH \nACRONYM DEFINITIONS AND HELP\, \nKIND OF\, UNDERSTANDING THE \nLANGUAGE OF A GOVERNMENT AGENCY. \nWE ALSO NOTICED THAT IT’S KIND \nOF HARD WHEN YOU ARE FIRST \nSTARTING OUT TO REALLY \nUNDERSTAND THE BIGGER PICTURE OF \nA LOT OF WHAT BCDC IS WORKING ON \nAND WHY OUR SPECIFIC PROJECTS \nWERE IMPORTANT. \nSO\, YOU KNOW\, COMMUNICATION \nABOUT WHY MEETINGS ARE \nIMPORTANT\, AND THEN\, ALSO\, OUR \nOWN PROJECTS AND THE ROLE THAT \nTHEY HAVE IN THE BAY AND IN THE \nAGENCY\, WOULD HAVE BEEN SUPER \nHELPFUL. WE ALSO HAD TO\, YOU \nKNOW\, DO A LOT OF POLICY \nMATERIAL READING\, ESPECIALLY AS \nPART OF OUR ONBOARDING. SO\, \nMORE GUIDANCE ON HOW TO READ \nPOLICY WOULD HAVE BEEN REALLY \nGREAT. AND SOME TIME TO ASK \nQUESTIONS ABOUT THINGS WE DIDN’T \nUNDERSTAND. AND LASTLY\, WE ALL \nREALLY LOVED OUR SITE VISITS\, \nAND WE ALL\, KIND OF\, DID THOSE \nSEPARATELY. SO\, I THINK IN THE \nFUTURE\, IT WOULD BE GREAT IF ALL \nOF THE INTERNS COULD\, KIND OF\, \nTAG ALONG WITH EACH OTHER ON ALL \nOF THE SITE VISITS TO\, KIND OF\, \nLEARN WHAT EVERYONE IS DOING AND \nGET TO SEE WHAT BCDC IS DOING \nOUTSIDE OF THE OFFICE\, AS WELL. \nSO\, WITH THAT. \nSPEAKER: AWESOME. SO\, NOW\, I \nWILL BE TALKING A LITTLE BIT \nABOUT THE STRENGTHS OF THE \nPROGRAM. THE FIRST THING THAT \nALL OF US REALLY APPRECIATED WAS \nTHAT ALL OF THE STAFF\, \nREGARDLESS WHETHER THEY WERE \nPART OF OUR TEAM\, WERE SUPER \nWILLING TO MEET AND TALK ABOUT \nTHEIR WORK AND A LOT OF US HAVE \nINTERESTS THAT WERE OUTSIDE OF \nJUST OUR PARTICULAR PROJECT. SO \nANY INTERSECTIONS THAT WE \nNOTICED THAT OTHER STAFF HAD \nPROJECTS THAT WE WERE ALIGNED W \nTHEY WERE WILLING TO TALK TO US \nABOUT\, PEER DEVELOPMENT AND HOW \nTHEIR JOB WORKS AND ROLE IN THE \nORGANIZATION. THAT LEADS TO OUR \nSECOND STRENGTH OF THE PROGRAM \nWHICH WAS THAT EXECUTIVE \nDIRECTOR LARRY GOLDZBAND DID A \nLOT OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT \nWITH US. HE HELPED US LOOK \nTHROUGH OUR RÉSUMÉS AND FIGURE \nOUT WHAT OUR CAREER GOALS MIGHT \nBE BASED ON THE EXPERIENCE WE \nCAME WITH AND ALSO WHAT WE LIKED \nABOUT THE INTERNSHIP THAT WE \nDID. THEN ALSO HELPED US \nCONSTRUCT ELEVATOR PITCHES\, \nWHICH CAN BE DIFFICULT TO \nARTICULATE WHO YOU ARE AND WHAT \nYOU HAVE BEEN DOING FOR TEN \nWEEKS IT GOES SO QUICKLY IT WAS \nUSEFUL TO BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT \nHOW WE WANT TO PRESENT OURSELVES \nIN THE FUTURE. THEN LAST \nSTRENGTH WAS THE WORKDAY WAS \nFLEXIBLE AND MEETINGS WERE \nFLEXIBLE. CHECK-INS WITH \nSUPERVISORS COULD BE MOVED TO \nALLOW US TO GO TO AS MANY EVENTS \nAS POSSIBLE\, A LOT OF US ENDED \nUP GOING AND SEEING WHAT THE \nCOMPANY DOES OUTSIDE OF THE \nOFFICE IN A PRACTICAL SENSE \nWHICH WAS INTERESTING FOR ALL OF \nUS. \nSPEAKER: I’M GOING TO BE \nSPEAKING ABOUT OUR PROGRAM \nHIGHLIGHTS AS SEEN THROUGH THESE \nLOVELY PHOTOS. SO\, FIRSTLY WE \nWERE ABLE TO ATTEND COMMISSIONER \nEDDIE AHN’S BOOK TALK TO LEARN \nABOUT HIS NON-PROFIT WORK AND \nCREATIVE PROCESS TO CREATING HIS \nGRAPHIC NOVEL "ADVOCATE." WE \nWERE ALSO ABLE TO LEARN ABOUT \nHIS WORK AS A COMMISSIONER AND \nSIMILARLY LEARN FROM OTHER KEY \nFIGURES IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL \nLANDSCAPE THROUGH INTERN LED \nINTERVIEWS WITH VARIOUS AGENCIES \nINCLUDING CNRA\, NRDC\, THE DOJ\, \nAND\, OF COURSE\, BCDC. WE WERE \nABLE TO ATTEND SEVERAL SITE \nVISITS THAT ENABLED US TO HAVE \nFIRSTHAND HANDS ON EXPERIENCES \nON BEING OUT IN THE FIELD AND \nSEE THE REAL LIFE OUTCOMES IN \nTHE WORK WE HAVE BEEN HELPING \nWITH OVER THE LAST TEN WEEKS. \nSEVERAL OF OUR INTERNS HAD THE \nOPPORTUNITY TO ATTEND AND \nVOLUNTEER DURING BAY ADAPT \nSUMMIT AND MEET PEOPLE OUTSIDE \nOF BCDC WORKING ON IN THIS \nFIELD. ULTIMATELY ABLE TO \nPARTICIPATE IN ONE OF BCDC’S \nMOST SIGNIFICANT EVENTS. \nSPEAKER: WE WOULD LIKE TO \nTAKE THE TIME TO THANK \nCOMMISSIONERS FOR LISTENING TO \nOUR PRESENTATION\, THANK YOU TO \nBCDC STAFF AS WELL FOR BEING \nHERE AND GIVING US GUIDANCE AND \nSUPPORT THROUGHOUT THE SUMMER. \nIT’S BEEN AN HONOR FOR ALL OF US \nTO HAVE WORKED HERE AND GROWN \nHERE AND LEARNED FROM AWFUL IF \nYOU. AND\, YEAH\, THANK YOU\, ONCE \nAGAIN FOR LISTENING IN. YOU CAN \nFIND OUR CONTACT INFORMATION \nOVER HERE. THAT’S GREAT. AND \nIF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS \nABOUT OUR EXPERIENCES THIS \nSUMMER\, OR ANYTHING ELSE WE \nSAID\, FEEL FREE TO ASK AWAY. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. QUESTIONS? \nCOMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS? \nDID I HEAR A BEEP? \nSPEAKER: NO. THAT WAS ME. \nOTHER SIDE. THANK YOU\, CHAIR \nWASSERMAN. \nSPEAKER: HI\, EVERYBODY. \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT \nPRESENTATION. IT WAS SUPER \nINFORMATIVE. AND\, YEAH\, \nEVERYBODY CAN COME UP. \n[LAUGHTER] \nI JUST WANTED TO CONGRATULATE \nYOU ON THE QUALITY OF THIS WORK. \nHAVING WORKED IN ORGANIZATIONS \nFOR MANY\, MANY YEARS WHERE \nINTERNS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT IN ON \nDIFFERENT CYCLES. IT’S ACTUALLY \nSOMETIMES HARD TO MAKE SURE THAT \nTHE WORK THAT THE INTERNS ARE \nDOING IS BOTH SOMETHING THAT’S \nDEVELOPMENTAL FOR YOU ALL\, AS \nWELL AS USEFUL TO THE \nORGANIZATION\, AND JUST FROM THE \nBASIS OF YOUR PRESENTATION\, IT’S \nCLEAR THAT A LOT OF THOUGHT WENT \nINTO THE PROJECTS THAT YOU \nEXECUTED AND IT WAS REALLY HIGH \nQUALITY AND IT LOOKS VERY MUCH \nLIKE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT BCDC \nSTAFF WILL BE ABLE TO \nINCORPORATE IN. SO JUST WANT TO \nCONGRATULATE YOU ALL ON WHAT \nAPPEARS TO BE A JOB WELL DONE. \nAND HOPE THAT WE WILL SEE YOU \nALL IN THESE POLICY SPACES IN \nTHE YEARS TO COME. MAKE ME VERY \nEXCITED ABOUT THE FUTURE. THANK \nYOU. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. I WANT TO SHARE \nALYSHA’S COMMENTS AND COMPLIMENT \nYOU ALL ON THE WORK YOU HAVE \nDONE ALSO WANT TO COMPLIMENT \nSTAFF ON THE WORK THEY DO WITH \nTHE INTERNS BECAUSE IT’S A VERY \nIMPORTANT PART OF THE PROCESS. \nAND I WOULD NOTE THAT ASSUMING \nRECOMMENDATION \nARE FOLLOWED\, A LIST OF ACRONYMS \nAND ABBREVIATIONS WOULD PROBABLY \nBE VERY USEFUL FOR \nCOMMISSIONERS\, AS WELL. \n[LAUGHTER] \nTHANK YOU. GO FORTH AND DO \nWELL. \n[LAUGHTER] \nALL RIGHT. THAT BRINGS US TO \nADJOURNMENT. I WOULD ENTERTAIN \nA MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT. \nSPEAKER: SO MOVED. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER SHOWALTER MOVES. \nCOMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO SECONDS. \nANYBODY OPPOSED? YOU MAY STAY. \nWE ARE ADJOURNED. \n[ADJOURNED]\n \n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs 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. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant 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. \nIf 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. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf 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. \nCampaign Contributions\nState 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. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings 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.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/august-15-2024-commission-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240801T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240801T170000
DTSTAMP:20240729T155140Z
CREATED:20240119T040548Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240729T155140Z
UID:10000102-1722517200-1722531600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:August 1\, 2024 Commission Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				This report lists the administrative matters that have been filed and are pending with the Commission. Due to the cancellation of the meeting of August 1\, 2024\, and pursuant to Commission Regulation Section 10620(a)\, the Executive Director will take final action on these matters unless a Commissioner requests full Commission consideration by communicating with the staff prior to August 1\, 2024. In the absence of such a request\, the listed matters will be executed administratively on or after August 15\, 2024. \nAdministrative Permit Applications \n\nApplicants\n\n\n\nPacific Gas and Electric Company300 Lakeside DriveOakland\, CA 94612 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.009.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\n05/28/2024\n\n\n90 Day\n08/26/2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot shoreline band jurisdictions\, at the mouth of Gallinas Creek\, in the City of San Rafael\, Marin County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nRemove two 178-foot-tall steel lattice electrical towers and associated access boardwalks and install two new 134-foot-tall steel lattice electrical towers and access boardwalks. The towers and boardwalks are located in tidal marsh on either side of Gallinas Creek. To access the site for construction\, the applicant would construct a temporary floating bridge across Gallinas Creek\, and temporarily install construction matting for site access and staging\, and temporary fencing to exclude wildlife from the site during construction. The project is expected to result in temporary adverse impacts to tidal marsh\, and the applicant would be required to restore the impacted areas within five years of construction completion. The project is not expected to result in any significant permanent or temporary adverse impacts to public access. \n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position:\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Rowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\n\nApplicants\n\n\n\nPacific Gas and Electric Company300 Lakeside DriveOakland\, CA 94612 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2024.006.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\n06/28/2024\n\n\n90 Day\n09/26/2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot shoreline band jurisdictions\, at the mouth of the San Rafael Creek\, in the City of San Rafael\, Marin County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nRemove a 226-foot-tall steel lattice electrical tower and associated access boardwalks and install a new 288-foot-tall steel lattice electrical tower and access boardwalks. The towers and boardwalks are located in tidal marsh south of San Rafael Creek. To access the site for construction\, the applicant would temporarily install construction matting for site access and staging\, and temporary fencing to exclude wildlife from the site during construction. The project is expected to result in temporary adverse impacts to tidal marsh\, and the applicant would be required to restore the impacted areas within five years of construction completion. The project is not expected to result in any significant permanent or temporary adverse impacts to public access. \n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position:\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Rowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov\n\n\n\nApplicants\n\n\n\nIV1 1411 Harbour Way South Owner LLC2030 Main StreetIrvine\, CA 92614 \nCity of Richmond450 Civic Center PlazaRichmond\, CA 94804+ \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.008.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\n05/14/2024\n\n\n90 Day\n08/12/2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nIn the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot shoreline band jurisdictions\, within a Bay Plan-designated Port Priority Use Area\, at 1411 Harbour Way South\, also known as Terminal 3\, in the City of Richmond\, Contra Costa County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nConduct work within BCDC’s jurisdiction related to the Portside Commerce Center project\, which includes additional work such as the demolition of an existing warehouse and construction of a new warehouse\, manufacturing\, and office space outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction. \n\nIn the Bay\, the project will involve:\n\nRepaving approximately 85\,534 square feet of the existing wharf.\nInstalling approximately 107 linear feet of new 8-foot-tall security fencing on the northern edge of the wharf.\nInstalling approximately 1\,006 linear feet of new 12-inch storm drain below the wharf.\n\n\nWithin the shoreline band\, the project will involve:\n\nRegrading and repaving an approximately 113\,489-square-foot area between the existing wharf and a proposed new building and repaving an additional 5\,171-square-foot area along the wharf.\nConstructing an approximately 6\,054-square-foot portion of a 14\,263-square-foot required public access area\, which will include:\n\nAn approximately 1\,809-square-foot paved outlook areawith two benches\, two seatwalls\, five umbrella tables\,two drinking fountains\, waste receptacles\, a minimum of two interpretive panels\, and a cable guardrail; and\nA landscaped decomposed granite pathway connecting the outlook to Harbour Way South.\n\n\nRemoving approximately 80 linear feet of existing fencing along the southern property line and installing approximately 131 linear feet of new 8-foot-tall fencing northwest of the proposed new building and 448 linear feet of new fencing between the proposed new building and the new public access area.\nConstructing 21 private parking spaces west of the proposed new building.\nInstalling approximately 172 linear feet of new 12-inch storm drain and approximately 3\,297 linear feet of new water service infrastructure.\n\n\n\nNote that the authorization for the use of this site will be conditioned to be temporary through December 31\, 2034\, as it is an interim use within a Port Priority Use area. The authorization may be extended at that time through a permit amendment if the permittee can demonstrate that the continued use would not impair the region’s ability to meet cargo demands according to the policies of the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan. \nThe authorization will also be conditioned to require that the full 14\,263-square-foot public access area\, including areas outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction\, be provided and maintained for the life of the project. \n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position:\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Katharine Pan; 415/352-3650 or katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\nRegionwide Permits \nThe Executive Director has issued the following regionwide permits since the last listing. \n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nMicheal Thompson and Johanna Thompson410 Tuolumne StreetVallejo\, CA 94590 \n\n\nRegionwide Permit No. NOI2023.027.00-RWP#7 \n\n\n\nLocation\n\nIn the Bay and within the Commission’s 100-foot shoreline band jurisdiction\, along two sections of Interstate 80\, from the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Toll Plaza in the City of Oakland to Buchanan Street in the City of Albany\, Alameda County; and over the Carquinez Strait on the westbound and eastbound Carquinez Bridge spans. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nIn the Bay: \n\n(After-The-Fact) Install five new 12-inch-diameter concrete piers;\n(After-The-Fact) Repair one existing 12-inch-diameter concrete pier by encasing the pier with 24-inch-diameter concrete and rebar casings;\n(New work) Install one new 12-inch-diameter concrete pier;In the 100-foot Shoreline Band:\n(After-The-Fact) Install 19 new 12-inch-diameter concrete piers;\n5. (After-The-Fact) Repair two existing 12-inch-diameter concrete piers by encasing the piers with 24-inch-diameter concrete and rebar casings; and\n6. (New work) install one new 12-inch-diameter concrete pier.\n\nRowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\nCalifornia Department of Transportation111 Grand AvenueOakland\, CA 94623\n\nRegionwide Permit No. NOI2023.015.00-RWP#2 \n\n\n\nLocation\n\nIn the Bay and within the Commission’s 100-foot shoreline band jurisdiction\, along two sections of Interstate 80\, from the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Toll Plaza in the City of Oakland to Buchanan Street in the City of Albany\, Alameda County; and over the Carquinez Strait on the westbound and eastbound Carquinez Bridge spans. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nInstall utility infrastructure associated with the installation of a fiber optic trunk line along Interstate 80\, by conducting the following activities: \n\nIn the Bay:\n\nInstall a total of approximately 6\,344 linear feet of fiber optic cable within the deck of the westbound Carquinez (Al Zampa) Bridge and underneath and on the side of the eastbound Carquinez Bridge;\nOn the westbound Carquinez Bridge\, install two utility cabinets and associated cable connections within the bridge girder\, neither extending beyond the bridge deck nor physically obstructing the public path on the bridge; and\nOn the eastbound Carquinez Bridge\, at two locations\, install a closed-circuit television camera and a utility cabinet (measuring up to approximately 67 inches high\, 24 inches wide and 30 inches deep)\, with associated cable connections\, supported by an approximately 22-square-foot platform\, extending approximately 1.5 feet beyond the bridge deck over the Bay\, and including a loop detector embedded in the road.\n\n\nWithin the 100-foot shoreline band:\n\nInstall approximately 888 linear feet of underground cable to eight existing utility cabinets\, and a total of approximately 400 linear feet of fiber optic cable on the westbound and eastbound Carquinez Bridge;\nInstall up to eight modular cabinet additions\, measuring36 inches high\, 21 inches wide\, and 18 inches deep each\, to the sides of the existing cabinets and replace pull boxes associated with the existing cabinets; and\nTemporarily install environmental fencing to be removed upon completion of authorized construction activities.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\nPierce Abrahamson; 415/352-3607 or pierce.abrahamson@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nSan Francisco Public Utilities Commission525 Golden Gate Ave\, 9th FloorSan Francisco\, CA 94102 \n\n\nRegionwide Permit No. NOI2024.005-RWP#2 \n\n\n\nLocation\n\nAt six locations in the City and County of San Francisco. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nIn the Bay: \nIntersection of Laguna Street and Marina BoulevardRepair an existing riprap revetment at an existing outfall by placing 400 cubic yards of Class V\, VI and VII rock over 400 square feet. \nIn the 100-foot Shoreline Band: \nIntersection of Laguna Street and Marina Boulevard \n\nRehabilitate 190 linear-feet of 6-foot-diameter concrete sewer pipe with a carbon fiber wrap.\nRehabilitate 60 linear-feet of 6-foot-diameter concrete sewer pipe with a cured-in-place fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) coating.\n\nIntersection of Howard Street and Steuart StreetRehabilitate 100 linear-feet of 7-foot-diameter reinforced concrete sewer pipe with spray mortar. \nIntersection of 3rd Street and Berry StreetRehabilitate 100 linear-feet of a 30-inch by 45-inch concrete and brick sewer pipe with spray mortar. \nThe Intersection of 4th Street North and Berry StreetRehabilitate 100 linear-feet of 78-inch-diameter concrete and brick sewer pipe with spray mortar and a carbon fiber wrap. \nThe intersection of 4th Street South and Berry StreetRehabilitate 150 linear-feet of 30-inch by 45-inch concrete sewer pipe with spray mortar and a carbon fiber wrap. \nIntersection of 6th Street South and Channel StreetRehabilitate 60 linear-feet of 42-inch by 63-inch reinforced concrete sewer pipe with spray mortar and a carbon fiber wrap. \n\n\n\n \n\nRowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nRichmond Yacht Club351 Brickyard CoveRichmond\, CA 94801 \n\n\nRegionwide Permit No. NOI2024.007.00-RWP#3 \n\n\n\nLocation\n\nIn the Commission’s Bay and Shoreline Band jurisdictions\, at the Richmond Yacht Club\, 351 Brickyard Cove\, Richmond\, in Contra Costa County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nIn the Shoreline Band: \n\nRemove an existing 26-inch thick and approximately 80-linear feet glulam beam;\nReplace with temporary steel I beams and a 30-inch thick and approximately 80-linear feet glulam beam\, composed of three 7-inch-wide by 30-inch-tall beams spliced together with steel straps; and\nRepair and maintain decking of the marginal wharf\, including concrete work used to hold up stringers.\n\nAfter-the-fact: \nIn the Bay: \n\nInstall ten 14-inch steel pilings attached to the interior of the glulam beam;\nInstall one 14-inch steel piling at the end of a finger pier; and\,\nReroute water line and electric conduits\n\nSam Fielding; 415/352-3665 or sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\n\n\nApplicant \n\n\n\n\n210 Beach LLCCaroline JettP.O. Box 29627San Francisco\, CA 94129 \n\n\nRegionwide Permit No. NOI2024.009.00-RWP#4 \n\n\n\nLocation\nWithin the Commission’s 100-foot shoreline band jurisdiction\, at 210 Beach Road\, in the City of Belvedere\, Marin County.\n\n\nDescription\n\nComplete an interior remodel of approximately 1\,266 square feet of an existing single-family residence\, including replacing a portion of the existing roof and constructing approximately 190 square feet of a new approximately 337-square-foot dormer. \nKatharine Pan; 415/352-3650 or katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\n\n\nApplicant \n\n\n\n\nCalifornia College of the Arts\, Architectural Ecologies Lab1111 8th StreetSan Francisco\, CA 94107 \nTreasure Island Sailing Center698 California Avenue\, Building 112San Francisco\, CA 94130 \n\n\nRegionwide Permit No. NOI2024.014.00-RWP#3 \n\n\n\nLocation\nIn the Bay\, at 698 California Avenue\, in the City and County of San Francisco (approximately 150-300 feet offshore near the Treasure Island Sailing Center).\n\n\nDescription\n\nIn the bay: \nPlace a 14.4-foot-long by 9.67-foot-wide contoured\, fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composite floating structure\, approximately 30-inches above water and extending approximately 4-feet into the water column\, with underwater temperature and turbidity sensors\, and above-water video equipment. \nSam Fielding; 415/352-3665 or sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Articles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nHomeless paradise on Oakland beach to meet its end after worries over trash and access\nUnprecedented numbers of gray whales are visiting San Francisco Bay\, and nobody quite knows why\nThe Beaches of the Future Are Going to Surprise Us\nRichmond’s Point Molate on track to becoming parkland thanks to $40 million deal\nSizing Up Progress on Nature-Based Infrastructure – KneeDeep Times\nABAG General Assembly convenes at Oakland Museum of California\nA RISING FORTRESS IN SINKING LAND
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/august-1-2024-commission-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240718T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240718T170000
DTSTAMP:20240703T200421Z
CREATED:20240119T040408Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240703T200421Z
UID:10000101-1721307600-1721322000@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:July 18\, 2024 Commission Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				This report lists the administrative matters that have been filed and are pending with the Commission. Due to the cancellation of the meeting of July 18\, 2024\, and pursuant to Commission Regulation Section 10620(a)\, the Executive Director will take final action on these matters unless a Commissioner requests full Commission consideration by communicating with the staff prior to July 18\, 2024. In the absence of such a request\, the listed matters will be executed administratively on or after August 1\, 2024. \n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nWheeler Island Land Company -Property #807300 Victorian LaneDanville\, CA 94526 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2024.008.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\n06/24/2024\n\n\n90th Day\n09/22/2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Primary Management Area of the Suisun Marsh\, in the Commission’s Bay and managed wetland jurisdictions\, at SRCD parcel # 807\, in Solano County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nInstall four 53-linear-foot 24-inch-diameter HDPE drainpipes with stainless steel and HDPE flap gates\, and four 15-linear-feet steel sheet pile bulkheads with a top elevation of eight feet in existing exterior levees. The purpose for installing the drainpipes is to improve Wheeler Island’s ability to control its managed wetland water. The pipes will not be used for filling the managed wetland\, and will only export water from the wetland into the outer slough. The purpose for installing the bulkheads is to stabilize and strengthen sections of the existing exterior levee around the drainpipes. \n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions Rowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Articles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nIn the Name of Eelgrass\nSIZING UP PROGRESS ON NATURE-BASED INFRASTRUCTURE\nUSACE ANNOUNCES SIGNING OF CHIEF’S REPORT FOR OAKLAND HARBOR TURNING BASINS STUDY\nCalifornia Coastal Commission responds to report it worsens housing crisis: ‘Disgraceful’\nCome Hell or High Water: Flood Management in a Changing Climate
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/july-18-2024-commission-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240704T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240704T170000
DTSTAMP:20240119T040242Z
CREATED:20240119T040242Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240119T040242Z
UID:10000100-1720098000-1720112400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:July 4\, 2024 Commission Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/july-4-2024-commission-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240620T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240620T170000
DTSTAMP:20260417T001635Z
CREATED:20240119T035654Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260417T001635Z
UID:10000099-1718888400-1718902800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:June 20\, 2024 Commission Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Commissioners are located at the primary physical location and may be located at the teleconference locations specified below\, all of which are publicly accessible. The Zoom video-conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually is also specified below. \nPrimary Physical Meeting Location – Note room correction as of June 18Metro Center375 Beale Street\, Board Room (previously noticed for Temazcal Room)San Francisco\, CA 94105415-352-3600 \nTeleconference locations \n\nSonoma County Administration Building: 575 Administration Dr.\, Rm 100A\, Santa Rosa\, CA 95403\n100 Howe Ave.\, Ste. 100\, South Sacramento\, CA 95825\nRichmond City Council Office: 440 Civic Center Plaza\, Richmond\, CA 94804\nSouth San Francisco City Hall: 400 Grand Ave.\, 2nd Floor Mayor’s Office\, South San Francisco\, CA 94080\n715 P Street\, 20th Fl\, “Trestles” Conf. Rm.\, Sacramento\, CA 95814\n1084 Clarendon Cres\, Oakland\, CA 94610\nCaltrans Building District 4: 111 Grand Ave\, 15th Fl\, Oakland\, CA 94612\nOffice of Supervisor John Gioia: 11780 San Pablo Ave.\, Ste. D\, El Cerrito\, CA 94530 (510) 942-2220\nMarin County Civic Center: 3501 Civic Center Dr.\, Ste. 326\, San Rafael\, CA 94903\n2379 Sheffield Dr.\, Livermore\, CA 94550\n400 County Center\, Redwood City\, CA 94063\nMountain View City Hall: 500 Castro St.\, Mountain View\, CA 94041\n197 Palmer Ave.\, Falmouth\, MA 02540\n550 White Oak Dr.\, Santa Rosa\, CA 95409\n\nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/89218927634?pwd=kvqpZrDiA7uoYLcfKI0Z_5FLkcylZQ.MIEgBAAX7rDilulJ \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID892 1892 7634 \nPasscode394882 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\n\n\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic 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]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nConsent Calendar\n\nApproval of Minutes for June 6\, 2024 Meeting(Sierra Peterson) [415/352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\nProposed Adoption of Revised Stipulated Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order No. 2022.001.01 (224 Sea Cliff Ave\, SF)Section V.D of CCD No. 2022.001.00 requires the purchaser of 224 Sea Cliff Avenue in San Francisco to work with BCDC staff and present a stipulated CCD for Commission adoption without civil administrative liability. Staff proposes that the Commission adopt revised stipulated CCD No. 2022.001.01\, the terms of which have been agreed to by the respondent (new owner) and BCDC staff.(Michael Ng) [415/352-3610; michael.ng@bcdc.ca.gov]Recommended Enforcement Decision  // Presentation\n\n\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing on Bay Sand Budget\, Transport\, and Provenance Studies and Potential Effects of Sand MiningAs required by Commission permits for sand mining in Central and Suisun Bay in 2015\, the studies on the Bay’s sand budget\, transport patterns\, provenance\, and potential effects of mining are complete. A Commission selected Independent Science Panel has reviewed the studies\, deliberated on them\, and made findings regarding this new information and the potential effects of mining on this part of the Bay sediment system. The sand mining companies\, Martin-Marietta and Lind Marine will provide a short presentation on mining activities and staff will provide a presentation on the findings report. The report and several appendices were mailed to the Commission on June 7\, 2024\, for its review.(Brenda Goeden) [415/352-3623; brenda.goeden@bcdc.ca.gov]San Francisco Bay Sand Budget\, Transport\, Provenance\, and Bathymetric Change Studies and Potential Physical Effects of Sand Mining ActivitiesAppendix A // Appendix B // Appendix C // Appendix D // Appendix E // Appendix F // Appendix G // Appendix HStaff presentation // Presentation\nBriefing on Sediment Management Workshops and Action PlanCommission staff will provide a briefing on the Sediment for Wetland Adaptation Project\, a coordination effort and potential Bay Plan Amendment\, to increase the availability and use of Bay sediment\, fluvial sediment\, and construction soils to restore and adapt wetlands to rising sea levels. Working with its partners—US Environmental Protection Agency\, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board\, State Coastal Conservancy\, San Francisco Bay Joint Venture\, and San Francisco Estuary Institute—the Commission hosted a two-day in-person workshop on January 23rd and February 13th\, 2024\, to review and discuss potential changes to sediment management and an implementation action plan with partners and stakeholders who investigate\, collect\, manage\, use\, dispose\, and regulate sediment\, and manage and restore wetlands around San Francisco Bay. The Commission will receive an update on the outcomes of the workshop and a preview of the action plan.(Maya McInerney) [415/352-3646; maya.mcinerney@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nBriefing on Delta AdaptsDelta Stewardship Council staff members Jeff Henderson\, Planning Director\, and Morgan Chow\, Program Manager\, will present on the Delta Adapts Adaptation Strategy. Delta Adapts is a climate change adaptation study for the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta and Suisun Marsh the includes strategies to improve the resilience of the region to climate change hazards including sea level rise.(Cory Copeland) [415/352-3644; cory.copeland@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				\nThis report lists the administrative permit applications that have been filed and are pending with the Commission. The Executive Director will take the action indicated on the matters unless the Commission determines that it is necessary to hold a public hearing. The staff members to whom the matters have been assigned are indicated at the end of the project descriptions. Inquiries should be directed to the assigned staff member prior to the Commission meeting. \nAdministrative Permit Applications \nThere have been no administrative permit applications filed. \nRegionwide Permits \nThe Executive Director has issued the following regionwide permits. \n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nCalifornia Department of Water Resources1416 9th StreetSacramento\, CA 95814 \n\n\nRegionwide Permit No. NOI2024.004.00-RWP-1\n \n\n\nLocation\n\nIn the Bay and Shoreline Band\, at three exterior levees at Chipps Island\, within the eastern Suisun Marsh\, in unincorporated Solano County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nIn the Bay and Shoreline Band: \nRepair three exterior breaches to exterior levees: \n\nBreach 1: Place approximately 30 linear feet of sheet pile and 216 square feet (21 cubic yards) of soil (to be removed late 2025);\nBreach 2: Place approximately 30 linear feet of sheet pile and 216 square feet (21 cubic yards) of soil (sheet pile to be removed late 2024; soil as permanent repair); and\,\nBreach 3: Place a water filled cofferdam over approximately 1\,170 square feet of the existing levee (to be removed late 2025).\n\n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Sam Fielding; 415/352-3665 or sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nKarl Johannsmeier5 Blanding LaneBelvedere\, CA 94920 \n\n\nRegionwide Permit No. NOI2022.009.00-RWP-4 \n\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the 100-foot shoreline band\, at 5 Blanding Lane\, in the City of Belvedere\, Marin County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nConstruct an approximately 11-foot-long and 5-foot-tall steel mesh fence (after-the-fact). \n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Katharine Pan; 415/352-3650 or katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nCity of Alameda Public Works Department950 West Mall Square\, Room 110Alameda\, CA 94501 \n\n\nRegionwide Permit No. NOI2024.006.00-RWP-2 \n\n\n\nLocation\n\nAlameda West Lagoon System Outfall\, which perpendicularly intersects Bayview Drive starting from the Bayview Weir in Lagoon 5\, in the City and County of Alameda. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nConduct culvert and outfall maintenance\, including removal of: \n\nApproximately 31 cubic yards of rip-rap and sediment from the box culvert;\n98 cubic yards of rip-rap and sediment from the concrete channel;\n110 cubic yards of unembedded rip-rap from areas adjacent to the concrete channel (approximately 1\,917 square feet);\nShaping the boundary between the end of the concrete channel and the natural substrate channel it leads to a 5:1 slope for a gradual transition to existing ground;\nReplacing the metal culvert gate at the end of the RCB; and\nDewatering and transportation of all dredged material to an upland landfill site such as the Recology Hay Road Landfill.Contact: Rose An; 415/352-3654 or rose.an@bcdc.ca.gov\n\n\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nRichardson Bay Regional Agency \n3501 Civic Center Dr.\, Room 308San Rafael\, CA 94903 \n\n\nRegionwide Permit No. NOI2024.002.00-RWP 3 \n\n\n\nLocation\nIn the Richardson Bay in Marin County.\n\n\nDescription\n\nIn the bay: \n\nAffix habitat protection signage to nine existing pilings; and\nDeploy four new galvanized steel Helix anchors for demarcating anchorage areas that weight 7.7 pounds and measure 31.5 inches tall and 6 inches in diameter\, or equivalent.\n\nContact: Julie Garren; 415/352- 3624 or julie.garren@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Approved 6.20.2024 Commission Minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting recording & transcript\n				\n \n \n\nMeeting transcript\n\nCOMMISSIONERS AND THE PUBLIC. \nWELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE \nSAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION \nAND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. AND \nWELCOME TO OUR HYBRID\, BUT \nTODAY\, ALMOST FULLY VIRTUAL BCDC \nCOMMISSION MEETING. MY NAME IS \nREBECCA EISEN\, I AM THE VICE \nCHAIR OF BCDC\, I AM CHAIRING \nTHIS MEETING BECAUSE CHAIR \nWASSERMAN IS\, UNFORTUNATELY\, BUT \nNECESSARILY ABSENT TODAY. \nI AM GRATEFUL TO SEE \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON PETERS ON \nMY SCREEN BECAUSE SHE HAS AGREED \nTO BE OUR VICE CHAIR TODAY IN \nTHE EVENT WE HAVE AN INTERNET \nPROBLEM. SO I’M HOPEFUL WILL \nNOT HAPPEN. OUR FIRST ORDER IS \nTO CALL THE ROLL AND SIERRA IS \nGOING TO HELP ME OUT HERE \nBECAUSE I CAN’T SEE ALL OF YOU \nON MY SCREEN AT ONCE SO SHE’S \nGOING TO LET ME KNOW IF YOUR \nHAND IS RAISED OR IF YOU WANT TO \nSPEAK. \nFOR NOW\, PLEASE BE SURE YOUR \nCAMERA IS ON THROUGHOUT THE \nMEETING\, AND UNMUTE YOURSELF FOR \nTHE ROLL CALL. AND THEN ONCE \nYOU HAVE RESPONDED\, MUTE \nYOURSELVES ONCE AGAIN. \nSIERRA? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? \n>>SPEAKER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nAMBUEHL? BUELL AHN? \n>>EDDIE AHN: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nECKERLY? COMMISSIONER ECKLUND? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: PRESENT. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER GILLMOR? \n>>MARIE GILMORE: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER GIOIA? \n>>JOHN GIOIA: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER GORIN? \n>>SUSAN GORIN: PRESENT. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER? \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER HASZ? \n>>KARL HASZ: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER JOHN-BAPTISTE? \n>>ALICIA JOHN BAPTISTE: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nMOULTON-PETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nHERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER PEMBERTON? \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER SHOWALTER? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER ZEPEDA? \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: HAVE \nI MISSED ANYONE? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nCOMMISSIONER EISEN. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: OH\, \nAPOLOGIES\, VICE CHAIR EISEN. \n[LAUGHTER] \nI HAVE A TOTAL 16 PRESENT. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ALL \nRIGHT. WE HAVE A QUORUM \nPRESENT. SO WE ARE DULY CONS \nCONSTITUTED TO CONDUCT \nBUSINESS. \nNEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS IS PUBLIC \nCOMMENT. IF ANYONE WANTS TO \nADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY \nMATTER ON WHICH THE COMMISSION \nEITHER HAS NOT YET HELD A PUBLIC \nHEARING OR IS IN THE ON TODAY’S \nAGENDA\, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES \nTO DO SO. SIERRA\, ARE THERE ANY \nINDIVIDUALS IN THE BUILDING WHO \nWISH TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: THERE \nIS NO ONE PRESENT IN THE \nBUILDING\, BUT THERE IS A HAND \nRAISED ONLINE. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ALL \nRIGHT. YOU MAY CALL ON THEM. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nMR. BRUCE BEYERT. YOU MAY \nUNMUTE. \n>>SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON VICE \nCHAIR EISEN. MEMBERS OF THE \nCOMMISSION. CAN YOU HEAR ME? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nYES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: YES \nWE CAN. \n>>SPEAKER: MY NAME IS BRUCE \nBEYERT TRACK TRAILS RICHMOND \nACTION COMMITTEE I’M HERE TO \nANSWER THE QUESTIONS YOU ASKED \nAFTER THE BRIEFING LAST MONTH ON \nTHE RICHMOND SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE \nPILOT PROGRAM THE QUESTION ASKED \nABOUT HOW USAGE OF BAY TRAIL \nACROSS RICHMOND SAN RAFAEL \nBRIDGE COMPARED WITH OTHER BAY \nAREA BRIDGES. THE BAY TRAIL \nTRAVERSETRAVERSES BENICIA \nSTRAITS RICHMOND CENTER FAIR \nBRIDGE OF COURSE THE BAY BRIDGE \nEAST SPAN AS WELL AS THE \nDUMBARTON BRIDGE. \nUC BERKELEY’S PARTNER FOR \nADVANCED TRANSPORTATION \nTECHNOLOGY IN THE REPORT SAID \nTHE FOLLOWING IN THE MOST RECENT \nPEAK SEASON BICYCLE TRAFFIC ON \nTHE BRIDGE WAS HIGHEST OF ALL \nSTATE OWNED TOLL PASS INCLUDING \nSAN FRANCISCO OAKLAND BAY \nBRIDGE. TO BE — END OF QUOTE \n— TO BE MORE SPECIFIC\, DURING \nTHE LAST 45 DAYS\, \nWEEKEND BICYCLE TRIPS ON THE \nRICHMOND SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE WERE \n324 PER DAY VERSUS 206 ON THE \nBAY BRIDGE. ON WEEKDAYS\, \nBICYCLE TRIPS AVERAGE 132 ACROSS \nTHE RSR BRIDGE\, VERSUS 128 ON \nTHE BAY BRIDGE. PEDESTRIAN \nUSAGE IS VERY LOW ON THE \nRICHMOND SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE \nBECAUSE THE PILOT WAS DESIGNED \nFOR TRANSPORTATION\, THAT IS \nBICYCLISTS AND NOT FOR \nRECREATION AND TO BE PEDESTRIAN \nFRIENDLY. FOR EXAMPLE\, THERE \nARE NO RESTROOMS ON EITHER END \nOF THE BRIDGE AND THERE ARE ONLY \nA HANDFUL OF PARKING SPACES. \nTHIS CONTRASTS DRAMATICALLY WITH \nTHE BAY BRIDGE WHICH HAS A VERY \nLARGE USER FRIENDLY PARKING AREA \nWITH RESTROOMS AT THE BRIDGE \nYARD IN OAKLAND. OF COURSE\, \nNONE OF THE STATE OWNED BRIDGES \nCAN COMPARE WITH THE ICONIC \nGOLDEN GATE BRIDGE WHICH IS \nINTERNATIONAL TOURIST \nDESTINATION AND LITERALLY \nCRAWLING WITH PEOPLE ON FOOT AND \nBICYCLE. SO THE BAY BRIDGE IS \nMOST HEAVILY USED BY BICYCLES OF \nALL STATE OWNED BRIDGES. \nFINALLY CALTRANS LAST MONTH IN \nAPRIL ACTUALLY FILED REQUEST TO \nEXTEND RICHMOND CENTERVILLE \nBRIDGE PILOT AND TRACK SUPPORT \nAND ASK TO BE EXTENDED \nADMINISTRATIVELY TO THE END OF \n2025 AS THE BAY AREA TOLL \nAUTHORITY HAS REQUESTED THIS \nWILL CLEAR THE DECKS THE \nEXTENSION WILL BE SETTLED AND \nYOU WILL BE IN GOOD POSITION TO \nADDRESS THE PROPOSAL COMING \nLATER TO SHUT DOWN THE BAY TRAIL \nRICHMOND SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE FOUR \nDAYS A WEEK TO PROVIDE FOR BREAK \nDOWN LANE FOR AUTOMOBILES WHICH \nOF COURSE I THINK IS A TERRIBLE \nIDEA. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NO \nFURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THAT \nCONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC COMMENT \nPERIOD. WE WILL TAKE PUBLIC \nCOMMENT ABOUT ANY ITEM THAT IS \nON OUR AGENDA WHEN WE ARE \nCONSIDERING THAT ITEM. \nA FEW THINGS FOR THE CHAIR \nREPORT\, WE ARE ALMOST ENTIRELY \nVIRTUAL TODAY BECAUSE OF THE \nFIRST FLOOR CONSTRUCTION AT THE \nMETRO CENTER. BUT OUR STAFF \nTELLS US THAT THAT CONSTRUCTION \nIS ON SCHEDULE. AND IF THAT \nREMAINS THE CASE\, WE CAN HOPE \nAND EXPECT THAT WE WILL REGAIN \nUSE OF BOTH THE BOARDROOM AND \nTHE YERBA BUENA ROOM FOR OUR \nMEETING NEXT MONTH\, WHICH WILL \nBE ON JULY 18TH\, AS ONE OF THE \nCOMMISSIONERS NOTED\, WE WILL NOT \nHAVE A MEETING ON JULY 4TH. OUR \nSTAFF WILL KEEP US INFORMED \nREGARDING THE PROGRESS OF THE \nCONSTRUCTION\, AS THEY START \nPLANNING FOR THAT MEETING. \nTODAY IS THE FIRST MEETING WHERE \nWE WILL CONSIDER A CONSENT \nCALENDAR. AND I KNOW MOST OF \nTHE COMMISSIONERS ARE FAMILIAR \nWITH CONSENT CALENDARS FROM THE \nVARIOUS BOARDS THEY HAVE SAT \nON. \nIDEALLY\, A CONSENT CALENDAR \nHELPS US TO CUT THROUGH RED TAPE \nREGARDING NON-CONTROVERSIAL \nMATTERS\, AND GIVES US MORE TIME \nTO ENTERTAIN PUBLIC COMMENT AND \nTO HAVE OUR DISCUSSIONS AND OUR \nPRESENTATIONS. \nSO\, WE’RE GOING TO GIVE IT A TRY \nAND SEE HOW THAT GOES. \nWE WILL ASK FOR PUBLIC COMMENT \nON THE CONSENT CALENDAR WHEN WE \nGET TO IT\, IN A MINUTE\, AND WE \nWILL ALSO NEED TO TAKE A ROLL \nYOU CALL VOTE TO MAKE SURE WE \nHAVE A MAJORITY VOTE APPROVING \nTHE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE \nRISING SEA LEVEL WORKING GROUP \nIS GOING TO BE MEETING AT THE \nSAME DAY AT OUR NEXT MEETING\, \nJULY 18TH\, BUT IN THE MORNING. \nSO WILL THE ENVIRONMENTAL \nJUSTICE WORKING GROUP. THOSE \nMEETINGS ARE GOING TO BE \nSCHEDULED BACK TO BACK\, SO THAT \nEVERYBODY CAN ATTEND ALL OF \nTHEM. AND THEY WILL BE LISTED \nON OUR BRAND-NEW \nWEB SITE’S BRAND-NEW CALENDAR\, \nAND LARRY IS GOING TO TELL US \nABOUT THAT WHEN WE GET TO HIS \nREPORT. FINALLY\, AS I SAID\, OUR \nNEXT MEETING WILL BE JULY 18TH. \nI DO HOPE THAT EVERYBODY HAS A \nSAFE AND HAPPY 4TH OF JULY\, IT \nSOUNDS LIKE PAT HAS WONDERFUL \n4TH OF JULY PLANS. \nAT OUR MEETING ON MAY 18TH WE \nMAY TAKE UP THE FOLLOWING \nMATTERS\, ONE\, A PUBLIC HEARING \nAND POSSIBLE VOTE ON THE \nRESTORATION OF CHIPPS ISLAND\, \nWHICH IS IN THE DELTA. A \nBRIEFING ON THE PROPOSED \nORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN \nFOR OUR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE \nADVISORS\, AND\, FINALLY\, AN \nUPDATE ON THE PROGRESS OF BCDC’S \nENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE \nPROGRAMS. \nEX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS. IF A \nCOMMISSIONER HAS INADVERTENTLY \nFORGOTTEN TO PROVIDE OUR STAFF \nTO WITH EX PARTE WRITTEN OR ORAL \nEXPERT COMMUNICATIONS YOU MAY \nREPORT ON THEM AT THIS POINT BY \nRAISING YOUR HAND. PLEASE \nREMEMBER YOUR WRITTEN REPORT \nSHOULD BE DETAILED ENOUGH FOR \nTHE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND THE \nCONVERSATION’S MAIN TOPICS BUT \nYOUR ORAL REPORT SHOULD NOT BE \nLONGER THAN TWO MINUTES. SIERRA \nIS THERE ANY COMMISSIONER WHO \nHAS RAISED HIS OR HER HAND? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NONE \nIN-PERSON\, OR VIRTUALLY. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nGREAT. THANK YOU. THAT BRINGS \nUS TO OUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S \nREPORT. LARRY? \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: THANK YOU \nCHAIR EISEN. SUMMER TIME AND AS \nTHE GEFSH WIN BROTHERS WROTE \nLIVING IS EASY TODAY IS SUMMER \nSOLSTICE LONGEST DAY OF THE YEAR \nIF YOU PLAN TO GO TO THE BEACH \nTHIS WEEKEND JUST REMEMBER IN \nJULY 1975 JAWS WAS RELEASED WITH \nSTAR WARS BELIEVING RELEASED \nMEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND THREE YEARS \nLATER THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY WAS \nFOREVER CHANGED. SUMMER TIME \nISN’T JUST A TIME TO HANG OWL \nWE’RE WORKING HARD IN SHORELINE \nPLAN GUIDELINES DISCUSSIONS \nENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AND PERMIT \nREQUESTS AND BUDGET NEWS AFTER \nALL THAT HARD WORK WE’LL BE \nREADY FOR ICE CREAM. THERE IS \nONLY ONE STAFFING ANNOUNCEMENT \nTO BE MADE TODAY. TODAY IS \nSTEVE GOLDBECK’S FINAL STAFF \nMEETING AS A FULL-TIME PERMANENT \nSTATE EMPLOYEE. STEVE JOINED \nBCDC AS A VOLUNTEER 38 YEARS AGO \nAND WAS HIRED A YEAR LATER AS A \nCOASTAL PLANNER. AMONG HIS MANY \nROLES AT BCDC HE WROTE THE \nCOMMISSION’S FIRST WATER QUALITY \nPOLICIES AND A FEW YEARS LATER \nWAS PRINCIPLE STAFF MEMBER IN \nCHARGE OF FIRST CREATING AND \nTHEN IMPROVING BCDC’S DREDGING \nAND SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT \nPROGRAM. \nINITIATED AND LED THE BENEFICIAL \nREUSE STUDIES WHICH WAS START OF \nTHE REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT \nPROGRAM IN THE BAY AREA AND \nESTABLISHED THE LONG-TERM \nMANAGEMENT STRATEGY PROGRAM HOW \nTO MANAGE DREDGE MATERIALS. HE \nHAD A CENTRAL ROLE IN BCDC’S \nEFFORTS TO RESTORE BAYLANDS \nTIDAL WETLANDS HAMILTON TIDAL \nACTION AND WAS THE MOVE ERR \nBEHIND CREATING DREDGED \nMATERIALS MANAGEMENT OFFICE. \nOTHER EFFORTS WAS AWARDED ROGER \nJONES AWARD EXCELLENCE COASTAL \nMANAGEMENT AND RECEIVED \nCOMMENDATION FROM PRESIDENT AL \nGORE’S PART OF VP NATIONAL \nAWARD FOR BETTERING GOVERNMENT \nPROGRAM. WE HAVE ASKED STEVE TO \nCOME BACK AS A RETIRED \nAFTER A RESTFUL PERIOD AWAY \nFROM US. \nCRUCIAL IN TRAINING AND \nMENTORING STAFF TEN YEARS IN \n2024 AND EVEN FIVE YEARS AGO HAS \nSTARTED WORKING ON CREATING \nTRAINING PROGRAM FOR OUR STAFF. \nHE HAS BEEN A TREMENDOUS \nPARTNER. HE AND BRAD McCRAY \nBROUGHT ME UP DURING MY FIRST \nYEARS WHEN I KNEW LITTLE ABOUT \nCOASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS. HE \nKNEW QUICKLY HOW I INTEND TO \nWORK WHICH IS MOST DIFFICULT \nTOING IF OUT WHEN YOU GET A NEW \nBOSS. HE CREATED GREAT INTRO TO \nANY DISCUSSION THAT GOES LIKE \nTHIS\, QUOTE\, LARRY\, WE HAVE AN \nISSUE\, BUT DON’T DO ANYTHING \nYET.” WE SHALL MISS STEVE \nWANDERING AROUND THE OFFICE \nSCOPING OUT PROJECTS \nPROOFREADING REPORTS AND \nEVERYTHING ELSE THAT HE DOES BUT \nAT LEAVE THE WE’LL HAVE HIM AS A \nRETIRED ANUITANT FOR A WHILE AND \nI CAN ASSURE HIM WE KNOW HIS \nTELEPHONE NUMBER WHEN WE NEED \nADVICE. STAFF HAD A BUR TOW \nLUNCH WITH SOME GREAT CAKE \nBEFORE TAO TODAY’S MEETING. WE \nHOPE STEVE WILL CONTRIBUTE SOME \nOF HIS GREAT RED WINE FOR THAT \nOCCASION. STEVE I AM SURE YOU \nWOULD LIKE TO SAY JUST A FEW \nWORDS? \n>>STEVEN GOLDBECK: THANK YOU\, \nLARRY. I HAVE A 20 MINUTE \nPOWERPOINT AND THEN A 10 MINUTE \nMOVIE TO SHOW. NO. I CALL BCDC \nTHE JOB \nTHATLLED MY CAREER IT’S BEEN \nINTERESTING AND NEVER GOT \nBORING. WELL\, MAYBE THERE WAS A \nMEETING OR TWO THAT DIDN’T MEET \nTHE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OVERALL \nIT’S BEEN AN AMAZING TIME\, AND I \nHAVE ENJOYED ALL OF THE WORK \nTHAT THE BCDC DOES\, AND WORKING \nWITH ALL THE STAFF. I FEEL LIKE \nI CAN RETIRE NOW HAVING ACHIEVED \nSOME INTERESTING THINGS\, IN \nADDITION TO WORKING ON THE \nCLIMATE CHANGE POLICIES\, AS THE \nFIRST IN THE NATION\, IT’S \nSOMETHING I’LL ALWAYS TREASURE. \nAND I’M LOOKING FORWARD TO THE \nIMPLEMENTATION OF SENATE BILL \nTWO 72\, AS WELL. \nBUT IT’S REALLY BEEN \nPARTNERSHIPS THAT HAVE ALWAYS \nMADE ME ENJOY WORKING AT BCDC \nWITH THE STAFF\, AS I TOLD THEM \nTODAY AT OUR LITTLE \nLUNCH ON\, BUT ALSO WORKING WITH \nCOMMISSIONERS. I HAVE BEEN \nREALLY IMPRESSED WITH THE \nCOMMISSIONERS WE HAVE HAD AT \nBCDC\, ALWAYS IMPRESSED WITH \nCOMMISSIONERS WHO COME TO BCDC \nFROM WHARF BACKGROUND OR \nAPPOINTMENT\, BUT ALWAYS TOOK ON \nTHE ROLE OF BEING A REGIONAL \nBCDC COMMISSIONER. AND THAT’S \nHOW BCDC HAS PROSPERED\, SO\, I \nWANT TO SAY IT’S BEEN AN HONOR \nAND A PLEASURE WORKING WITH BCDC \nSTAFF AND NEW COMMISSIONERS\, AND \nI LOOK FORWARD TO MY NEW ROLE. \nSO\, THANKS SO MUCH. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: TWO THINGS \nTO FOLLOW THAT UP. FIRST WE \nHAVE TO LOOK FOR A NEW MEMBER OF \nSENIOR STAFF TO THIS DEPARTURE. \nYOU RECEIVED TWO WEEKS AGO LINKS \nTO THE JOB AND WILL GET IT AGAIN \nTODAY IN THE COMMISSION SUMMARY \nPLEASE DISTRIBUTE THEM TO \nANYBODY YOU BELIEVE SHOULD \nRECEIVE THEM. PERHAPS LATE \nBREAKING NEWS EVENT BCDC’S BOCCE \nTEAM WHICH HISTORICALLY HAS BEEN \nKNOWN AS THE MEAN HIGH TIDES\, \nHAS NOW CHANGED ITS NAME AT \nLEAVE THE FOR THE NEXT SEASON TO \nSTEVIE G AND THE SHORELINE \nBAND. \nSO\, WE DO THAT\, BECAUSE STEVE \nHAS BEEN A — I THINK\, STEVE\, \nYOU WERE A CHARTER MEMBER OF THE \nBOCCE GROUP\, AND REMAINS A \nSTALWART\, AND THE BYLAWS OF THE \nBOCCE RULES LEAGUE SAY THAT \nRETIRED ANNUITY ANTS CAN \nPARTICIPATE IN BOCCE GAMES\, JUST \nSO YOU KNOW. WITH THAT\, I HAVE \nONE MORE ANNOUNCEMENT THAT CHAIR \nEISEN NOTED. THE MAJOR NEWS AT \nBCDC DURING THE PAST TWO WEEKS \nIS THE DEPLOYMENT OF OUR NEW WEB \nSITE. THANKS TO A GREAT EFFORT \nBY A NUMBER OF STAFF\, MOST \nESPECIALLY REYLINA\, ELSA\, AND \nETHAN\, AND VARIOUS OTHER STATE \nSTAFF AND A VERY GOOD CONSULTANT \nTEAM\, OUR NEW WEB SITE IS BOTH \nEASIER TO USE\, AND CAN BE \nEXPANDED TO CREATE GREATER \nFUNCTIONALITY. MOST IMPORTANT \nFOR THE PUBLIC\, IT IS MUCH \nBETTER ORGANIZED\, AND WE ARE \nWORKING HARD TO FULFILL ONE OF \nOUR STRATEGIC PLAN OBJECTIVES BY \nUSING AS MUCH PLAIN LANGUAGE AS \nPOSSIBLE. PLEASE CHECK IT OUT. \nLOOK AT THE NEW CALENDAR \nFUNCTION\, ESPECIALLY\, THAT \nCONTINUES TO MAKE ME SMILE. AND \nWE’RE STILL TINKERING WITH IT \nAND WILL BE FOR MANY MONTHS. \nAND WE CERTAINLY LOOK FORWARD TO \nYOUR COMMENTS. IF YOU FIND \nSOMETHING OR DON’T FIND \nSOMETHING THAT YOU EITHER LIKE \nOR DON’T LIKE\, PLEASE LET US \nKNOW. \nTHAT COMPLETES MY REPORT\, CHAIR \nEISEN\, I’M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY \nQUESTIONS. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ANY \nQUESTIONS FOR LARRY? \nWELL\, LET ME SAY\, STEVE\, THAT \nWAS UNBELIEVABLE AND STUNNING \nLIST OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS. AND ON \nBEHALF OF A VERY GRATEFUL \nCOMMISSION\, WE’RE GOING TO MISS \nYOU\, AND WE’RE LOOKING FORWARD \nTO THE\, I THINK LARRY CALLED IT \nA SEND-OFF\, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE \nIT’S JUST A TRANSITION. ALL \nRIGHT. WE’RE NOW AT THE \nEXCITING GRAND NEW CONSENT \nCALENDAR. AT THIS POINT IN \nTHE AGENDA\, WE’RE GOING TO \nCONSIDER THAT THERE ARE TWO \nITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. \nONE IS THE APPROVAL OF THE \nMINUTES FOR OUR JUNE 6TH \nMEETING\, AND THE SECOND IS THE \nPROPOSED ADOPTION OF A REVISED \nSTIPULATED CEASE AND DESIST AND \nCIVIL PENALTY ORDER FROM THE \nENFORCEMENT PROGRAM. AND THAT \nREGARDS A PROPERTY IN SAN \nFRANCISCO AT 224 SEA CLIFF \nAVENUE. ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE \nCHAIR MARIE GILMORE HAS ALREADY \nCONCURRED IN THE INCLUSION OF \nTHIS ORDER IN THE CONSENT \nCALENDAR. SO\, FIRST\, SIERRA DO \nWE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT \nREGARDING THE CONSENT CALENDAR? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NO \nONE IN PERSON\, AND NO HANDS \nRAISED. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ALL \nRIGHT. SO\, THEN\, AS INDICATED\, \nWE DO TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE WITH \nRESPECT TO THE CONSENT \nCALENDAR. \nMAY I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND \nTO ADOPT THE CONSENT CALENDAR? \nSIERRA\, LET ME KNOW WHO MOVES. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: I’LL MOVE TO \nAPPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: AND PAT \nSHOWALTER. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: I’LL BE \nGLAD TO SECOND THE CONSENT \nCALENDAR. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: ECKLUND \nMOVES SHOWALTER SECONDS. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nSIERRA PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? IS \n. \n>>SPEAKER: /*. \n>>SPEAKER: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER AHN? ANN AYE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER AMBUEHL? \n[LAUGHTER] \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: I THINK THAT \nCOUNTS. WE SEE IT. \n>>DAVID AMBUEHL: AYE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: THANK \nYOU COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER \nECKERLY? \n>>JENN ECKERLE: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nECKLUND? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: AYE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nGILLMOR? \n>>MARIE GILMORE: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nGIOIA? \n>>JOHN GIOIA: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nGUNTHER? \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: YES . \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nHASZ? \n>>KARL HASZ: AYE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nYES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON? \nCOMMISSIONER PEMBERTON? \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: AYE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER SHOWALTER? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER ZEPEDA? \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: CHAIR \nEISEN? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nYES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: HAVE \nI MISSED ANYONE? \nTHE CONSENT CALENDAR PASSES WITH \n16 YESES\, ZERO NOS\, AND ZERO \nABSTENTIONS. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU\, SIERRA. \nALL RIGHT. WELL\, WE DO NOT HAVE \nAN ADMINISTRATIVE LISTING TODAY\, \nBUT COMMISSIONER GUNTHER ASKED \nAT OUR LAST MEETING THAT OUR \nSTAFF EXPLAIN HOW THE \nADMINISTRATIVE LISTING PROCESS \nWORKS AND HOW IT DIFFERS FROM \nOTHER TYPES OF PERMITTING \nAPPROVALS. SO\, HARRIET ROSS WHO \nIS OUR REGULATORY DIRECTOR HAS \nPREPARED A RESPONSE FOR THE \nCOMMISSION. BUT BEFORE WE GET \nTO HARRIET’S RESPONSE\, DO WE \nHAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS \nREGARDING THIS AGENDA ITEM? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NONE \nIN PERSON\, AND NO HANDS RAISED. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU. HARRIET\, YOU CAN \nPLEASE EXPLAIN TO US OUR \nADMINISTRATIVE LISTING PROCESS? \n>>HARRIET ROSS: YES. GOOD \nAFTERNOON CHAIR EISEN AND \nCOMMISSIONERS. AGAIN\, I’M \nHARRIET ROSS. FIRST OF ALL\, \nBCDC HAS SEVERAL CATEGORIES OF \nPERMITS\, AS YOU ALL HAVE \nNOTICED\, I’M SURE. WHEN THE \nCOMMISSION HEARS A PROJECT OR \nVOTES SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID \nLAST MONTH IN MAY\, 505 BAYSHORE\, \nTHAT’S CONSIDERED A MAJOR \nPERMIT. BUT THE COMMISSION’S \nRULES HAVE DEDICATED AUTHORITY \nTO REVIEW AND ACT ON SOME OTHER \nPERMITS TO ITS EXECUTIVE \nDIRECTOR. SO\, THE PERMITS THAT \nAPPEAR IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE \nLISTINGS ARE CONSIDERED MINOR \nREPAIRS AND IMPROVEMENTS AND \nTHAT’S DEFINED BY THE \nCOMMISSION’S REGULATIONS AND BY \nTHE COMMISSION ITSELF. THERE \nARE MANY DIFFERENT TYPES OF \nPROJECTS INCLUDED IN THIS \nDEFINITION OF MINOR REPAIRS AND \nIMPROVEMENTS. SOME EXAMPLES TO \nGIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT WE’RE \nTALKING ABOUT CAN BE SINGLE BOAT \nDOCKS LESS THAN 1500 SQUARE FEET \nSHORELINE PROTECTION THAT WOULD \nFILL LESS THAN 10\,000 FEET OF \nTHE BAY ROUTINE REPAIRS THAT \nDON’T INVOLVE SIGNIFICANT \nENLARGEMENT OR CHANGES. JUST TO \nNAME A FEW. \nDIRECTOR ASKED TO ISSUE OR \nTO PERMIT REQUIRED ACTIONS TO \nTHE COMMISSION AND PUBLIC. THE \nLIST IS SUMMARY OF PROJECTS AND \nPROPOSED AGES BY STAFF. IF THE \nCOMMISSION AGREES WITH THE \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S \nCLASSIFICATION THAT A PROJECT IS \nINDEED CONSIDERED A MINOR REPAIR \nOR IMPROVEMENT\, THEN NO ACTION \nIS NEEDED AND THAT’S TYPICALLY \nWHAT HAPPENS. I HAVE BEEN HERE \nFOR NINE MONTHS NOW\, AND I THINK \nWE HAVE GONE THROUGH THAT \nPROCESS EVERY MEETING WITHOUT \nANY FANFARE. THEN THE EXECUTIVE \nDIRECTOR WILL ACT ON PENDING \nAPPLICATIONS WITHIN THE MANDATED \nDEADLINES. SO ADMINISTRATIVE \nMATTERS OR PERMITS DON’T REQUIRE \nA PUBLIC HEARING AND MAY BE \nISSUED WITHIN A SHORTER TIME \nFRAME. NOW\, HOWEVER\, IF THE \nCOMMISSION — AND YOU ALL HAVE \nTHE RIGHT TO DISAGREE WITH THE \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S \nDETERMINATION THAT A PROJECT IS \nINDEED A MINOR REPAIR OR \nIMPROVEMENT AND IF THAT’S THE \nCASE WE’LL HOLD A HEARING TO \nDISCUSS IF THAT — IF THE \nPROJECT DOESN’T FIT THE \nDEFINITION OF THE COMMISSIONER’S \nVOTE ON THIS TYPE OF PERMIT — \nSORRY\, IF IT DOESN’T MEET THE \nDEFINITION OF THIS PERMIT THEN \nWE VOTE AS A COMMISSION ON THE \nTYPE OF PERMIT IT SHOULD BE. IF \nTHE COMMISSION VOTES THE TYPE \nIS NOT THE RIGHT PERMIT THE \nCOMMISSION VOTES THEN \nADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT WHICH \nWOULD INCLUDE PUBLIC HEARING AND \nCOMMISSION VOTE. \nSO THAT’S THE MAIN \nADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT INCLUDED \nIN THE ADMINISTRATIVE LISTING WE \nALSO LIST OTHER PERMITS SUCH AS \nREGION-WIDE ON A REGULAR BASIS \nAND I THINK THE PLAN IS TO GO \nOVER THAT IN DETAIL AT FUTURE \nTRAINING. THAT’S JUST THE \nBASICS OF WHAT GOES ON IN THE \nADMINISTRATIVE LISTING AND HOW \nTHAT’S DIFFERENT FROM THE MAJOR \nPERMITS THAT YOU ALL CONSIDER \nFROM TIME TO TIME. ANY \nQUESTIONS? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ANY \nQUESTIONS OF HARRIET? \nCOMMENTS? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NO \nHANDS RAISED. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU. THANK YOU HARRIET. \nAND YOUR STATEMENT THAT WE COULD \nREMOVE SOMETHING FROM THE \nADMINISTRATIVE LISTING IF WE \nWISHED REMINDED ME THAT THAT IS \nALSO TRUE OF OUR CONSENT \nCALENDAR. AND I FORGOT TO \nMENTION THAT IF AT ANY POINT IN \nTIME SOMEBODY WANTED TO LIFT \nSOMETHING ALL THE COMMISSION — \nI MEAN THE CONSENT CALENDAR\, AND \nHAVE A REGULAR\, SORT OF\, ITEM \nFOR THAT MATTER\, THAT CAN BE \nDONE. SO\, I NEGLECTED TO \nMENTION THAT. \n>>GREG SCHARFF: I WANTED TO ADD \nTO THAT CHAIR EISEN IT TAKES TWO \nCOMMISSIONERS. IF ONE \nCOMMISSIONER WANTS TO DO IT\, IT \nTAKES TWO COMMISSIONERS TO SAY \nWE’RE GOING TO REMOVE IT FROM \nTHE CONSENT CALENDAR. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU GREG. FIND A PARTNER \nIF YOU WANT TO REMOVE SOMETHING \nFROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR. \nWE’RE GOING TO HAVE THREE \nBRIEFINGS NOW. THE FIRST ONE IS \nWITH RESPECT TO SAND MINING \nISSUES. IT’S A BRIEFING BY THE \nBCDC STAFF AND REPRESENTATIVES \nOF THE SAND MINING INDUSTRY. \nIT’S GOING TO BE WITH REGARD TO \nISSUES THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED \nBY THE COMMISSION’S TEMPORARY \nSAND MINING COMMISSIONER WORKING \nGROUP\, WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED \nRECENTLY. AND THEY’RE GOING TO \nBE CONSIDERING THESE ISSUES \nDURING THE REMAINDER OF THE \nYEAR. LAST WEEK\, BCDC \nDISTRIBUTED RESEARCH STUDIES ON \nISSUES THAT WERE RAISED BY OUR \nCOMMISSION DURING THE SAND \nMINING PERMIT PROCESS BACK IN \n2015. THAT RESEARCH WAS \nREVIEWED BY AN INDEPENDENT \nSCIENCE PANEL. SO\, TODAY\, BCDC \nSTAFF IS GOING TO PROVIDE A \nSHORT PRESENTATION ON THE \nRESEARCH AND THE FINDINGS \nPROCESS\, AND REPRESENTATIVES OF \nTHE SANDS MINING COMPANIES ARE \nGOING TO PROVIDE A SHORT \nPRESENTATION ON MINING \nACTIVITIES. SO\, THE PURPOSE \nOF THIS BRIEFING IS TO HIGHLIGHT \nTHE TOPICS THAT THE WORKING \nGROUP IS GOING TO CONSIDER. SO\, \nCOMMISSIONERS SHOULD WAITE THAT \nWORK BEFORE WE EXPRESS ANY \nOPINIONS WE HAVE ON THE STUDIES \nOR THE POSSIBILITY OF \nCONSIDERING A PERMIT FOR FUTURE \nSAND MINING ACTIVITIES. \nTODAY WE’RE GOING TO HEAR THE \nSHORT PRESENTATIONS. AND OF \nCOURSE\, THERE WILL BE TIME FOR \nANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS THAT \nCOMMISSIONERS HAVE. OKAY. \nDO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON \nTHIS ITEM BEFORE WE BEGIN? I’M \nSORRY. \n[LAUGHTER] \nLET’S HAVE THE PRESENTATION \nBEFORE WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT. \nBRENDA IS GOING TO MAKE THE \nPRESENTATION. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: THANK YOU VICE \nCHAIR EISEN. YOU CAN ALL SEE MY \nSCREEN? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: YES. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nYES. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: GOOD AFTERNOON \nCOMMISSIONERS I’M PLEASED TO \nPRESENT FINDINGS ON THE NEW \nSIGNS ON SAND IN SAN FRANCISCO \nBAY AN OVERLOOKED AREA OF THE \nSEDIMENT SYSTEM THIS NEW SCIENCE \nIS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE \nCOMMISSION’S REQUIREMENTS IN ITS \n2015 SAND MINING PERMITS. MY \nPRESENTATION AS CHAIR EYES \nMENTIONED WILL BE TO REVIEW THE \nHISTORY OF SAND MINING IN THE \nBAY\, THE COMMISSION’S PERMITTING \nSAND ACTIVITIES IN 2015 PROCESS \nAND ORGANIZATION FOR IDENTIFY \nTHE STUDIES AND RESEARCH AND \nFINDINGS THEN INDEPENDENT \nSCIENCE PANEL ON RESEARCH AND \nFINALLY PATH FORWARD IN THE NEXT \nSEVERAL MONTHS. \nAND MY SCREEN IS NOT \nFORWARDING. \nSO\, LET ME JUST DO IT THIS WAY. \nOKAY. SO\, AS SOME OF YOU ARE \nAWARE\, MINING IN SAN FRANCISCO \nBAY HAS OCCURRED FOR ALMOST A \nCENTURY\, VIA SMALL COMPANIES \nTHAT BEGAN AROUND THE 1930S\, AND \nPERHAPS BEFORE THAT. THE \nCOMMISSION’S RECORDS OF THIS \nACTIVITIES ARE LIMITED TO THE \nDOCUMENTED SAND MINING FROM \nVARIOUS PERMITS OF THESE SMALL \nCOMPANIES THAT WERE PERMITTED IN \nTHE 1970S. OVER TIME\, THE SMALL \nCOMPANIES WERE CONSOLIDATED. \nAND ESPECIALLY IN THE LATE \n1990S\, SEVERAL OF THE SMALL \nCOMPANIES\, ALONG WITH THE STATE \nLAND LEASES\, OR PRIVATE — OR \nPRIVATE LEASES WERE CONSOLIDATED \nUNDER HANSON AGGREGATES\, WHICH \nIS NOW MARTIN MARIETTA\, AND\, \nALSO\, LIND MARINE. ALSO NOTE A \nTHIRD SAND MINING COMPANY\, \nSUISUN ASSOCIATES WHICH IS A \nJOINT EFFORT — GIANT COMPANY OF \nLIND MARINE AND MARTIN \nMARIETTA. \nIN THIS GRAPHIC\, YOU SEE HERE\, \nIN THE UPPER RIGHT\, THERE IS A \nVERY SMALL MAP\, BILL BUTLER WITH \nLIND MARINE WILL SHOW YOU A \nBETTER MAP SHORTLY BUT THE \nSAND — CENTRAL \nSAN FRANCISCO BAY AND SUISUN \nCHANNEL IN BAY AREA CALLED \nMIDDLE GROUND SCHOELL SUISUN \nCHANNEL ITSELF PERMITS REPORTED \nBY MINING COMPANIES BETWEEN \n1970S AND 2023 HAS BEEN \nVARIABLE. SIGNALED MINING IS \nDONE PARTICULARLY TO PROVIDE \nAGGREGATE TO THE CONSTRUCTION \nINDUSTRY IN THE BAY REGION. \nIT’S NOT THE ONLY SAND THAT’S \nPROVIDED TO THE CONSTRUCTION \nINDUSTRY\, THERE IS ALSO IMPORTED \nSAND FROM BRITISH COLUMBIA AND \nSAND TRUCKED IN FROM VARIOUS \nQUARS IN THE REGION. BUT THE \nMINERS WILL TELL YOU MORE ABOUT \nTHAT IN THE NEXT PRESENTATION. \nBUT YOU WILL NOTE THAT DURING \nTHE EARLY 2000s WAS THE PEAK OF \nTHE SAND MINING AND THAT WAS \nAROUND THE.COM PERIOD WHEN THERE \nWAS A HUGE AMOUNT OF BUILDING \nGONE ON IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY. \nYOU WILL ALSO SEE A DIP AROUND \n2018 AND 2014 WHICH MARKS A \nSIGNIFICANT RECESSION IN THE \nREGION AND ACKNOWLEDGE BACK THEN \nDECLINING OVER TIME AND IT TENDS \nTO TREND ALONG WITH THE \nCONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY’S WORK AND \nWE’LL SEE HOW IT CONTINUES IN \nTHE FUTURE. \nIN 2015\, THE COMMISSION HEARD \nFOR THE FIRST TIME THREE MAJOR \nPERMITS IN A PUBLIC HEARING AND \nVOTE. AND THEY ISSUED THREE \nPERMITS. THE FIRST PERMIT WAS \nFOR CENTRAL BAY FOR 1.4 PER \nCUBIC YARDS OF SAND OVER \nMULTIPLE LEASE PARCELS ISSUED TO \nHANSON AGGREGATES NOW MARTIN \nMARIETTA. SUISUN BAY HAD A \nPERMIT ISSUE FOR 185\,000 CUBIC \nYARDS ANNUALLY AND THAT WENT TO \nSUISUN ASSOCIATES AND LIND \nMARINE HAD A SPECIFIC PERMIT \nISSUED ON A PRIORITY LEASE FOR \n100\,000 CUBIC YARDS AROUND \nMIDDLE GROUND SCHOELL. PERMITS \nARE FOR A TEN YEAR PERIOD AND \nTHEY DIFFERENT STUDIES TO \nMITIGATE AND BETTER UNDERSTAND \nIMPACTS OF SAND MINING SO THE \nCOMMISSION ALONG WITH THE WATER \nBOARD REQUIRED WATER QUALITY \nMONITORING STUDY AND REQUIRED \nBENTHIC HABITAT STUDY THEN MOST \nRECENT WORK REQUIRED STUDY OF \nSAND TRANSPORT AND SAND BUDGET \nPOTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE MINING \nOF THE SAND\, AND PHYSICAL \nPROCESS IN THE BAY AND IN THAT \nACTION THE COMMISSION REQUIRED \nTHE MINERS TO CONTRIBUTE $1.2 \nMILLION TO THESE EFFORTS. \nTHERE WAS MITIGATION REQUIRED AS \nPART OF THESE PERMITS\, INCLUDING \nREMOVAL OF SOME BAY FILL WHICH \nWAS PRIMARILY UNDERTAKEN AT \nCROCKETT AND MARINA\, A DEFUNCT \nMARINA NEAR THE CITY OF \nCROCKETT NEAR THE BENICIA BRIDGE \nINSTALLATION OF FISH SCREENS ON \nALL OF THE EQUIPMENT ALL OF THE \nPUMPING EQUIPMENT TO REDUCE \nENTERTAINMENT OF FISH FROM THE \nWATER BEING PUMPED ON THE \nDREDGES TO SLURRY THE SAND. AT \nTHAT TIME THERE WAS A LOT OF \nCONCERN ISSUES RAISED AROUND \nSAND MINING THIS WAS THE FIRST \nTIME THERE WAS A PUBLIC HEARING \nIN THAT REGARD AND THE \nCOMMISSION SPECIFICALLY HAD A \nNUMBER OF QUESTIONS\, INCLUDING \nHOW MUCH SAND IS IN THE BAY \nWHAT’S THE VOLUME AND WHERE IS \nIT\, WHAT AREAS ARE IN TRANSPORT \nWHAT AREAS ARE RELIC SANDS IS \nTHE SAND BEING MIND AND \nTRANSPORT FOR RELIC AND WHAT ARE \nTHE IMPACTS OF MINING RELIC SAND \nAND IMPACTS TO ACTIVE SANDS\, AND \nCONSEQUENCES OF THAT MINING TO \nBAY BEACHES AND TIDES THAT IT \nFEEDS. QUESTIONS CAME UP WITH \nWHETHER YOU DIG A BIG HOLE AND \nSOME SEDIMENTS COME DOWN FROM \nTHE DELTA THAT FILL THE HOLE \nRATHER THAN GOING TO BAY \nBEACHES. THE QUESTION ASKED \nWHETHER OR NOT THERE SHOULD BE \nMODIFICATION OF MINING VOLUME AT \nDIFFERENT SITES OR SITES \nTHEMSELVES UNDER WHAT CONDITION \nSHOULD WE ALLOW MINING OR NOT \nAND WHAT’S SUSTAINABLE VOLUME \nFOR MINING AND SUBSTANTIAL \nDEPLETION\, COMMISSION AT THE \nTIME SUGGESTED MONITORING FOR \nIMPACTS OF EXTRACTION OF RELIC \nSAND AND SAND TRANSPORT WAS \nIMPORTANT ALSO WANTED TO \nUNDERSTAND BETTER BCDC’S AUTHOR \nAND JURISDICTION IN RELATIONSHIP \nTO SAND MINING AND LASTLY THE \nQUESTION CAME UP AROUND IMPACTS \nTO BENTHIC LIFE IN THE BAY BUT \nTHAT’S NOT A SUBJECT OF TODAY’S \nPRESENTATION SO THAT UPGRADE \nWENT OUT. AFTER THE PERMIT’S \nWERE ISSUED IN APRIL 2015 WE \nWENT AWAY FROM THAT HEARING AND \nBEGAN TO WORK WITH MINORS AND \nTHE COMMISSION REQUIRED $1.2 \nMILLION TO SUPPORT THE SAND \nSTUDIES THAT MONEY WAS DEPOSITED \nINTO THE STATE COASTAL \nCONSERVANCY’S COASTAL TRUST FUND \nOVER FOUR YEARS SO WE ALLOWED A \nPERIOD OF TIME FOR THAT MONEY TO \nBUILD UP. ONCE THAT DEPOSIT WAS \nCOMPLETE THE STATE COASTAL \nCONSERVANCY AND BCDC BEGAN TO \nWORK TOGETHER WITH A SELECTED \nSAND TECHNICAL ADVISORY \nCOMMITTEE WHO DEVELOPED FURTHER \nTHE QUESTIONS AROUND HOW WE \nMANAGE SAND MINING\, WHAT THE \nIMPACTS OF MINING ARE. THEY \nWORKED TOGETHER TO DEVELOP \nSCUDDY SCOPES WE REQUESTED \nREQUEST FOR PROPOSALS WHICH WERE \nLISTED AT THE STATE COASTAL \nCONSERVANCY’S WEB SITE AND \nPROPOSALS REVIEWED BY THE THE T \nTECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE IN \nADDITION DURING THE LATTER PART \nOF THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY \nCOMMITTEE’S MAIN WORK AND \nINDEPENDENT SCIENCE PANEL \nFORMALIZE THEY REVIEWED THE \nSCOPES AND REVIEWED PROPOSALS \nTHAT CAME IN THEY IDENTIFIED AND \nINTERVIEWED SAND SCIENCE TEAMS \nAND WORKED WITH TEAMS TO CREATE \nAND APPROPRIATE STUDIES TO BEST \nANSWER MANAGEMENT QUESTIONS AND \nWHEN STUDIES WERE COMPLETED THEY \nREVIEWED FINDINGS AND DEVELOPED \nA FINDINGS REPORT WITH THE SAND \nTECH CONSULTING FIRM. JUST SO \nYOU KNOW WHO IS ON THESE \nGROUPS. \nTHE SAND TECHNOLOGY \nIMPLEMENTATION OFFICE STEERING \nCOMMITTEE CAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE \nINCLUDED CONSERVANCY\, BCDC\, \nCOASTAL COMMISSION\, STATE LANDS \nCOMMISSION ARMY CORP OF \nENGINEERS WATER BOARD NATIONAL \nMARINE FISHERIES AND COW FISH \nAND WILDLIFE SAN FRANCISCO BAY \nKEEPER NON-PROFIT HIGHLIGHT \nINTERESTED IN WORKING AND MARIN \nM REPRESENTATIVES AS WELL AS \nCONSULTING FIRM ASSISTED IN THE \nWORK\, DEPENDENT SCIENCE PANEL \nINCLUDED FIVE DISTINGUISHED \nSCIENTISTS\, BOB BA TAG LIA FROM \nENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\, DR. \nCRAIG JONES FROM INTERVAL AND \nSALT CONSULTING AND DR. JOHN \nFROM UC DAVIS AND DAVID USGE \nEMERITUS DISTINGUISHED GROUP OF \nFOLKS WORKING ON DEVELOPING \nTHESE STUDIES AND REVIEWING \nTHEM. THERE WE GO. AS I \nMENTIONED\, THE SAND TECHNICAL \nADVISORY COMMITTEE WORKED TO \nREFINE THE COMMISSION’S \nQUESTIONS AND ADD SOME OF THEIR \nOWN QUESTIONS ON WHAT KINDS OF \nINFORMATION WE WANTED OUT OF \nTHESE SAND STUDIES. THE \nQUESTIONS AS DEFINED INCLUDED \nSAND MINING AT EXISTING AREAS AT \nPRIMITIVE LEVELS HAVING \nMEASURABLE DEMONSTRABLE IMPACT \nON SEDIMENT TRANSPORT AND SUPPLY \nWITHIN SAN FRANCISCO BAY ASKED \nWHAT’S THE SUSTAINABLE NUMBER \nAND SUSTAINABLE DEPLETION MUCH \nLIKE THE COMMISSION DID\, THEY \nASKED WHAT IS THE ANTICIPATED \nPHYSICAL EFFECTS OF SANDS MINING \nAT PERMITTED LEVELS ON SAND — \nAND SUPPLY WITHIN THE BAY AND \nOUTER COAST AND ACTIVE SANDS \nCONSEQUENCES TO BEACHES AND \nTIDES IMPACT TO RELIC SANDS. SO \nSIMILAR BUT MORE SPECIFIC THAN \nTHE QUESTIONS THE COMMISSION \nASKED DURING THE PUBLIC \nHEARINGS. THE RESEARCH TEAMS \n— I’M NOT GOING TO READ ALL \nTHESE FOLKS NAMES BUT I FELT IT \nWAS IMPORTANT TO PUT THE \nAGENCIES ORGANIZATIONS AND \nSCIENTISTS UP FOR YOU TO SEE \nBECAUSE AGAIN THIS IS A \nDISTINGUISHED GROUP OF \nSCIENTISTS WHO WORKED VERY HARD \nON A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT STUDIES \nTO HELP THE COMMISSION \nUNDERSTAND THE IMPACTS OF SAND \nMINING AND UNDERSTAND THE SAND \nTRANSPORT SYSTEM A LOT BETTER \nTHAN WE DID TEN YEARS AGO. WE \nLOOKED AT SAND BUDGET\, SAND \nSUPPLY\, MORPHOLOGICAL CHAINS IN \nTRANSPORT ANALYSIS. WE ALSO HAD \nSOME SAND TRANSPORT MODELING \nTHAT WAS DONE\, AND SAND \nPROVIDENCE\, OR ALSO KNOWN AS \nFINGERPRINTING UNDERSTANDING THE \nORIGIN OF WHERE THE SAND CAME \nFROM AND MULTIPLE DIFFERENT \nFOLKS FROM DIFFERENT ENTITIES \nWORKING TOGETHER ACROSS THESE \nDIFFERENT STUDS TO INTEGRATE \nTHIS WORK. \nSO\, HERE IS THE KEY FINDINGS. \nAND THIS IS ADDITIONAL FINDINGS \nIN THE FINDINGS REPORT.. THESE \nARE THE OVERARCHING FINDINGS. \nTHERE ARE ALSO REGIONAL FINDINGS \nTHAT I’M NOT INCLUDING IN MY \nPRESENTATION TODAY\, AND THE \nSTUDIES THEMSELVES ARE ALSO \nINCLUDED IN APPENDIX G WITH EVEN \nMORE INFORMATION ARE IF YOU ARE \nINTERESTED IN DIVING IN DEEP. \nSO\, THE KEY FINDINGS INCLUDE \nTHAT THE VOLUME OF MIND SAND IS \nSIGNIFICANT RELATIVE TO THE \nBAY’S SAND BUDGET IT REPRESENTS \nLARGEST OUTFLOW OF SAND IN THE \nBAY INCLUDING NET SAND DISCHARGE \nTO THE OCEAN. ADDITIONALLY SAND \nIS MIND FASTER THAN IT IS BEING \nREFRESHED AND THEREFORE SAND IS \nA NON-RENEWABLE RESOURCE OVER \nTHE LONG-TERM. SUISUN BAY SAND \nIS NOT BEING REPLENISHED AND \nTHUS A FINITE RESOURCE AND THE \nBED IS BEING LOWERED AND \nSYMMETRIC MODELING AND BUDGET \nSTUDIES ALL SUPPORT FINDING SAND \nMINING AFFECTS AND IN \nHIGHLY LOCALIZED EFFECTS \nDIMINISHING WITH DISTANCE AND \nLOCATION\, NEGLIGIBLE SAND \nTRANSPORT SUCH AS SUISUN BAY \nWHERE DEPRESSIONS CAUSED BY \nMINING PERSIST IN THE BED OVER \nTIME. NEXT FINDINGS\, CENTRAL \nBAY SAND IS RELIC MEANING IT WAS \nDEPOSITED BETWEEN 20\,060\,000 \nYEARS AGO AS SEA LEVELS ROSE AND \nTHE RIVER DISCHARGE POINT \nMIGRATED THROUGH THE BAY TO \nPRESENT LOCATION IN THE DELTA \nPART OF THE LARGE BAY OCEAN \nRESERVOIR SANDS FROM THE \nWATERSHED OF SACRAMENTO AND SAN \nJOAQUIN RIVERS ARE NO LONGER \nSIGNIFICANT SOURCE TO THE BAY \nOCEAN AND LARGE VOLUMES OF SAND \nDO NOT MOVE THROUGH THE SYSTEM \nDURING TIMES OF HIGH FLOW IE WET \nWINTERS AS WAS PREVIOUSLY \nASSUMED EFFECTS OF MINING TO \nBEACHES ECOLOGICALLY IMPORTANT \nREMAIN UNQUANTIFIED. IN EACH \nTIDAL CYCLE SAND IS TRANCE \nPORTED BETWEEN THE BAY AND THE \nOCEAN EFFECTIVELY LINKING THE \nTWO SAND DEPOSITS INTO A SHARED \nPOOL. THE SIZE OF THE SHARED \nPOOL OF SAND AND THUS THE \nSIGNIFICANCE OF THE REDUCTION \nDUE TO MINING IS UNKNOWN. \nSO\, THAT IS THE HIGH-LEVEL \nFINDINGS\, OVERARCHING FINDINGS \nOF THE IN THE SCIENCE \nPANEL. \nWE’LL FURTHER DIG INTO THIS \nINFORMATION AND FURTHER CODIFY \nWHAT IT MEANS FOR MINING \nACTIVITIES AND PERMITTING IN SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY. GOING \nFORWARD\, WE HAVE TODAY’S \nBRIEFING AND ALL THE SCIENCE \nTHAT HAS GONE INTO IT\, INTO THAT \nFINDINGS REPORT WHICH IS 35 TO \n40 PAGES LONG. NOT TOO LONG OF \nA READ. YOU SHOULD DEFINITELY \nREAD IT AND THESE ARE THE \nINDEPENDENT SCIENCE PANEL \nFINDINGS. WE’LL TAKE THE \nINFORMATION AND DIG THROUGH IT \nIN THE COMMISSION ARE WORKING \nGROUP WHICH I’LL TALK ABOUT IN A \nMINUTE. WE’LL USE THE \nCOMMISSIONER IDENTIFIED \nQUESTIONS WE’LL STUDY IN REVIEW \nAND HAVE PUBLIC DISCUSSION ABOUT \nWHAT THIS ALL MEANS. THE STATE \nLANDS COMMISSION IS CURRENTLY IN \nA CEQA REVIEW PROCESS SO WE’RE \nANTICIPATING OVER THE NEXT FEW \nMONTHS THAT STATE LANDS WILL BE \nREVIEWING DRAFT CEQA DOCUMENT. \nAND BCDC’S ROLE IN THAT IS TO \nREVIEW AND COMMENT ON IT ALONG \nWITH OTHER RESPONSIBLE \nAGENCIES. \nLATE THIS YEAR\, WE’RE \nANTICIPATING PERHAPS DECEMBER\, \nWE WOULD ANTICIPATE THE SAND \nMINING COMPANIES SUBMITTING \nTHROUGH NEW APPLICATIONS FOR \nADDITIONAL SAND MINING IN THE \nFUTURE. AND LASTLY\, PROBABLY \nAROUND EARLY SPRING\, APRIL 2025\, \nWE WOULD ANTICIPATE THE \nCOMMISSION HEARING AND VOTING \nONCE AGAIN ON SAND MINING \nACTIVITIES IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY\, \nAS PROPOSED BY THE MINERS. \nSO\, THE SAND STUDIES \nCOMMISSIONER WORKING GROUP. WE \nHAVE THREE COMMISSIONERS WHO \nHAVE GRACIOUSLY\, ONCE AGAIN\, \nAGREED TO SIT ON A COMMISSIONER \nWORKING GROUP AND HELP STAFF DIG \nTHROUGH IMPORTANT INFORMATION \nTHAT WILL INFLUENCE HOW WE \nPERMIT AND THINK ABOUT POLICY \nAPPLICATION WHEN WE GET THE \nPERMIT APPLICATION. SO\, IT WILL \nBE CHAIRED BY PAT SHOWALTER\, AND \nANDY GUNTHER\, AND BARRY NELSON \nWILL BE THE TWO COMMISSIONERS ON \nTHE WORKING GROUP. WE HAVE FOUR \nMEETINGS PLANNED AND SCHEDULED. \nAND PLEASE COME TO THESE \nMEETINGS IF YOU ARE INTERESTED. \nBECAUSE THEY WILL BE FASCINATING \nAND WE’LL HAVE DIFFERENT \nPRESENTERS HERE TO HELP EXPLAIN \nSOME OF THE SCIENCE. SO\, THE \nFIRST ONE IS IN MID-JULY. IT’S \nAN AFTERNOON MEETING. \nAUGUST 21ST\, AND SEPTEMBER AND \nNOVEMBER ARE ALL MORNING \nMEETINGS. THEY’RE GOING TO BE \nTWO HOURS IN LENGTH\, AND THEY \nWILL BE VIRTUAL. SO EASY TO \nATTEND. AGAIN\, THEY WILL BE \nFULLY OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. AND I \nTHINK WITH THAT\, THAT IS MY \nPRESENTATION. WE CAN PROBABLY \nHOLD QUESTIONS FOR MY \nPRESENTATION UNTIL AFTER THE \nMINERS — THE MINING \nREPRESENTATIVES GIVE THEIR \nPRESENTATION\, UNLESS THERE ARE \nSOME CLARIFYING QUESTIONS NOW. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: SO\, \nDO WE HAVE ANY CLARIFYING \nQUESTIONS NOW BEFORE WE MOVE TO \nTHE MINERS PRESENTATIONS? \nIT LOOKS LIKE COMMISSIONER \nJOHN-BAPTISTE HAS HER HAND UP. \n>>ALICIA JOHN BAPTISTE: I HAD A \nCLARIFYING QUESTION YOU CAN \nEXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN BY SAND \nBUDGET\, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: IF YOU THINK \nABOUT IT LIKE A BANK ACCOUNT \nTHERE IS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF \nSAND WITHIN THE SAN FRANCISCO \nBAY COMING IN AND OUT SOME OF \nTHAT IS HAPPENING IN A NATURAL \nPROCESS ACCUMULATING OVER TIME \nTHEN THE SAND LEAVING THE OCEAN \nTHERE’S ALSO HUMAN EXTRACTION OF \nSAND EITHER THROUGH NAVIGATING \nDREDGING OR MINING ACTIVITIES. \nSO\, IT’S A SCIENTIFIC PROCESS IN \nWHICH SCIENTISTS DO THE BEST \nTHEY CAN TO BOUND THE AMOUNT OF\, \nIN THIS CASE\, SAND THAT IS \nPRESENT\, IN THE ACTIVE TRANSPORT \nLAYERS\, THEN BALANCE OUT WHAT \nTHEY BELIEVE IS COMING IN AND \nOUT TO GET A MASS OF EQUILIBRIUM \nIT’S NOT WEIGHT OF VOLUME OF EK \nLIB RUM OR WEIGHT\, IT’S ACTUALLY \nMASS THAT IS DEFINITELY \nSOMETHING WE WILL BE TALKING \nMORE ABOUT AT THE COMMISSIONER \nWORKING GROUP BECAUSE IT’S A \nTECHNICAL BUT STANDARDIZED \nSCIENTIFIC PROCESS. \n>>ALICIA JOHN BAPTISTE: THANK \nYOU. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ANY \nADDITIONAL CLARIFYING \nQUESTIONS? \nOR SHALL WE TURN TO THE MINERS \nPRESENTATION? ALL RIGHT. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: OKAY. I HAVE \nING IF OUT. STOP SHARING. \nPROUD TO INTRODUCE TO YOU TODAY \nBILL BUTLER OF LIND MARINE\, \nERICA GERA AND MICHAEL BISHOP OF \nMARTIN MARIETTA WHOLE TELL YOU \nMORE ABOUT SAND MINING AND THEIR \nPERSPECTIVES. THANK YOU. AND \nWELCOME\, BILL\, ERICA\, AND \nMICHAEL. \n. \n>>BILL BUTLER: THANK YOU I’M \nNOT SURE WHO IS GOING TO SHARE \nTHE PRESENTATION. GOOD \nAFTERNOON CHAIR EISEN MEMBERS OF \nTHE COMMISSION MY NAME IS BILL \nBUTLER I AM VICE PRESIDENT WITH \nLIND MARINE. PRESENTING THE \nSAND MINING OVERVIEW ON BEHALF \nOF BOTH LIND AND MARTIN MARIETTA \nTHIS AFTERNOON. JOINING ME \nAVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AS \nBRENDA INDICATED\, IS ERICA GERA \nAND MIKE BISHOP FROM MARTIN \nMARIETTA\, WE ALSO HAVE AARON \nHOLLOWAY AND NICK FROM GHG WHO \nARE COASTAL ENGINEERING \nCONSULTANTS FOR THE SAND MINERS \nAND ALSO CLEFTIAN MARSH FROM \nCOUNCIL DOWNEY BRAND THEY’RE \nAVAILABLE TO HAVE QUESTIONS. \nNEXT SLIDE. SOME OF YOU MAY \nRECALL DETAILS ABOUT SAND MINING \nFROM THE COMMISSION IN ACTIVITY \nNINE YEARS AGO. I’LL TAKE THIS \nMOMENT TO REFRESH OVERVIEW OF \nBAY SAND MINING. I’M GOING TO \nBRIEFLY COVER THESE TOPICS. WHY \nSAND MINING HAPPENS\, WHO IS \nINVOLVED AND WHERE\, WHEN\, HOW\, \nAND HOW MUCH THAT IT HAPPENS. \nNEXT SLIDE. \nSO\, THE PURPOSE OF SAND MINING \nIS TO OBTAIN A COMMERCIAL GRADE \nAGGREGATE THAT IS USED FOR \nPUBLIC AND PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION\, \nGOING INTO CONCRETE\, ASPHALT\, \nAND OTHER BUILDING MATERIALS \nTHAT ARE USED TO BUILD THE \nHOMES\, SCHOOLS\, HOSPITALS\, \nROADS\, AND INFRASTRUCTURE \nPROJECTS AROUND THE BAY. MARINE \nSAND IS A KEY COMPONENT IN BAY \nAREA RESTORATION AND RESILIENCE \nPROJECTS\, AS WELL. ALL OF THESE \nTHINGS WHICH HELPS SUPPORT THE \nQUALITY OF LIFE THAT WE ENJOY \nHERE IN THE BAY AREA. UTILIZING \nA LOCAL RESOURCE FOR OUR LOCAL \nNEEDS IN THE REGION THAT’S \nTRANSPORTED VIA WATERWAYS TO \nSITES WHERE THE RESOURCE IS \nUTILIZED AND IN LARGE LOADS THAT \nEQUAL ROUGHLY 100 TO 140 TRUCK \nLOADS OF MATERIAL\, ALL HELP TO \nREDUCE THE OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL \nEFFECTS. AND ALSO PROVIDE \nREGIONAL JOBS FOR OUR LOCAL \nRESIDENTS. \nNOW IT’S IMPORTANT TO NOTE HERE \nTHAT NOT ALL SAND IS COMMERCIAL \nGRADE SAND. IT NEEDS TO BE \nDURABLE\, CLEAN\, WELL \nGRADED\, AND OF THE RIGHT SIZE. \nTHE BAY SANDS WHERE MINING \nOCCURS\, MEET THESE CRITERIA. \nNEXT SLIDE PLEASE. \nSO\, HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF \nLOCAL PROJECTS THAT ARE \nUTILIZING BAY SANDS. AND THEY \nRANGE FROM\, AS I SAID\, \nCONSTRUCTING SCHOOLS\, HOSPITALS\, \nAFFORDABLE HOUSING\, REBUILDING \nFROM WILDFIRE DAMAGE\, TO \nENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION \nPROJECTS\, LIKE AT HUNTERS POINT\, \nAND BEACH RESTORATION\, FOR \nEXAMPLE\, AT CROWN BEACH IN \nALAMEDA\, WHICH WAS DONE FOR \nRESILIENCE AND SEA LEVEL RISE \nDEFENSE. \nNEXT SLIDE. \nSO\, AS BRENDA INDICATED EARLIER\, \nTHERE ARE TWO ACTIVE SAND MINING \nCOMPANIES OPERATING IN THE BAY. \nMARTIN MARIETTA\, FORMERLY \nHANSON\, AND LIND MARINE\, AS WELL \nAS THE JOIN VENTURE ENTITY THAT \nIS FORMED BY THESE TWO \nCOMPANIES. NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. \nTHESE FIGURES ILLUSTRATE WHERE \nSAND MINING TAKES PLACE IN THE \nBAY. THING IF ON THE LEFT IS \nTHE CENTRAL BAY LEASES. THEY \nSPAN 2600 ACRES CONSISTING OF \nNINE PARCELS LEASED FROM THE \nCALIFORNIA STATE LANDS \nCOMMISSION. MARTIN MARIETTA\, \nEXCLUSIVELY MINES THESE AREAS\, \nAND THIS IS WHERE THE BULK OF \nSAND MINING TAKES PLACE. \nTHE MIDDLING IF IS\, I GUESS\, \nFITTINGLY MIDDLE GROUND LEASE \nAREA\, A 367 ACRE PRIVATE PARCEL \nIN SUISUN BAY\, AND LIND MARINE \nEXCLUSIVELY MINES THIS \nLOCATION. \nAND THEN FINALLY\, ON THE RIGHT\, \nTHE SUISUN ASSOCIATE’S LEASE\, \nWHICH CONSISTS OF TWO PARCELS IN \nTHE SUISUN CHANNEL AT THE EAST \nEND OF SUISUN BAY. AND THIS 938 \nACRE LEASE AREA IS LEASED FROM \nSTATE LANDS TO THE SUISUN \nASSOCIATES JOINT VENTURE\, MADE \nUP OF MARTIN MARIETTA AND LIND. \nAND LIND MARINE HAS CONDUCTED \nTHE MINING HERE OVER THE PAST \nTEN YEARS. NEXT SLIDE. \nSO\, THE NEXT SEVERAL FIGURES ARE \nGOING TO HELP DESCRIBE \nHOW THE SAND IS MIND. THE TWO \nCOMPANIES EACH OPERATE A SAND \nMINING BARGE THAT’S LIND \nMARINE’S ON THE LEFT AND MARTIN \nMARIETTA’S ON THE RIGHT. THESE \nARE SIMILAR IN HOW THEY OBTAIN \nSAND FROM OUR \nRESPECTIVE. THEY USE A TUGBOAT \nTO MOVE THE LARGES TO THE MINING \nLOCATIONS. NEXT SLIDE. AT \nTHE MINING LOCATIONS\, THE BARGE \nIS FILLED BY PUMPING A SAND \nWATER SLURRY FROM THE BAY \nFLOOR. \nON THE RIGHT IT SHOWS THE SAND \nPIPE ON THE BARGE WHICH IS \nLOWERED INTO THE SUBSTRATE\, AND \nA PUMP ON BOARD THE BARGE PUMPS \nTHE SAND WATER MIXTURE INTO A \nLOADING CHUTE THAT RUNS THE \nLENGTH OF THE BARGE\, ILLUSTRATE \nIN THING IF ON THE LEFT. THE \nSHOOT IS EQUIPPED WITH SEVERAL \nSCREENED GATES THAT ALLOW SAND \nAND WATER TO FLOW INTO THE BARGE \nHOPPER. ANY MATERIALS LARGER \nTHAN SIGNALED FLOW OVER THE \nSCREENS AND THEN ARE DISCHARGED \nBACK INTO THE BAY THROUGH A PIPE \nAT THE END OF THE SHOOT THAT \nEXTEND UNDER THE BARGE. NOW\, AS \nTHE SAND AND WATER MIXTURE FILLS \nTHE BARGE\, WATER\, WHICH ALSO \nCONTAINS SOME FINE MATERIAL\, \nDECANTS FROM THE TOP OF THE \nHOPPER\, AND IS ALSO DISCHARGED \nBACK INTO THE BAY THROUGH PIPES \nTHAT EXTEND UNDER THE BARGE. \nPUMPING CONTINUES UNTIL THE BARK \nHOPPER IS FILLED WITH WET SAND \nAND ONCE IT’S FILLED\, THE BARGES \nARE TRANSPORTED TO A NUMBER OF \nSITES AROUND THE BAY WHERE THE \nSAND IS OFF-LOADED\, STOCKPILED\, \nAND THEN DISTRIBUTED TO \nCUSTOMERS. NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. \nTHESE FIGURES SHOW A COUPLE OF \nTHE DIFFERENCES IN THE SAND \nMINING BARGES. AND THEY SHOW \nTHE END OF THE SAND MINING \nPIPES. ON THE LEFT\, MARTIN \nMARIETTA’S BARGE IS EQUIPPED \nWITH A SUCTION DRAG HEAD THAT IS \nPLACED ABOUT TWO FEET INTO THE \nBAY SUBSTRATE WHEN IT’S LOWER. \nTHE TUGBOAT KEEPS THE BARGE AS \nSTATIONARY AS POSSIBLE\, BUT THEN \nMOVES TO NEW LOCATIONS\, AS \nNECESSARY\, TO CONTINUE THE \nSLURRY. IN THE SUISUN BAY \nLOCATIONS\, LIND MARINE SUCTION \nPIPE ILLUSTRATED THERE ON THE \nRIGHT\, IS PUSHED FIVE OR SIX \nFEET INTO THE SUBSTRATE\, AND THE \nBARGE IS ANCHORED TO LIMIT \nMOVEMENT DURING MINING. \nBOTH BARGES ARE EQUIPPED WITH \nTHOSE CYLINDRICAL SCREENS THAT \nYOU CAN SEE FOR THE SLURRY WATER \nTO PREVENT ENTRAINMENT OF FISH \nINTO THE PIPES. IN OF THE \nCENTRAL BAY\, MARTIN MARIETTA \nMIND SAND FROM DEPTHS RANGING \nBETWEEN 60 AND 90 FEET. IN \nSUISUN BAY LIND MINES IN AREAS \nTHAT ARE ANYWHERE FROM 22 TO 40 \nFEET DEEP. \nNEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. \nNOW THESE NEXT SEVERAL FIGURES \nILLUSTRATE THE LEVELS OF MINING \nACTIVITY OCCURRING IN THE THREE \nAREAS OVER THE PAST SEVERAL \nYEARS. BRENDA SHOWED A VERY \nSIMILAR SLIDE TO THIS\, WHICH WAS \nTHE SUMMATION OF ALL OF THESE \nFIGURES. THIS PARTICULARING IF \nSHOWS THE ACTIVITY ON THE \nCENTRAL BAY LEASES FROM 2\,000 TO \n2023. AND IT ILLUSTRATES THE \nVARIABILITY OF MINING TO MEET \nTHE DEMAND THAT BRENDA TALKED \nABOUT\, THE HIGHER DEMAND FOR \nCONSTRUCTION MATERIALS OCCURS \nGENERALLY WHEN THE ECONOMY IS \nSTRONG AND MANY CONSTRUCTION \nPROJECTS ARE UNDERWAY. WHEN THE \nECONOMY SLOWS DOWN\, CONSTRUCTION \nACTIVITY DECREASES AND SO DOES \nTHE DEMAND FOR CONSTRUCTION \nMATERIALS. NOW THESE ECONOMIC \nCYCLES CAN ALSO BE INFLUENCED BY \nEXTERNAL FACTORS\, YOU KNOW? \nLIKE NATURAL DISASTERS OR EVEN \nTHE UPCOMING CLIMATE CHANGE \nADAPTATION THAT WE’RE DEALING \nWITH. I’LL MENTION IT’S \nIMPORTANT TO HAVE PERMIT LIMITS \nTHAT RECOGNIZE THIS VARIABLE AND \nHIGH ENOUGH TO OFFER FLEXIBLE TO \nMEET THESE CHANGES IN DEMAND. \nNEXT SLIDE \nPLEASE. \n— AVAILABLE BY PERMITTED \nVOLUMES IN THE LOW PERIODS THERE \nIN 2012 AND 2014 THEN WHEN \nMINING WAS REAUTHORIZED IN 2015\, \nTHERE WAS AN INCREASE IN \nPERMITTED VOLUMES THAT WERE \nSHIFTED TO THIS LEASE FROM THE \nMIDDLE GROUND LEASE. NEXT \nSLIDE. HERE YOU CAN SEE THAT \nREDUCED VOLUME THERE IN THE \nLATER YEARS\, IN THE LAST TEN \nYEAR PERIOD\, WHEN THESE VOLUMES \nWERE SHIFTED TO THE SUISUN \nASSOCIATES LEASE AREA. \nNEXT SLIDE. \nSO\, WHAT’S NEXT? BRENDA DID A \nGOOD JOB OF DESCRIBING THIS \nPROCESS EARLIER. AND WE’RE NOW \nHERE AT AN IMPORTANT MILESTONE. \nTHIS REPORT IS THE LAST MAJOR \nPERMIT CONDITION TO BE FULL FIT \nIN OUR CURRENT PERMITS. AND \nTHIS REPORT REALLY BUILDS ON A \nHOST OF OTHER STUDIES AND \nINFORMATION COMPILED THROUGH THE \nENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESSES \nTHAT HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED OVER \nTHE LAST 20 YEARS IN THE PRIOR \nROUNDS OF CEQA ANALYSIS AND \nPRIOR ROUNDS OF PERMITTING AND \nSTUDY. \nAND MANY OF THE FINDINGS OF THIS \nREPORT REAFFIRM THE FINDINGS \nFROM THESE PAST STUDIES\, \nINCLUDING SOME OF THE \nDEMONSTRABLE IMPACTS ON SEDIMENT \nTRANSPORT AND SUPPLY BEYOND \nLOCALIZED AREAS WITHIN THE \nLEASES\, WEREN’T REALLY \nIDENTIFIED. \nWE GREATLY APPRECIATE THE \nOPPORTUNITY THAT WE HAVE TO BE \nPART OF THE SEDIMENT \nATTACK\, AND STUDIES DEVELOPED \nAND AT THE END ALSO APPRECIATE \nTHE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE \nRECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS. \nWE DO HAVE A FEW COMMENTS AND \nISSUES ON THESE REPORTS THAT \nREMAIN OUTSTANDING. \nAND THOSE COMMENTS ARE INCLUDED \nIN THE REPORT’S APPENDICES WHICH \nYOU ALL SHOULD HAVE A COPY OF\, \nAND WE ENCOURAGE TO YOU TAKE A \nLOOK AT THOSE. YOU KNOW\, \nFINALLY\, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO \nTAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SAY A \nBIG THANK YOU TO THE SEDIMENT \nTECH\, MEMBERS\, AND BCDC AND \nCOASTAL CONSERVANCY STAFF\, THE \nINDEPENDENT SCIENCE PANEL \nMEMBERS AND THE STUDY AUTHORS \nFOR ALL THEIR WORK ON THIS VERY \nCOMPLEX ISSUE. IT WAS A HUGE \nTASK\, AND THE WORK IS VERY MUCH \nAPPRECIATED. AND\, SO\, WITH \nTHAT\, I — WE’RE AVAILABLE TO \nANSWER QUESTIONS THAT ANY OF THE \nCOMMISSIONERS MIGHT HAVE. THANK \nYOU. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU\, BILL. \nBRENDA DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING \nADDITIONAL? \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: NO. WE’RE \nREADY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND/OR \nCOMMISSION QUESTIONS AND \nDISCUSSION. THANK YOU. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: OKAY \nWHY DON’T WE TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT \nFIRST. SIERRA\, DO WE HAVE ANY \nMEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISH \nTO COMMENT? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: WE \nDO\, CURRENTLY HAVE ONE HAND \nRAISED. JIM McGRATH. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nOKAY. \n>>SPEAKER: GOOD MORNING. MY \nNAME IS JIM McGRATH. SOME OF \nYOU KNOW WHO I AM. I JUST WANT \nTO SAY\, FIRST\, THAT THIS IS A \nSTUNNINGLY GOOD BIT OF SCIENCE. \nI DIDN’T READ EVERY SINGLE \nWORD. \nBUT I SKIMMED EACH ONE OF THE \nREPORTS. THE KEY CONCLUSION \nHERE IS THAT THE SEDIMENT THAT’S \nIN MOTION AT THE MOUTH OF THE \nBAY IS RELIC SEDIMENT. AND THAT \nDOESN’T REALLY SURPRISE ME. I \nCAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION IN \nMONTEREY BAY AT THE MOUTH OF THE \nSALINAS RIVER. THAT MEANS IT’S \nNOT REFRESHED IN THE SAME \nNATURE. BUT UNLIKE MONTEREY \nBAY\, YOU FACE A VERY DIFFERENT \nSITUATION HERE. WHILE THE LOSS \nOF SEDIMENT TO MINING MAY BE \nDIRECTLY INVOLVED\, A LOSS OF \nSEDIMENT THAT EVENTUALLY MAKES \nIT TO THE SAN FRANCISCO AND \nMARIN COUNTY BEACHES\, THERE IS A \nHUGE AMOUNT OF SEDIMENT INVOLVED \nIN THAT TRANSPORT SYSTEM. AND \nTHE AMOUNT IS RELATIVELY SMALL\, \nSIGNIFICANT\, I THINK\, IS THE \nCONCLUSION. BUT THE THING I \nWANTED TO POINT OUT TO YOU IS \nTHAT\, WELL\, IT MAY BE THAT THIS \nEXACERBATES FUTURE EROSION \nSTOPPING SAND MINING PROBABLY \nNOT HAVE AN APPRECIABLE EFFECT \nON THE NEED FOR ADAPTATION ALONG \nTHE BEACHES SO IT’S A \nCOMPLICATED QUESTION THAT YOU’RE \nGOING TO FACE IN THE FUTURE. \nWITH THAT\, I’LL STOP. I’LL TRY \nTO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETINGS \nOF THE COMMITTEE\, THE \nSUBCOMMITTEE. JUST ONCE AGAIN \nWANT TO SAY\, JUST \nREALLY EXCELLENT WORK BY THE \nSTAFF OF THE SCIENTIFIC \nCOMMUNITY. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU. ANY — I SEE AT \nLEAVE THE ONE MORE HAND RAISED. \nSIERRA\, DO YOU SEE THAT? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: I \nDO. \nBRENDA I WANT TO CLARIFY\, IS \nNICK PART OF THE PRESENTATION\, \nBRENDA? \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: SO\, NICK IS \nWITH THE CONSULTING FIRM HIRED \nBY THE SAND MINERS. NICK\, I \nDON’T KNOW IF YOU MAYBING A \nPUBLIC COMMENT OR IF YOU ARE \nTRYING TO COMMENT AS PART OF THE \nSAND MINING PRESENTATION? BUT \nMAYBE \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH. THE MINING \nTEAM ASKED IF I COULD MAKE \nPUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: GO \nAHEAD. \n>>SPEAKER: DEAR VICE CHAIR AND \nMEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION MY \nNAME IS NICK S\, SENIOR COASTAL \nSCIENTIST WITH GHD ENGINEERING \nCONSULTANTS TO THE MINING TEAM \nEXPERTISE IN COASTAL SEDIMENT \nAND TRANSPORT HERE TO PROVIDE \nOBSERVATIONS OF THE SAND SCIENCE \nSTUDIES AND ISP PROCESS AND \nAPPRECIATION FOR THE PROCESS AND \nCHALLENGE OF GENERATING \nCOMPILING RESEARCH ON A \nCOMPLICATED ISSUE\, COMMEND THE \nHARD WORK OF RESEARCH TEAMS AND \nISP STUDIES TECHNICAL ADVISORY \nCOMMITTEE THE NEW RESEARCH \nBUILDS ON SIGNIFICANT WORK ON \nSAND TRANSPORT PATHWAYS \nREAFFIRMING A NUMBER OF \nFINDINGS\, MINING HAS LOCALIZED \nEFFECTS SHOULD BE EXAMINED AT \nINDIVIDUAL LEASE AREA SCALE\, \nCONSISTENT WITH PRIOR RESEARCH \nIN AREAS OF INACTIVE SAND \nTRANSPORT. REPORT ALSO \nCONSISTENT WITH THE STATES 2012 \nEIR ACKNOWLEDGING THAT RESOURCE \nIS PREVIOUSLY RECOGNIZED BY BCDC \nCOMMISSIONERS ISP REPORT \nACKNOWLEDGES MIND SAND IS RELIC \nDEPOSITED. IMPORTANTLY THE \nSTUDIES AND SUMMARY REPORT DO \nNOT IDENTIFY ANY SPECIFIC \nMEASURABLE OR IMPACT BEYOND \nLEASE AREAS THEMSELVES INSTEAD \nREPORT FINDINGS BEYOND LEASE \nAREAS ARE UNKNOWN WE CONTINUE TO \nHAVE CONCERNS REGARDING REPORTS \nAND BUDGET ANALYSIS SHARED \nCONCEPT MODEL CAPTURED AND \nWRITTEN COMMENT LETTER SUBMITTED \nBY LIND AND MARTIN MARIETTA. \nDOUBLE COUNTING OUTFLOWS CAUSED \nBY MINING AND DREDGING \nACTIVITIES BOTH DREDGE VOLUMES \nAND SAND OUTFLOWS. RESULTING IN \nDRAMATIC OVERESTIMATE OF SAND \nOUTFLOWS FROM THE BAY \nADDITIONALLY SAND BUDGET STUDIES \nACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE GOLDEN \nGATE BRIDGE FLUX SAND FLOWS INTO \nOR OUT OF THE BAY REMAINING \nHIGHLY UNCERTAIN. THE ISP \nREPORT PROVIDES SEVERAL \nOVERGENERALIZES FOR EXAMPLE\, \nDETERMINATION THAT SAN FRANCISCO \nBAY AND PACIFIC OCEAN SHARE A \nCOMMON POOL OF SAND IS OVER \nGENERALIZED AS THESE ARE LARGE \nBODIES OF WATER WITH COMPLEX \nPROCESSES\, TRANSPORTING AND \nCLIMATE\, AND I URGE STUDIES FOR \nDETAILED NUANCED FINDINGS. WE \nLOOK FORWARD TO COLLABORATING \nWITH BCDC STAFF ON THE UPCOMING \nWORKING GROUP PROCESS AND \nBELIEVE THAT CONTINUED DIALOGUE \nCAN BE ADDRESSED. THANK YOU FOR \nYOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL \nPUBLIC COMMENT? I CAN SEE \nCOMMISSIONERS DO WANT TO ASK \nQUESTIONS. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: I SEE \nNO OTHER HANDS RAISED. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: AS \nWE SAID AT THE BEGINNING\, THIS \nIS A LONG PROCESS AND CLARIFYING \nQUESTIONS NIPT TIME ARE \nCERTAINLY WELCOME. SO\, I THINK \nPAT SHOWALTER\, I SAW YOUR HAND \nUP FIRST\, \nSIERRA WILL CALL ON FOLKS AS \nTHEY RAISE THEIR HAND. \n>>SPEAKER: CHAIR EISEN IS IT IS \nTHIS TIME FOR COMMENTS AS WELL \nAS QUESTIONS? OR SHOULD I JUST \nASK THE QUESTIONS? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nWELL\, I THINK YOU SHOULD JUST \nASK YOUR QUESTIONS AND WE’LL SEE \nHOW IT GOES. OBVIOUSLY — \n>>SPEAKER: OKAY. SURE. I WILL \nJUST LIKE TO SAY THAT I WAS \nREALLY INTERESTED TO HEAR ABOUT \nTHE REDUCTION OF GHGS. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: BECAUSE \nOF THE TRUCK TRAFFIC THAT \nDOESN’T OCCUR BECAUSE OF THIS. \nAND I REALLY LOOK FORWARD TO \nLEARNING MUCH MORE ABOUT THAT. \nI DO NOT REALLY EXPECT AN ANSWER \nTO THAT. BUT I JUST DISH WANT \nTO BRING THAT UP AS A REAL \nQUESTION THAT I HOPE TO LEARN \nMORE ABOUT. AND I’LL BE GLAD TO \nMAKE A FEW COMMENTS LATER. \n>>SPEAKER: PAT I’M NOT SURE \nTHAT’S REALLY WITHIN THE SCOPE \nOF THIS MEETING. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: OKAY. I \nDIDN’T KNOW. \n>>GREG SCHARFF: THANK YOU\, \nGREG. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: SO\, \nI DO SEE — \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS\, YOU \nARE NEXT. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU\, SIERRA. \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nTHANK YOU. AND THANK YOU FOR \nTHE REPORT. SO\, I GUESS IT’S \nCLEAR THAT SAND SUPPLIES ARE A \nLIMITED RESOURCE. MY QUESTION \nIS TO WHAT EXTENT OTHER \nALTERNATIVE MATERIALS FOR \nCONSTRUCTION USE MIGHT BE \nCONSIDERED AS PART OF THE WORK \nFOR THIS TASK FORCE? AND AS AN \nEXAMPLE\, I USE THE FACT THAT \nWE’RE USING RECYCLED \nCONSTRUCTION MATERIALS IN OUR \nROAD PROJECTS\, AS ROAD BASE\, SO \nWE’RE REGRINDING CONCRETE AND \nASPHALT TO USE\, AND THIS \nWOULDN’T BE SUITABLE FOR \nEVERYTHING. BUT I DO THINK WE \nNEED TO LOOK AT ALTERNATIVES AND \nOPTIONS TO A LIMITED SAND \nSUPPLY. I JUST WONDER IF THAT’S \nSOMETHING WE COULD ENTERTAIN. \nTHANK YOU. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: YES IT’S \nCERTAINLY SOMETHING I THINK WE \nCOULD BRAIN IN THE COMMISSIONER \nWORKING GROUP. THANK YOU FOR \nTHE QUESTION. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER? \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: THANK YOU. I \nWOULD LIKE TO SEE IF SOMEONE CAN \nTELL ME\, WHAT IS THE — \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER — \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: — PERCENT OF \nTHE SAND USED WEEKLY IN \nCONSTRUCTION. HOW MUCH OF THAT \nSAND DOES THE SAND FROM THE MIND \nBAY COMPOSE. WHAT PERCENT OF \nTHE OVERALL DEMAND FOR SAND? \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: I DON’T THINK \nWE’RE PREPARED TO ANSWER THAT \nQUESTION TODAY. WE DID HAVE AN \nECONOMIC ANALYSIS PREPARED BY \nTHE SAND MINERS IN 2015\, THAT I \nTHINK THOSE NUMBERS WOULD HAVE \nTO BE REANALYZED. AND THE \nDEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND \nMINES AND GEOLOGY WOULD PROBABLY \nBE A GOOD SOURCE TO HELP \nUNDERSTAND THE AGGREGATE USE IN \nTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND \nLOCALLY\, BUT WE’RE NOT PREPARED \nTO ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR YOU \nTODAY\, COMMISSIONER GUNTHER. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: SO WE CAN \nJUST ADD IT TO THE AGENDA OF THE \nWORKING GROUP? \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: SURE. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: OKAY. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER GIOIA WE’LL GO TO \nYOU NEXT THEN WE’LL MOVE TO \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON IN ROOM. \n>>JOHN GIOIA: MY CLASSMATE \nBARRY NELSON’S HAND WAS UP \nFIRST. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: IT \nWAS FIRST WE’RE TAKING VIRTUAL \nFIRST THEN QUESTIONS IN THE \nROOM. \n>>JOHN GIOIA: I THINK I HEARD \nTO COMMISSIONER GUNTHER’S \nQUESTION\, BECAUSE IT’S THE SAME \nAS MINE\, I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT \nTO UNDERSTAND WHERE THE SAND \nTHAT’S MIND FROM THE BAY WHERE \nIS IT USED? IS IT USED ALL \nAROUND THE BAY OR IS IT EXPORTED \nTO AREAS OUTSIDE FOR USE SO END \nUSE OF THE SAND THAT’S MIND IN \nTHE BAY. I REALIZE YOU DON’T \nHAVE THAT INFORMATION NOW BUT I \nTHINK THAT WOULD BE AN IMPORTANT \nPART OF THE WORK GROUP \nANALYSIS. \nAND SECOND\, WHAT ARE THE \nALTERNATIVE SOURCES FOR SAND? \nAND WHAT ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL \nOR ECONOMIC RAMIFICATIONS OF \nTHOSE ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS? \nSO\, OTHER SOURCES\, IN OTHER \nWORDS. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: YEAH. I \nBELIEVE YOUR QUESTION IS — YOUR \nFIRST QUESTION IS SLIGHTLY \nDIFFERENT THAN COMMISSIONER \nGUNTHERS\, WHICH IS\, I THINK\, THE \nPERCENTAGE OF BAY SANDS IN \nCOMPARISON TO ALL SANDS USED IN \nTHE REGION. YOURS IS A LITTLE \nDIFFERENT WHICH IS\, IS THE BAY \nSAND USED LOCALLY. I THINK THE \nANSWER TO THAT IS\, YES\, THE BAY \nMIND SAND IS USED LOCALLY. I \nBELIEVE BILL AND ERICA WILL \nCONFIRM THAT. BUT IT IS A VERY \nLOCAL RESOURCE OF CONSTRUCTION \nMATERIALS. \n>>JOHN GIOIA: IT WOULD BE \nUSEFUL TO KNOW WHAT PERCENT OF \nIT\, IF ANY\, IS EXPORTED OUTSIDE \nTHE BAY AREA FOR USE. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: YES. WE CAN \nGET YOU THAT NUMBER. \n>>JOHN GIOIA: AND I AGREE WITH \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER’S QUESTION \nOF\, WHAT PERCENT OF MIND BAY \nSAND IS USED IN THE AREA VERSUS \nOTHER AREAS AND THE ALTERNATIVE \nSOURCES OF SAND IF SAND WERE \nLESS AVAILABLE FROM THE BAY AND \nWHAT ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND \nECONOMIC FACTORS RELATED TO \nIMPACTS OF THAT. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: YES THAT WOULD \nBE SOMETHING WE WOULD HAVE TO \nRESEARCH AND PROVIDE AS PART OF \nTHE COMMISSIONER WORKING GROUP \nAND WE’LL PUT THAT ON THE LIST \n. \n>>JOHN GIOIA: YOU SEEM TO BE \nCLEAR THAT THERE IS SAND IS NOT \nSUSTAINABLE HAVING DIVISION \nQUANTITY\, WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO \nFURTHER UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT OF \nTHIS SAND MINING ON BAYSHORE AND \nBEACHES? \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: SO IN EACH OF \nTHE — L IN THE FINDINGS REPORT \nIN EACH OF THE STUDIES\, THERE \nARE ADDITIONAL RESEARCH THAT CAN \nHELP US GET AT THOSE QUESTIONS. \nONE OF THE MAIN ISSUES IN US \nUNDERSTANDING THE QUANTITY OF \nSAND THAT IS IN SAN FRANCISCO \nBAY WAS THE MERE COST OF TAKING \nTHREE DEEP CORES TO UNDERSTAND \nTHE DEPTH OF THE SAND VOLUME \nTHAT WAS DEPOSITED BACK AT THE \nTURN OF THE ICE AGE. SO\, WE \nCOULD HAVE SPENT $1.2 MILLION \nON THAT ONE STUDY BUT WE CHOSE \nNOT TO BECAUSE THAT WOULD HAVE \nGOTTEN US FAR LESS INFORMATION \nAND FRANKLY THE AMOUNT OF SAND \nBEING MIND IS IN THE UPPER PART \nOF THAT. THAT WAS AN APP \nQUESTION. WE DID NOT HAVE \nENOUGH FUNDS TO GO AND TRY TO \nMAKE THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE \nSAND IN THE SYSTEM AND IT \nGETTING TO BEACH TRANSPORT. \nTHAT’S A FULLY DIDN’T \nDIFFERENT STUDY SO THERE ARE A \nNUMBER OF ADDITIONAL STUDIES \nTHAT WE COULD DO IF ADDITIONAL \nFUNDS WERE PROVIDED\, BUT $1.2 \nMILLION IS NOT A LOT OF MONEY \nWHEN YOU ARE STUDYING DEEP WATER \nSYSTEMS THAT ARE QUITE LARGE. \nI’LL LEAVE IT AT. WE COULD GO \nON\, BUT THAT’S THE SHORT ANSWER. \n>>JOHN GIOIA: COMMISSIONER \nMOULTON-PETERS MENTIONED \nALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF \nCONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND IT \nMAY BE FOR SOME KIND OF PROJECTS \nTHERE ARE\, OTHERS THEY’RE NOT\, \nARE YOU GOING TO BE LOOKING MORE \nAT THAT? \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: WE CERTAINLY \nCAN. WE HAVE TO MEET WITH OUR \nWORKING GROUP CHAIR TO DEFINE \nBETTERA EXACTLY WHAT WE’RE GOING \nTO BE LOOKING@EACH OF THE \nWORKING GROUPS BUT WE CAN \nREQUIRE THAT AS PART OF THE \nINFORMATION TO SUPPORT THE \nFEASIBILITIES OF SAND MINING IN \nTHE BAY AND ALTERNATIVES TO SAND \nMINING IN THE BAY. I SEE BILL’S \nHAND UP MAYBE I’LL TURN IT OVER \nTO HIM TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT \nALTERNATIVES. \n>>JOHN GIOIA: THANK YOU. \n>>BILL BUTLER: THANK YOU. \nCOMMISSIONER GIOIA THANK YOU FOR \nTHOSE QUESTIONS. I CAN CONFIRM \nTHAT THE BAY SAND MIND FROM THE \nBAY STAYS VERY REGIONAL WITHIN \nTHE BAY AREA. IT DOESN’T REALLY \nGO FOR USES OUTSIDE OF THE BAY. \nREGARDING ALTERNATE SOURCES OF \nMATERIAL\, ABSOLUTELY\, I THINK \nTHAT’S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN \nLOOK AT A LITTLE HARDER\, GOING \nFORWARD. AS I MENTIONED BRIEFLY \nIN THE PRESENTATION\, YOU KNOW\, \nWHEN I SAID THAT ALL SAND IS NOT \nCONSTRUCTION GRADE SAND. AND \nEVEN FOR CONSTRUCTION GRADE \nSAND\, ALL SAND IS NOT CREATED \nEQUAL FOR THAT EITHER. SO \nYOU’RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT THAT FOR \nDIFFERENT USES\, ALTERNATIVE \nMATERIALS\, THERE IS DIFFERENT \nALTERNATE MATERIAL THAT CAN BE \nSUITABLE FOR THAT. BUT THAT’S \nCERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE CAN \nADDRESS AND GET YOU THE ANSWER \nTO GOING FORWARD. \n>>JOHN GIOIA: THANKS. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: \nTHANKS. I’LL TURN THAT OFF NOW. \nTHAT IS NOT OFF. \nOKAY. WE’RE WORKING? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. \n>>BARRY NELSON: \n[LAUGHTER] \nTHANK YOU. SO\, JUST A COUPLE OF \nQUESTIONS. SOME COMMISSIONERS \nHAVE ASKED SOME OF THE OTHER \nQUESTIONS I WAS GOING TO ASK. \nFIRST IS\, IT’S PRETTY CLEAR FROM \nTHIS WORK THAT WE’RE MINING \nRELIC SAND\, WHICH MEANS THAT \nTHIS ONGOING EXTRACTION ISN’T \nSUSTAINABLE. YOU CAN PUT A \nLITTLE TIME FRAME AROUND THAT? \nARE WE TAKING A 10th OF A \nPERCENT EVERY YEAR? TAKING A \n20th PERCENT EVERY YEAR. I’M \nTRYING TO GET A SENSE OF WHAT \nTHE TIME FRAME IS AROUND THE \nNON-RENEWABILITY OF THAT \nRESOURCE. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: I CAN’T \nBECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE THE TOTAL \nVOLUME OF SAND. WE DON THAT \nSAND IS NO LONGER COMING IN FROM \nTHE DELTA AND WE KNOW THAT THE \nSAND FROM THE WATERSHEDS IS NOT \nBEING SUPPLIED TO THE BEDS BEING \nMIND. WE DO SEE AREAS WHERE THE \nBED IS BEING LOWERED AND WE CAN \nSHOW PICTURES OF THAT IN THE \nCOMMISSION WORKING GROUP. THE \nOTHER THING IS WE DID VERY \nSPECIFIC ANALYSIS OF VERY \nLOCALIZED MINED AREAS\, AND THERE \nIS A LIMITED PORTION OF THOSE \nMINED AREAS WHERE SAND IS IN \nTRANSPORT. WHERE IT IS IN \nTRANSPORT MAXIMUM AMOUNT \nIN THOSE AREAS REFRESH I \nBELIEVE WAS 55% AND THERE ARE \nOTHER AREAS THAT ARE NOT BEING \nREFRESHED. THERE IS VARIABLE \nWITHIN THE SITES DETAILED \nWITHIN SOME OF THE STUDIES WE \nOPTED NOT TO GET INTO LOTS OF \nDETAILS TODAY ABOUT THE STUDIES \nWITH THE FULL COMMISSION. \n>>BARRY NELSON: WE CAN TALK \nABOUT SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS \nLATER THAT I HAVE QUESTIONS THAT \nWE CAN FOLLOW UP WITH ON THAT \nLATER ON. THE OTHER QUESTION \nWAS THE CONCLUSIONS ENACT THAT \nTHE IMPACTS ON BEACHES AND \nSHORES AREN’T QUANTIFIED I WOULD \nLOVE TO HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT IT \nWOULD TAKE TO ANSWER THOSE \nQUESTIONS BUT AGAIN MAYBE THAT \nWAITS FOR OUR WORKING GROUP. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: DEFINITELY \nSOME SCIENTISTS WHO HAVE IDEAS \nWITH TALK ABOUT THAT FURTHER IN \nTHE WORKING GROUP. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: — \n>>SPEAKER: I’M ASSUMING THE \nBEACHES ARE GIVING SOME OF THAT \nSAND BACK IN TO FILL THE HOLE. \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: IT’S ALREADY \nBEEN ASKED. THANK YOU. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: THANK YOU. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER PEMBERTON. \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: THANK YOU. \nI THINK ONE OF THE COMMENTS I \nHEARD WAS REGARDING \nENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS \nASSOCIATED WITH THE SAND MINING \nAND I THINK BRENDA MENTIONED \nTHAT WOULD BE PUT ON THE LIST \nFOR DISCUSSION DURING ONE OF THE \nWORKING GROUP MEETINGS. AND I \nWANTED TO SEE IF I COULD GET \nSOME CLARIFICATION ON THAT. \nWOULD THAT BE IN THE CONTEXT OF \nWHAT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE \nRECOMMENDATIONS AS A RESPONSIBLE \nAGENCY IN THE CONTEXT OF CEQA? \nOR KIND OF LIKE WHAT’S BEING \nASKED AND WHAT WOULD BE ON THE \nWORKING GROUP AGENDA AS IT \nRELATES TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL \nIMPLICATIONS AND HOW DOES THAT \nRECONCILE WITH CEQA? \n>>SPEAKER: I DON’T THINK WE \nHAVE FLUSHED OUT EXACTLY WHAT’S \nGOING TO BE IN ALL OF THE \nWORKING GROUPS YET I THINK WE’RE \nSTILL DECIDING AND LOOKING AT \nTHAT GETTING INPUT FROM \nCOMMISSIONERS AND FROM THE \nWORKING GROUP THEMSELVES. \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: OKAY. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: COMMISSIONER \nPEMBERTON I’LL NOTE FOR YOU THAT \nCHRIS HEWITT WHO I UNDERSTAND IS \nIN THE CEQA LEAD HAS BEEN \nPARTICIPATING IN ALL OF THESE \nMEETINGS AND HAS ALL OF THE \nDOCUMENTS SO HE’S WELL AWARE OF \nTHE STUDIES AND FINDINGS. \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: THANK YOU \nBRENDA. I APPRECIATE THAT. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: THANK YOU VERY \nMUCH. I WASN’T SURE HOW TO \nRAISE MY HAND\, SINCE I’M \nIN-PERSON. ACTUALLY\, I HAVE A \nFOLLOW-UP QUESTION TO THAT. \nBECAUSE THE COMMENT THAT WAS \nMADE IS THAT THE — I CALL IT\, \nLIKE\, A VACUUM CLEANER\, AND YOU \nHAVE A SCREEN ON IT TO PREVENT \nFISH FROM COMING IN\, WHAT \nABOUT THE BENTHIC ORGANISMS \nTHAT ARE IN THE SAND? HAVE \nTHERE BEEN ANALYSIS OF THE \nIMPACT TO THE ORGANISMS WHETHER \nTHEY’RE SUCKED UP WITH THE SAND? \nDO YOU ACTUALLY SEE THEM? I’M \nKIND OF CURIOUS ABOUT THE \nPRACTICAL ASPECT OF THIS VACUUM \nCLEANER\, AND THIS SUCKING UP THE \nSAND AT THE BOTTOM. \nYOU CAN HELP ME TO UNDERSTAND \nWHAT THAT MECHANISM IS? \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: YES. SO\, \nTHERE IS TWO MECHANISMS. ONE \nIS\, LIKE\, THE VACUUM CLEANER \nHAD THAT YOU SAW\, BELIEVE IT \nHAS A SIX BY SIX INCH OPENING \nGREAT\, AND SO ANYTHING — PLEASE \nCORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG BILL \nERIK OR MIKE\, ANYTHING SMALLER \nTHAN SIX BY SIX \nGREAT COULD GO THROUGH THE DRAG \nHEAD ITSELF AND THE SCREEN IS ON \nTHE PUMP THAT BRINGS IN THE \nWATER AND THE SCREEN WILL NOT \nSCREEN SOUGHT NICHE BUT NOT \nPLANK TON AND LARVAE. THE DRAG \nHEAD ITSELF WOULD LIKE TAKE THE \nMATERIAL\, THE ANIMALS IN THE TOP \nOF THE SAND INTO AND THE PUMP \nTHROUGH THE SYSTEM MANY OF THOSE \nANIMALS ARE SOFT-BODIED AND \nWOULD NOT BE SEEN IN THE SAND \nBECAUSE OF THE ROUGHNESS OF THE \nSAND THROUGH THE PIPE. WE DID \nDO A BENTHIC STUDY I CAN’T \nREMEMBER THE YEAR\, I FEEL LIKE \nIT WAS 2017 OR 18\, AND THERE ARE \nSOME CONCLUSIONS THAT\, LIKE\, THE \nCRITTERS THAT ARE LIVING IN THE \nSAND ARE EARLY COLONIZERS \nBECAUSE THE SAND ITSELF IS SUCH \nA MOVING SYSTEM THAT YOU DON’T \nGET\, LIKE\, SOLID BUILT UP \nBENTHIC COMMUNITIES LIKE YOU \nMIGHT FIND IN FINE SAND\, BUT YOU \nWOULD ASSUME THAT THE CRITTERS \nARE BEING SUCKED UP IN THAT \nVACUUM-LIKE HEAD. AND THEN ON \nTHE OTHER TYPE\, WHICH YOU SAW\, \nWHICH LIND MARINE USES\, IT’S \nMORE OF A — I EQUATE IT TO\, \nLIKE\, A STRAW IN THE SAND. \nAND\, SO\, IT IS DOWN DEEPER\, \nPOTENTIALLY IN AN AREA WHERE YOU \nDON’T HAVE INVERTEBRATES \nLIVING. \nBECAUSE IT’S DEEP UNDER THE \nSAND. SO\, THERE MAY BE SOME \nDIFFERENCES. BUT WE DO NOT HAVE \nA STUD BETWEEN THE TWO TYPES OF \nMINING\, TO THE BEST OF MY \nKNOWLEDGE\, AGAIN\, PLEASE CORRECT \nME IF I’M WRONG. THAT GETS TO \nBE A VERY CONCLUSIVE STUDY. BUT \nTHERE HAS NOT BEEN A LOT OF WORK \nAMONG THE BENTHIC COMMUNITY \nSIMPLY BECAUSE IT’S DEEP AND \nVERY DIFFICULT TO PLACE A \nMONITOR ASIDE FROM TWO STUDIES. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: SO\, ARE WE GOING \nTO BE DOING ANY FUTURE WORK ON \nTHE IMPACT OF THE BENTHIC \nORGANISMS? \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: THERE MAY BE \nSOME AS PART OF THE CEQA \nDOCUMENT\, BUT HONESTLY I DO NOT \nKNOW WE DO NOT CURRENTLY HAVE \nANY REQUIREMENTS IN THE EXISTING \nPERMIT FOR ADDITIONAL IMPACTS TO \nTHE BIIOTA. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: THE OTHER \nQUESTION I HAD IS THERE WAS \nMENTION OF A PRIVATE PARCEL. I \nTHINK IT WAS IN THE MIDDLE \nGROUND. CAN SOMEONE HELP ME TO \nUNDERSTAND WHY IS THERE A \nPRIVATE PARCEL IN THE BAY? AND \nARE THERE OTHER PRIVATE PARCELS \nTHAT WE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN TOLD \nABOUT YET? \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: YES. SO THAT \nPARCEL WAS ORIGINALLY OWNED BY \nTHE NAVY. IT IS NOW THE \nGROSSLY \nFAMILIES IT’S A PRIVATE PARCEL \nI WAS LUCKY TO BE ABLE TO \nPARTICIPATE IN THE SUBTIDAL \nHABITAT GOALS PROJECT IN 2010 AS \nPART OF THAT PROJECT WE LOOKED \nAT THE OWNERSHIP OF SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY BOTTOM WHICH IS A \nLOT OF IT OWNED BY THE STATE\, \nTHERE ARE SOME OWNED BY PRIVATE \nIMPORTANT OWNERS AND IF YOU WANT \nTO SEE THE OWNERSHIP OF THE \nBOTTOM OF THE BAY\, YOU CAN GO TO \nTHE SUBTIDAL GOALS HABITAT \nPROJECT ON THE WEB AND LOOK AT \nBAYLAND OWNERSHIP MAP. AND IT \nWILL SHOW YOU THE PRIVATE PUBLIC \nOWNERSHIP OF SAN FRANCISCO BAY. \nIT’S QUITE FASCINATING. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: YEAH. I’M VERY \nINTERESTED IN THAT PART OF IT. \nTHE OTHER QUESTION I HAD WAS \nTHAT IT WAS MENTIONED THAT SOME \nOF THE SAND IS USED FOR \nRESTORATION OF BEACHES. SO\, \nWHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE SAND THAT \nIS ACTUALLY USED IN THE \nCONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES VERSUS \nRESTORATION PROJECTS. DO WE \nKNOW WHAT THAT IS? \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: WELL\, I CAN \nTELL YOU WHAT I KNOW AND BILL \nCAN ADD. SO\, ONE PROJECT\, \nALAMEDA CROWN BEACH\, THERE IS \nACTUALLY A FLOOD PROTECTION \nPROJECT THAT WAS BUILT MANY\, \nMANY YEARS AGO TO REDUCE EROSION \nON THAT FRONT\, AND APPROXIMATELY \nEVERY 20 YEARS\, ABOUT 80\,000 \nCUBIC YARDS OF SAND IS PLACE ON \nTHAT BEACH TO REFRESH THE BEACH \nSAND THAT’S ERODED OVER THAT 20 \nYEAR PERIOD. AND I BELIEVE THE \nLAST TIME WE PLACED THAT AMOUNT \nOF SAND ON THAT BEACH WAS \n2013. \nTHE RAMBREW ISLAND TOOK SOME \nSAND DOLLAR’S A SMALL \nRESTORATION PROJECT AT \nRAMBRU ISLAND THAT TOOK MAYBE \n2\,000 CUBIC YARDS OF SAND AND \nTHAT CAME OUT OF SAN FRANCISCO \nMARINA WEST SOME OF THE LARGER \nPIECES OF SAND MATERIAL I THINK \nFROM HANSON\, CORRECT ME IF I AM \nWRONG\, MARTIN MARIETTA\, FROM \nTHEIR YARD WHERE THEY HAVE A\, \nSORT OF\, TAILINGS SAND THAT \nTHEY’RE NOT USING FOR THE \nCONCRETE MATERIALS AND THEN \nTHERE IS ANOTHER SMALL \nRESTORATION PROJECT I BELIEVE \nAROUND PEER 94 THAT SAN \nFRANCISCO IS USING MOSTLY \nTAILINGS FROM THE HANSON MARTIN \nMARIETTA I DON’T KNOW THE VOLUME \nTHOSE ARE PRIMARY SAND FROM THE \nMINING FOR RESTORATION AND I’M \nHAPPY TO HEAR FROM \nMINERS FOR \nMORE. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: ACKNOWLEDGED \nWRITTEN IN THE REPORT RELEASED \nTHURSDAY. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: SPECIFICALLY \nTHAT IS NOT ON THE RESTORATION \nOF THE SAND BUT COULD QUANTIFY \nTHAT FOR YOU. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: WHAT PERCENTAGE \nCURRENTLY BEING USED FOR FUTURE \nREFRESHED AND WHAT THE NEED IS. \nTHANK YOU. INTERESTING \nPRESENTATION. HAVING BEEN ON \nTHE HOPPER DREDGE DECADES AGO\, I \nSEE A LOT OF RELATIONSHIP TO \nTHIS ACTIVITY. SO\, THANK YOU. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: THANK YOU. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: VICE \nCHAIR EISEN. THERE ARE NO MORE \nHANDS RAISED. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ALL \nRIGHT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I \nWANT TO THANK YOU\, BRENDA FOR \nYOUR WONDERFUL PRESENTATION. \nAND FOR THE MINER’S \nPRESENTATION. AND I \nSPECIFICALLY WANT TO THANK PAT\, \nANDY\, AND BARRY\, WHO CAN SEE \nMAYBE NOT REGRETTING THAT THEY \nVOLUNTEERED FOR THIS WORKING \nGROUP COMMITTEE. BUT CAN SEE \nTHAT THIS IS QUITE A TASK. AND \nI APPRECIATE ALL OF THE \nCOMMISSIONER QUESTIONS. BECAUSE \nI THINK THAT REALLY HELPS OUR \nWORKING GROUP WHO IS GOING TO BE \nDOING SO MUCH HEAVY LIFTING ON \nTHIS TO\, SORT OF\, SEE WHAT THE \nCOMMISSION IS GOING TO BE \nINTERESTED IN KNOWING AND \nUNDERSTANDING BEFORE WE GET DO \nTHIS PERMIT PROCESS. SO\, THANKS \nTO ALL OF YOU. \nWE NOW HAVE — \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: VICE CHAIR \nEISEN\, YOU CAN ASK ONE THING? \nWE MAY BE LOSING A PERSON OR \nTWO\, DEPENDING ON PHONE CALLS\, \nET CETERA\, WHO MAYBE COMING \nBACK\, ET CETERA AND SO O IT \nMIGHT BE GOOD FOR YOU TO SAY THE \nCOMMISSION WILL GO INTO \nCOMMITTEE IF THAT HAPPENS\, AND \nJUST IN THE FUTURE\, JUST TO MAKE \nSURE THAT THAT’S ON THE RECORD. \nTHERE ARE NO VOTES SCHEDULED. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nOKAY. YES. WE DON’T HAVE \nANYTHING THAT WE NEED TO VOTE O \nBUT IF WE LOSE OUR QUORUM\, WE \nWILL GO INTO COMMITTEE\, AS YOU \nPUT IT. IS THAT — DOES THAT DO \nIT\, LARRY? \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: AWESOME. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nOKAY. SO\, THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR \nAGENDA IS AN UPDATE ON THE \nPROGRESS MADE BY THE SEDIMENT \nFOR WETLAND ADAPTATION PROJECT. \nAND THE PURPOSE OF THAT PROJECT \nIS TO INCREASE THE AVAILABILITY \nAND USE OF SEDIMENTS AND SOILS \nTO RESTORE AND ADAPT WETLANDS TO \nRISING SEA LEVELS. \nOUR SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT WORKING \nGROUP WAS CREATED SPECIFICALLY \nTO MEET THIS CHALLENGE. AND \nBCDC HOSTED A TWO-DAY IN-PERSON \nPUBLIC WORKSHOP ON THIS TOPIC IN \nJANUARY AND IN FEBRUARY. SO\, \nMAYA MCLERNEY OF OUR STAFF IS \nGOING TO BEGIN THE BRIEFING ON \nTHIS PROJECT. THANK YOU\, MAYA. \n>>MAYA MCLERNEY: ALL RIGHT. \nTHANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON VICE \nCHAIR EISEN AND COMMISSIONERS. \nMY NAME IS MAYA MCLERNEY\, AND I \nAM A PROJECT MANAGER FOR \nSEDIMENT FOR WETLAND ADAPTATION \nPROJECT I WORKED CLOSELY WITH \nBRENDA GODEN AND ERIK BEE MAN ON \nTHIS PROJECT. I’LL PROVIDE A \nBRIEFING ON SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT \nWORKSHOPS THAT WE HELD EARLIER \nTHIS YEAR AND BENEFICIAL REUSE \nACTION PLAN THAT WE’RE \nDEVELOPING RIGHT NOW. BEFORE I \nGET INTO THAT I WANT TO TALK \nABOUT WETLANDS AND SEDIMENT FOR \nWETLAND ADAPTING A PROJECT MORE \nGENERALLY. YOU LIKELY ALREADY \nKNOW THIS BUT WETLAND WILL NOT \nBE ABLE TO KEEP UP WITH SEA \nLEVEL RISE WITHOUT OUR HELP WE \nNEED TO ACT NOW TO HELP WETLAND \nBE ABLE TO ADAPT BY RAISING \nELEVATIONS AND SUPPORTING THE \nESTABLISHMENT OF PLANS AND \nECOSYSTEMS. THERE HAS BEEN A \nLOT OF WORK DONE IN THE AREA OF \nSEDIMENT MANAGEMENT IN OUR \nREGION SPECIFICALLY AND WE’RE \nBRINGING ALL OF THAT TOGETHER \nTHROUGH OUR SEDIMENT FOR WETLAND \nADAPTATION PROJECT. OUR PROJECT \nGOAL IS TO INCREASE THE \nBENEFICIAL REUSE OF SEDIMENT AND \nSOIL FOR WETLAND HABITAT \nRESTORATION RESILIENCE SEA LEVEL \nRISE ADAPTATION IN THE SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY AREA. PART OF \nTHIS PROJECT\, AS PART OF THAT \nPROJECT\, BCDC IS DEVELOPING A \nBENEFICIAL REUSE ACTION PLAN \nBASED ON STAKEHOLDER PROCESS \nTHAT WE CONDUCTED EARLIER THIS \nYEAR. THIS IS A REGIONAL CALL \nTO ACTION WITH TASKS THAT WILL \nBE UNDERTAKEN THROUGH INCREASED \nCOLLABORATION WITH AND AMONG \nSTAKEHOLDERS AND ENTITY NOT ONLY \nBCDC WHO WILL SHARE IN THE GOAL \nOF INCREASING BENEFICIAL REUSE \nIN WETLAND TO HELP ADAPT TO \nRISING SEAS. BCDC WILL \nUNDERTAKE POLICY CHANGES LATER \nTHIS YEAR AND DEVELOP FINANCIAL \nSTRATEGY TO SUPPORT BENEFICIAL \nREUSE. WHAT EXACTLY IS \nBENEFICIAL REUSE YOU MAY BE \nASKING. WE’RE TALKING ABOUT \nRECOGNIZING SEDIMENT AND SOIL AS \nA VALUABLE NATURAL RESOURCE \nNECESSARY FOR SEA LEVEL RISE \nADAPTING A AND SHIFTING MINDSET \nFROM TREATING IT AS A WASTE \nPRODUCT TO BE DISPOSED OF TO \nSEEING AS A RESOURCE THAT CAN BE \nOFFICIALLY REUSED TO SUPPORT \nGREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND \nNATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS LIKE \nMARSH RESTORATION AND HABITAT \nREHABILITATION AND ENHANCEMENT \nALONG THE EDGE OF THE BAY. \nWE’RE TALKING ABOUT SEDIMENT AND \nSOIL FROM DREDGED NAVIGATION \nCHANNELS\, STREAMS AND FLOOD \nPROTECTION CHANNEL MAINTENANCE \nMATERIALS AND EXCESS \nCONSTRUCTION SOILS. SO SEDIMENT \nWETLAND ADAPTATION PROJECT SWAP \nFOR SHORT FOCUSED ON ENSURING \nTHAT THESE MATERIALS ARE REUSED \nFOR BENEFICIAL PURPOSE \nSPECIFICALLY TO SUPPORT WETLAND \nSO THE TIMELINE FOR THE SWAP IS \nSHOWN HERE ON THE NEXT SLIDE. \nWE’RE IN PHASE ONE CURRENTLY OF \nTHE THREE FACE\, THREE YEAR \nPROJECT. THIS PHASE IS ALL \nABOUT STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT AT \nTHE END OF THE FIRST PHASE WE’LL \nHAVE BENEFICIAL REUSE ACTION \nPLAN FOR THE REGION AND WILL \nINCLUDE TASKS FOR ALL \nSTAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED IN \nSEDIMENT NOT JUST BCDC AND WE’LL \nHAVE A COALITION OF STAKEHOLDERS \nTO SUPPORT IMPLEMENTATION OF \nTHIS ACTION PLAN. PHASE ONE \nWILL WRAP UP IN 2024 PRETTY SOON \nIN 2024\, AND WITH PHASE 2 AND 3 \nTAKING PLACE FROM THE END OF \n2024 THROUGH 2025. AND THIS \nPHASES 2 AND 3 WILL INCLUDE A \nPOTENTIAL BAY PLAN AMENDMENT AND \nFINANCING STRATEGY TO ASSESS \nCOSTS AND FEASIBILITY AND \nFUNDING FOR BENEFICIAL REUSE AND \nPART OF THE PROJECT DESIGN \nINCLUDES MEETINGS WITH OUR \nSEDIMENT BENEFICIAL REUSE \nCOMMISSIONER WORKING GROUP SOME \nOF WHOM ARE IN THE ROOM. AND WE \nARE ALSO MEETING WITH — YEAH \nWE’RE GOING TO BE MEETING ALSO \nWITH OUR CORE TEAM. MEETING \nWITH A BENEFICIAL REUSE WORKING \nGROUP WHO IS GOING TO BE GUIDING \nOUR STAFF WORK ON THE PROJECT \nAND IS GOING TO BE INCREASINGLY \nIMPORTANT ROLE TO PLAY AS WE GET \nINTO THE BAY PLAN AMENDMENT PART \nOF THIS PROCESS. \nAND COLLABORATION IS AT THE \nHEART OF THIS. YOU KNOW\, AS WE \nMEET REGULARLY WITH OUR CORE \nTEAM\, WE’RE GOING TO BE GOING \nTHROUGH THE — \n[LAUGHTER] \nSO\, ALONG WITH BCDC\, OUR CORE \nTEAM IS MADE UP OF THE REGIONAL \nWATER BOARD\, THE STATE COASTAL \nCONSERVANCY\, THE SF ESTUARY \nINSTITUTE\, SF JOINT VENTURE AND \nUS EPA\, THESE GROUPS ARE \nASSISTING IN CONCEPT AND CONTENT \nDEVELOPMENT. WE’RE GRATEFUL TO \nTHESE AND ALL PARTNERS IN THE \nPROJECT. TOGETHER WITH THE CORE \nTEAM AND OUR SEDIMENT AND \nBENEFICIAL REUSE WORKING GROUP \nWE DESIGNED AN INFORMATIONAL \nBRIEFING SERIES THAT WAS ROLLED \nOUT AT THE WORKING GROUP \nMEETINGS IN 2023. \nSO\, THE COMMISSIONER WORKING \nGROUP INVITED EXPERTS TO COME \nAND PRESENT TO THE COMMISSIONERS \nON THE WORKING GROUP AND \nINTERESTED MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC \nTO DESCRIBE THE SEDIMENT \nPROCESSES AND CHALLENGES AND \nBRING EVERYONE UP TO SPEED ON \nTHE ISSUES. THESE INFORMATIONAL \nBRIEFINGS WERE INTENDED TO \nPREPARE COMMISSIONERS FOR THE \nBAY PLAN AMENDMENT CONVERSATIONS \nTO COME AND TO PREPARE \nSTAKEHOLDERS AND THE PUBLIC FOR \nCONVERSATIONS HELD AT THE \nWORKSHOP EARLIER THIS YEAR. THE \nBRIEFINGS COVERED SF BAY \nSEDIMENT TRANSPORT SYSTEM\, THE \nPROCESS OF NATURAL SEDIMENT \nSUPPLY TO BAY MARSHES\, SEDIMENT \nCONSIDERATIONS AND CHALLENGES \nAND WETLAND RESTORATION \nPROJECTS\, NAVIGATION DREDGING AS \nA SOURCE OF SEDIMENT AS WELL AS \nFLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS AS A \nSOURCE OF SAID AMOUNTED AND \nCONSTRUCTION AND UPLAND SOURCES \nOF SEDIMENT AND SOILS. WE \nWRAPPED UP THE SERIES OF \nBRIEFINGS IN NOVEMBER LAST YEAR \nALL PRESENTATIONS ARE AVAILABLE \nON THE COMMISSION’S WEB SITE. \nAND THEN IN JANUARY WE TURNED \nOUR ATTENTION TO THE SEDIMENT \nMANAGEMENT STAKEHOLDER \nWORKSHOP. \nTHIS WAS A TWO-DAY WORKSHOP THAT \nWAS HELD EARLIER THIS YEAR AND \nIT WAS A CHANCE FOR STAKEHOLDERS \nTO COME TOGETHER AS A \nCOMMUNITY. \nWE HAD OVER 50 AGENCIES AND \nORGANIZATIONS IN ATTENDANCE TO \nSUPPORT CHANGES IN HOW SEDIMENT \nIS MANAGED IN THE BAY AREA. \nTHIS WORK BUILDS ON AND WIDENS \nTHE COALITION OF INTERESTED \nPARTIES IN THIS ARENA A WE \nBELIEVE THIS GROUP CAN AND WILL \nMAKE REAL CHANGES OVER THE \nYEARS TO COME. THE WORKSHOP HAD \nBREAKOUT SESSIONS TO DISCUSS \nISSUES AND PERCEIVED BARRIERS \nAND WE PRESENTED POTENTIAL \nSOLUTIONS. NOW\, THE ISSUE OF \nHOW INCREASED BENEFICIAL — OR \nINCREASING BENEFICIAL REUSE AND \nPOTENTIAL SOLUTIONS THIS HAS \nALREADY BEEN PREVIOUSLY \nDISCUSSED IN A NUMBER OF FORUMS \nBY MOST STAKEHOLDERS WHO \nATTENDED THE WORKSHOP BUT WE \nNEVER COLLECTED EVERYONE \nTOGETHER TO REACH CONSENSUS AND \nFORMALIZE INFORMATION UNTIL NOW\, \nOPPORTUNITIES FOR BARRIERS \nSEDIMENT AND SOIL REUSE AND \nGAINED CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF \nIDEAS RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING \nACTIONS AND POTENTIAL PARTNERS \nTO HELP GET THE PROPOSED WORK \nDONE THE ACTIONS IDENTIFIED MAKE \nUP SUBSTANCE OF BENEFICIAL REUSE \nACTION PLAN THAT IS CURRENTLY \nBEING DRAFTED WITH AND WILL BE \nRELEASED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT \nSOON. THE ACTION PLAN \nSTRUCTURED IN A STRAIGHT FORWARD \nWAY WE BELIEVE A STATEMENT OF \nPURPOSE SECTION THAT INTRODUCES \nISSUES AND NEEDS TO INCREASE \nBENEFICIAL REUSE\, BACKGROUND\, \nGOALS\, PRINCIPLES GOALS ARE \nPRIMARILY TO HELP ORGANIZE \nACTIONS AND PRINCIPLES FIND HOW \nTHE COALITION WILL WORK TOGETHER \nTO IMPLEMENT ACTION PLAN TASKS. \nSEDIMENT WETLAND SECTION COVERS \nTHREE MAIN SOURCES OF SEDIMENT \nSOIL CONSTRUCTION NAVIGATION \nFLOOD CONTROL DREDGING SECTION \nDETAILS ISSUES IN EACH SECTOR TO \nGET MATERIAL FROM THE SOURCE TO \nTHE PLACEMENT OF THE SITE. \nLASTLY THE FOCUS WHERE THE MEAT \nOF THIS DOCUMENT LIES WHERE WE \nPRESENT THE APPROXIMATELY 80 \nTASKS TO ALL STAKEHOLDERS IN THE \nREGION BUT BEFORE I WANT TO \nPRESENT GOALS AND PRINCIPLES OF \nTHE ACTION PLAN FIRST GOAL IS TO \nSTRENGTHEN THE EXISTING REGIONAL \nPARTNERSHIP TO SUPPORT INCREASED \nSOIL REUSE AND EXPAND AND \nIMPROVE COORDINATION AMONG \nGOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY \nSTAKEHOLDERS TO FILL \nCOLLABORATION GAPS AMONG SECTORS \nINVOLVED IN SEDIMENT AND SOIL \nMANAGEMENT SECOND GOAL IDENTIFY \nAND PREPARE SITES FOR BENEFICIAL \nREUSE BY SUPPORTING DEVELOPMENT \nOF NEW EXISTING RESTORATION \nSITES TO PREPARE TO RECEIVE \nSEDIMENT AND THIRD GOAL \nCOORDINATE SEDIMENT AND SOIL \nSUPPLY RESTORATION NEEDS TO \nFACILITATE TIMELY DELIVER OF \nSEDIMENT AND SOIL. FOURTH GOAL \nIMPROVE POLICIES AND REGULATIONS \nIDENTIFYING AND SUPPORTING \nPOLICY AND REGULATORY \nIMPROVEMENTS ACROSS AGENCIES AND \nENCOURAGE MORE BENEFICIAL \nREUSE. \nFINAL GOAL OF THE ACTION PLAN TO \nDEVELOP FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES \nEXPAND AND SECURE FEDERAL\, \nSTATE\, REGIONAL AND PRIVATE \nFUNDING FOR BENEFICIAL REUSE. \nPRINCIPLES LISTED IN THE ACTION \nPLAN HELP DEFINE HOW BCDC AND \nTHE CORE TEAM INTEND TO WORK \nTOGETHER AND WITH THE COALITION \nTO IMPLEMENT THIS ACTION PLAN \nTHIS WILL BE DONE WITH FOCUS ON \nCOORDINATION\, COMMUNICATION AND \nCOLLABORATION TO ORGANIZE THE \nMANY ENTITIES WORKING IN THIS \nSPACE. AND THROUGH EQUITY TO \nENSURE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF \nSEDIMENT IN THE REGION AND TO \nPRIORITIZE COMMUNITY INPUTS\, AS \nWELL AS ENVIRONMENTAL \nSTEWARDSHIP TO SUPPORT EXISTING \nWETLANDS AND SEA LEVEL RISE \nRESILIENCY. AND IT CAN’T BE \nDONE WITHOUT TRANSPARENCY TO \nENSURE THAT ALL ARE ABLE TO \nTRACK PROGRESS AND GIVE INPUT\, \nAND SPEED AND AGILITY IS A \nCRITICAL PRINCIPLE DUE TO \nLIMITED TIME WE HAVE TO MAKE \nCHANGES OUTLINED IN THE ACTION \nPLAN AND TO GET AHEAD OF SEA \nLEVEL RISE. WE ACKNOWLEDGE \nTHANKFULLY THERE ARE MANY OTHER \nGROUPS DOING GREAT WORK IN THE \nSPACE AND THE COALITION SHOULD \nBE CAPITALIZING ON EXISTING WORK \nAND BUILDING OFF OF IT. EIGHT \nFOCUS AREAS OF BENEFICIAL REUSE \nACTION PLAN ARE GOVERNANCE\, \nREGIONAL COORDINATION\, REGIONAL \nPLANNING RESEARCH\, FEDERAL AND \nSTATE REGIONAL POLICIES AND \nCOMMUNICATION\, REGULATIONS AND \nPERMITTING PILOT PROJECTS\, \nSEDIMENT AND SOIL QUALITY AND \nTIMING AND AVAILABILITY OF \nMATERIALS AND PLACEMENT AND \nCOSTS OF FUNDING. WITHIN EACH \nOF THESE FOCUS AREAS THERE ARE \nSPECIFIC ACTIONABLE TASKS THAT \nWILL NEED LEAD ORGANIZATIONS \nTHAT WILL CARRY OUT SOME OF THE \nWORK PRESCRIBED IN THE TASKS. \nSPECIFIC TASKS DEVELOPED THROUGH \nCONVERSATIONS AND INTERVIEWS \nWITH PARTICIPANTS\, BRAINSTORMING \nINTERNALLY\, CORRELATED ACTIONS \nAND TASKS INTO A MATRIX WE HAD \n140 POTENTIAL TASKS LISTED IN \nTHE MATRIX\, TWO WORKSHOP DAYS \nWERE A GREAT WAY TO EXPLORE THEM \nTASKS FURTHER\, AND PHOTOS FROM \nTHE WORKSHOPS\, WE TOOK COMMENTS \nGATHERED THROUGH THOSE \nBREAKOUT SESSIONS AND SIFTED \nAND SORTED CONSOLIDATED TASKS \nFURTHER TO GET OUR 80 OR SO \nTASKS. TO BE IN THE FINAL \nACTION PLAN THE TASK HAD TO BE \nFOCUSED ON INCREASING BENEFICIAL \nREUSE OF SEDIMENT SOIL\, \nACHIEVABLE IN 1 TO 5 YEARS\, HAVE \nAN IDENTIFIABLE CHAMPION AND \nHAVE REGIONAL SUPPORT MOST OF \nTHE WINNING PROCESS INVOLVED \nCONSOLIDATING THESE IDEAS WE \nCREATED A LOT FOR TASKS AND \nTHINGS THAT CAME UP DURING THE \nPROCESS WHY THEY DIDN’T MAKE THE \nCUT. WHAT’S NEXT? WE’RE \nWORKING TO RELEASE THE \nBENEFICIAL REUSE ACTION PLAN IN \nTHE NEXT FEW WEEKS AND BE POSTED \nTO THE WEB SITE COLLECTING \nCOMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC FOR \nABOUT A MONTH LOOK OUT FOR THAT \nIF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN \nREVIEWING TASKS AND POTENTIALLY \nCOMMENTING ON THE ACTION PLAN \nAFTER PUBLIC COMMENT WE’LL \nFINALIZE THE DOCUMENT AND POST \nTO OUR WEB SITE WE’LL SWITCH \nGEARS ONCE THAT’S WRAPPED UP AND \nCOME BACK TO THIS COMMISSION \nWHEN WE ARE READY TO INITIATE \nTHE BAY PLAN AMENDMENT PROSLATER \nTHIS YEAR TO ADDRESS NECESSARY \nUPDATES REGARDING SEDIMENT AND \nBENEFICIAL REUSE RAMPING UP \nDISCUSSIONS WITH THE FINANCING \nFUTURE WORKING GROUP DEVELOPING \nSUPPORT FOR BENEFICIAL REUSE \nWE’RE EXCITED ABOUT THIS WORK\, \nSUPPORTING WETLAND AND ENSURING \nTHEY ARE STILL HERE PROVIDING \nMANY BENEFITS FOR 50 TO 100 \nYEARS AND BEYOND. THANK YOU FOR \nYOUR TIME AND ATTENTION AND I \nWOULD BE HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS \nABOUT THE PROJECT \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU\, MAYA\, DON’T GO AWAY. \nFIRST WE’LL GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT \nTHEN GET TO COMMISSIONER \nQUESTIONS. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY \nSIERRA? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: WE \nHAVE NO ONE IN THE ROOM AND NO \nHANDS RAISED. \n>>SPEAKER: I HAVE SOME. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: WE’LL \nHAVE COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS\, \nOBVIOUSLY\, BUT NO PUBLIC \nCOMMENT. \n>>SPEAKER: I’M SORRY. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NO \nWORRIES. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: SO \nWE HAVE NO PUBLIC COMMENT\, \nRIGHT\, SIERRA? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nRIGHT. NO PUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nWE’RE READY FOR COMMISSIONER \nQUESTIONS AND COMMENTS. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCORRECT. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nLOOKS LIKE — \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: WE \nCAN START WITH COMMISSIONER \nECKLUND. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: START WITH ME? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: YES. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: THANK YOU VERY \nMUCH. I’M VERY HONORED THAT I \nGET TO GO FIRST HERE. I HAVE \nBEEN INVOLVED IN REUSE OF \nSEDIMENT\, OBVIOUSLY\, FOR WETLAND \nRESTORATION. ALSO\, IN SOME \nWETLAND RESTORATION\, I DON’T \nKNOW IF IT’S STILL BE DONE OR \nNOT\, SOMETIMES DEMOLITION DEBRIS \nHAS ALSO BEEN USED. IS THAT \nSTILL HAPPENING? OR IS IT \nPRIMARILY JUST SEDIMENT AND \nSOIL? \n>>SPEAKER: FOR THIS ONE WE’RE \nLOOKING AT EXCAVATED SOILS FROM \nPROJECTS SUCH AS PARKING\, \nSUBGRADE PARK LOTS AND WHAT \nNOT. \nYEAH. I THINK THAT’S ANOTHER \nTOPIC OF A POTENTIAL USE. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: OH OKAY. REUSE \nOF DEMOLITION DEBRIS? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. SPECIFICALLY\, \nI DON’T KNOW EXACTLY HOW THAT IS \nUSED\, OR REGULATED. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: OKAY. I KNOW \nTHAT’S BEEN USED IN THE PAST FOR \nSOME WETLANDS RESTORATION. \n>>SPEAKER: >>BRENDA GOEDIN: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND\, THIS IS \nBRENDA AGAIN. WE’RE NOT \nSPECIFICALLY TARGETING \nCONSTRUCTION DEBRIS. WE’RE \nLOOKING AT UPLAND ACCESS \nCONSTRUCTION SOILS LIKE WHAT’S \nBEING DUG UP FOR BASEMENTS. I \nDON’T BELIEVE THERE IS A \nPROHIBITION OF USING CLEAN \nCONSTRUCTION DEBRIS. I KNOW \nHAMILTON WAS ONE THAT USED \nCONCRETE IN THE DEEP PARTS OF \nTHE BAY OR SITES THAT DIDN’T \nINHIBIT DEVELOPMENT OF WETLAND. \nWE’RE JUST NOT TRYING RIGHT NOW \nTO SOURCE THAT MATERIAL. IT \nWOULD BE\, SORT OF\, A WHOLE OTHER \nWORLD OF ISSUES THAT WE WOULD \nHAVE TO ADDRESS. SO IT’S NOT \nCURRENTLY IN THE PLAN. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: YEAH. THAT’S \n— \nI WAS VERY INVOLVED WITH THE \nHAMILTON WETLAND RESTORATION \nPROJECT. NOT ONLY AS AN EPA \nEMPLOYEE\, BUT ALSO AS A RESIDENT \nAT THAT TIME. THE DREDGE \nMATERIAL THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING \nDREDGED IN THE BAY BY THE ARMY \nCORP OF ENGINEERS AND OTHER \nDREDGING OPERATIONS HAVE WE \nQUANTIFIED WHAT THAT IS AND DO \nWE NEED MORE THAN WHAT’S \nCURRENTLY BEING DREDGE IN ORDER \nTO KEEP OUR SHIPPING INDUSTRY \nSTILL ACTIVE? OR ARE WE GOING \nTO NEED MORE SOIL ELSEWHERE \nIN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT. \n>>SPEAKER: SO ARE YOU ASKING \nABOUT IF THERE IS ENOUGH \nSEDIMENT SUPPLY ON THE \nNAVIGATION DREDGE. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: RIGHT. FROM THE \nNATURAL — FROM THE DREDGE \nTHAT’S OCCURRING IN THE SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY AREA\, TOTAL\, AND \nIF IT ISN’T SUFFICIENT\, ARE WE \nLOOKING ALSO FOR REUSE OF SOIL \nFROM THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT\, AS \nWELL? \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH. SO\, WE ARE \n— \nTHERE IS THE LTMS MANAGES YOU \nKNOW\, WHAT HAPPENS WITH THAT \nDREDGE MATERIAL\, AND THERE IS A \nGOAL TO 40% OF IT BENEFICIALLY. \nAND THAT HAS BEEN MET\, I THINK \nIN THE LAST — I’M LOOKING AT \nBRENDA ON THE SCREEN\, SHE IS OUR \nLTMS REP BUT I’LL LET HER JUMP \nIN. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: COMMISSIONER \nECKLUND\, THE COMMISSION FOR \nSEDIMENT REPORT ESTIMATED WE \nNEED 50 MILLION CUBIC YARDS OF \nSOIL SEDIMENT SPECIFICALLY TO \nHELP SEA LEVEL RISE. WE DREDGE \nBETWEEN 2 AND 3 MILLION ‘S \nANNUALLY\, ARMY CORP\, PRIVATE \nPORTS\, MARINAS REFINERIES\, ET \nCETERA. THAT IS NOT ENOUGH THEY \nTHINK IT REPRESENTS 50 TO 60% \nOVER TIME. SO WE ARE LOOKING AT \nTHE UPLAND CONSTRUCTION SOILS\, \nSOUTH BAY SALT PONDS SHORELINE \nARE CURRENTLY IMPORTING \nCONSTRUCTION SOILS CLEAN SOILS \nTO HELP WITH SOME OF THAT \nRESTORATION. THERE IS \nADDITIONAL MATERIAL\, ALTHOUGH \nMUCH SMALLER AMOUNT IN THE LOCAL \nFLOOD PROTECTION AND STREAM BED \nMAINTENANCE MATERIALS. BUT THE \nGENERAL CONSENSUS IS WE DO NOT \nHAVE ENOUGH TO DO EVERYTHING \nTHAT WE’RE HOPING TO DO AND KEEP \nUP WITH SEA LEVEL RISE WHICH IS \nONE OF THE REASONS WE’RE PUSHING \nVERY HARD TO GET AS MUCH OF IT \nGOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AS \nPOSSIBLE. THEN THERE IS A \nFURTHER FIELD OF SOURCES SUCH AS \nRESERVOIRS WHICH ARE A DIFFERENT \nSUPPLY MUCH MORE CHALLENGING TO \nGET INTO BUT WE’RE STARTING HERE \nWITH THIS ONE TO A FIVE-YEAR \nPROJECT TO TRY TO FREE UP AS \nMUCH OF THE MATERIAL GETTING IT \nTO THE RIGHT PLACE AS POSSIBLE \nTO GET RID OF SOME OF THE \nBARRIERS. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: RIGHT. I GUESS \nTHE ISSUE THERE IS THAT SINCE IT \nISN’T GOING TO BE ENOUGH THEN \nWE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIGURE \nOUT HOW WE’RE GOING TO BE ABLE \nTO COLLECT SOME OF THE SOIL THAT \nIS EXCAVATED NOT ONLY FOR MAJOR \nCONSTRUCTION\, BUT ALSO MAYBE \nEVEN FOR RESIDENTIAL\, AS WELL. \nI KNOW THAT THERE’S A LOT OF \nCHANGING OF THE BUILDINGS\, FOR \nAN EXAMPLE\, FROM OFFICE TO \nRESIDENTIAL. AND\, SO\, A LOT OF \nTHAT — SOME OF THE BUILDINGS \nWILL HAVE TO BE TAKEN DOWN. \nAND\, SO THAT’S GOING TO BE A LOT \nOF DEMOLITION DEBRIS THAT MAY \nBE AVAILABLE IF WE’RE GOING TO \nFIGURE OUT HOW TO COLLECT IT AS \nA SOCIETY OR HERE IN CALIFORNIA \nOR EVEN IN THE BAY AREA SAME \nWITH SOIL FROM RESIDENTIAL AREAS \nTOO. JUST HAVING A RECENT \nEXPERIENCE OF HAVING SOME SOIL \nWE NEEDED TO GET RID OF\, I WAS \nSHOCKED THAT THERE WASN’T A \nPLACE THAT I COULD TAKE IT TO. \nAND FOR IT TO BE REUSED\, BECAUSE \nIT WAS CLEAN\, AND SO IT HAD \nTO BE THROWN AWAY IN THE \nGARBAGE\, WHICH YOU DO NOT WANT \nTO FILL UP THE LANDFILL WITH \nGOOD SOIL OR GOOD DEMOLITION \nDEBRIS WHEN IT COULD BE USED \nELSEWHERE. SO\, THIS IS MAYBE \nSOMETHING WE MAY WANT TO GET \nSOME OF THE STATE AGENCIES \nINVOLVED IN THAT REALLY PROMOTE \nRECYCLING OF A LOT OF DIFFERENT \nMATERIALS. ANYWAY\, I JUST \nREMEMBER FROM MY DAYS WITH THE \nARMY CORP AND WITH EPA THAT WE \nDID NOT HAVE ENOUGH DREDGE \nMATERIAL. AND I JUST WANT TO \nSEE IF THAT WAS STILL THE CASE. \nWHICH IT IS. AND I’M JUST \nREALLY EXCITED ABOUT THE \nPOSSIBILITY OF EVEN MAYBE \nCHANGING HOW WE DEAL WITH \nCONSTRUCTION COMPANIES\, AS WELL \nAS INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTS AND HOW \nWE CAN REUSE THAT MATERIAL \nTHAT’S SO VALUABLE. \nTHANK YOU. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER SHOWALTER. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: YEAH. I \nJUST WANTED TO TAKE A MOMENT TO \nTHANK THE STAFF FOR THE WORK \nTHAT THEY HAVE DONE HERE. I\, \nSORT OF\, VIEWED THIS AS THEM \nSUPPLYING US WITH A CLASS OF \nSEDIMENT 101. WE HAVE REALLY \nHAD AMAZING SPEAKERS COME TALK \nTO US ABOUT THE SCIENCE AND\, \nSORT OF\, THE OPERATION OF \nSEDIMENT REMOVAL IN SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY. AND IT’S JUST \nGIVING US\, WE GOT A GREAT \nFOUNDATION\, AND THEN WE HAD THE \nWORKSHOPS. SO\, I THINK IT WAS \nKIND OF THE BEST WAY WE COULD \nPOSSIBLY GET A STAKEHOLDER GROUP \nTOGETHER\, GET THEM ALL ON THE \nSAME PAGE\, AND THEN HAVE THEM \nBRAINSTORM. SO\, I REALLY ENJOY \nTAKING PART IN THIS. AND I LOOK \nFORWARD TO\, YOU KNOW\, THE NEXT \nFEW STEPS YOU COME UP WITH\, AND \nI’M REALLY GLAD TO HEAR THAT THE \nLIST IS NEAR 80 NOW. SO\, THANK \nYOU VERY MUCH. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nTHANK YOU. I ALSO WANT TO ADD \nMY THANKS TO THE STAFF AND OUR \nCOMMITTEE FOR THE WORK YOU HAVE \nDONE. AND JUST TO SAY THAT I’M \nREALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO\, YOU \nKNOW\, BRINGING ALL THE AGENCIES \nON BOARD WITH THIS BENEFICIAL \nREUSE. JUST AS AN EXAMPLE\, I \nHAVE A PROJECT AT McGINNIS MARSH \nWHERE WE HAVE GALENA’S CREEK \nRIGHT NEXT DOOR THAT WE ARE \nGOING TO DREDGE AND WE ARE \nAWAITING TO GET APPROVAL FROM \nNUMEROUS AGENCIES TO PUT THEM ON \nTHE MARSH AND IT’S TAKING AN \nAGONIZING LONG TIME SO I LOOK \nFORWARD TO THE PROCESS WHEN IT \nTHE RIGHT THING TO DO. THANK \nYOU. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ANY \nADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM \nCOMMISSIONERS? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: REBECCA\, I HAD \nHAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE COST. \nIF THE SEDIMENT ITSELF IS THAT \nOF THE QUALITY THAT WE NEED FOR \nPARTICULAR WETLAND\, HAS IT BEEN \nDISCUSSED ABOUT WHO PAYS FOR THE \nCLEAN UP OF THAT MATERIAL? OR \nWHETHER IT’S NOT EVEN JUST USED \nTHEN? THANK YOU. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: SURE. THAT \nONE WE HAVE NOT GONE THROUGH ALL \nOF THE COSTS AND FUNDING \nSITUATIONS AND SCENARIOS YET. \nSO WE’LL PROBABLY SUBJECT KIND \nOF LEAVING THAT ONE TO TALK \nABOUT LATER ON. \n>>MAYA MCLERNEY: — \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nGREAT. THANK YOU MAYA. THANK \nYOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. \nTHANK YOU TO ALL THE \nCOMMISSIONERS AND ESPECIALLY \nTHOSE WHO ARE ON THE WORKING \nGROUP WHO ARE DEALING WITH ALL \nOF THESE ISSUES ON OUR BEHALF. \nI APPRECIATE IT. \nWE HAVE ONE MORE PRESENTATION ON \nDELTA ADAPT. THAT IS A CLIMATE \nCHANGE ADAPTATION STUDY\, WHICH \nHAS BEEN CREATED AND MANAGED BY \nTHE DELTA STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL. \nAND IT’S DESIGNED TO IMPROVE THE \nDELTA’S RESILIENCE TO CLIMATE \nCHANGE HAZARDS\, INCLUDING\, OF \nCOURSE\, SEA LEVEL RISE. THE \nBRIEFING WILL BE PROVIDED BY \nCORY COPELAND WHO IS BCDC’S \nCHIEF SCIENTIST AND ALSO A \nFORMER DELTA STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL \nSTAFF MEMBER. SO\, THANK YOU\, \nCORY FOR THE PRESENTATION YOU’RE \nABOUT TO GIVE US. \n>>CORY COPELAND: YEAH. I \nACTUALLY WON’T BE GIVING T I’LL \nBE INTRODUCING THE STEWARDSHIP \nCOUNCIL MEMBERS. THANK YOU SO \nMUCH CHAIR EISEN AND \nCOMMISSIONERS. I’M REALLY \nPLEASED TO BE INTRODUCING THIS \nITEM. AS CHAIR EISEN MENTIONED\, \nI HAD OPPORTUNITY TO WORK ON \nTHIS DURING MY TIME AT THE DELTA \nSTEWARDSHIP COUNCIL BEFORE \nJOINING BCDC AS THE ADAPTING TO \nRISING TIDESRISING TIDES IN \nSCIENCE MANAGER. \nDELTA ADAPTS IS THE STATE \nCLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTING A PLAN \nFOR SACRAMENTO SAN JOAQUIN AND \nUPPER ESTUARY OF SAN FRANCISCO \nBAY DELTA I HAVE BEEN ON BOTH \nSIDES OF THE COLLABORATION BCDC \nAND DELTA STEWARDSHIP WORK \nAROUND CLIMATE ADAPTATION. FOR \nCONTEXT THE FUNDING INVESTMENT \nFRAMEWORK THAT HELPED US \nIDENTIFY A $110 BILLION NEED FOR \nINVESTMENT IN SEA LEVEL RISE \nADAPTATION IN THE BAY AREA FOR \nCERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE \nANALYSIS\, USED HYDROLOFICIC WORK \nTHAT WAS DONE FOR DELTA ADAPT \nVULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT. WITH \nTHAT INNER RELATIONSHIP IN MIND\, \nI’M REALLY GLAD TO HAVE A COUPLE \nOF FOLKS FROM THE DELTA \nSTEWARDSHIP COUNCIL HERE TO \nPRESENT ON THEIR ADAPTATION PLAN \nTHAT IS COMING OUT SOON. SO\, \nHERE TO SPEAK ON THAT ARE JEFF \nHENDERSON\, THE PLANNING DIRECTOR \nFOR THE STEWARDSHIP ARE COUNCIL\, \nAND MORGAN C\, FORMER BCDC \nEMPLOYEE WHO IS NOW THE MANAGER \nOF CLIMATE ADAPTATION AND \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AT THE \nDELTA STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL WHO \nWILL GIVING A PRESENTATION THAT \nI WILL BE SHARING. \nˆ >>JEFF LEVIN: \nˆ >>JEFFREY TUMLIN: \nˆ >>JEFFREY LEVIN: \nˆ >>JEFF MCKAY: \n>>JEFF HENDERSON: THANK YOU \nCORY. LET’S GO TO THE NEXT \nSLIDE. \n>>SPEAKER: DOES THAT LOOK \nCORRECT? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: IT \nLOOKS GOOD IN THE BOARDROOM. \n>>SPEAKER: THAT LOOKS GOOD \nCORY. \n>>SPEAKER: IT LOOKS GOOD \nONLINE. \n>>JEFF HENDERSON: ALL RIGHT. \nGOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. \nIT’S A PLEASURE TO BE HERE ON \nBEHALF OF THE COUNCIL TO PRESENT \nON OUR DELTA ADAPT CLIMATE \nCHANGE INITIATIVE. THIS \nINITIATIVE IS SOMETHING THAT WE \nHAVE BEEN LEADING SINCE 2018\, \nWITH A GOAL TO BETTER UNDERSTAND \nSPECIFIC RISKS FACED BY THE \nDELTA AND PROPOSED STRATEGIES TO \nPREPARE ACCORDINGLY. \nTO OUR KNOWLEDGE\, IT’S THE FIRST \nOF ITS KIND FOR THE ENTIRE DELTA \nREGION THAT CUTS ACROSS MULTIPLE \nTOPICS. THERE HAVE BEEN \nADAPTATION PLANS PREPARED AT THE \nLOCAL LEVEL\, OR ADAPTATION PLANS \nPREPARED TO ADDRESS A SINGLE \nTOPIC SUCH AS WATER SUPPLY OR \nECOSYSTEM OR FLOODING OR \nAGRICULTURE. TO OUR KNOWLEDGE\, \nTHIS IS THE FIRST AT SCALE THAT \nADDRESSES MULTIPLE SECTORS AND \nTOPICS ACROSS THE FULL REGION OF \nTHE DELTA ITSELF. WE’RE ABOUT \nTO RELEASE OUR ADAPTATION PLAN\, \nJUST PUTTING FINAL TOUCHES ON IT \nAND COMPLETING SOME FINAL \nREVIEWS AND WE’RE EXCITED TO \nRELEASE THAT. BECAUSE IT SHOWS \nHOW FAR WE HAVE COME THROUGHOUT \nTHE PROJECT’S PROCESS. HOW MUCH \nWE HAVE LEARNED\, AND IT SETS A \nFRAMEWORK FOR MAKING A LOT OF \nMUCH NEEDED ADAPTATION ACTIONS \nHAPPEN WITHIN THE REGION. IT’S \nTHE RESULT OF MANY YEARS OF \nCONVERSATIONS ACROSS PROBABLY \nTHE MOST DIVERSE GROUP OF \nINTERESTS AND EXPERTISE THAT THE \nCOUNCIL HAS ENGAGED TO DATE. \nTHE WORK RECOGNIZES A LOT OF \nGREAT PROGRESS IN PROTECTING THE \nDELTA THUS FAR. BUT\, ALSO\, \nPOINTS OUT ALL THE AREAS WE \nSTILL NEED TO AMPLIFY OUR WORK \nTO BE MORE INNOVATIVE\, TO \nPROVIDE AND PRIORITIZE \nADAPTATION STRATEGIES TO KEEP UP \nWITH THE IMPACTS THAT WE’RE \nALREADY SEEING. THE WORK IS \nBEING LED BY THE COUNCIL WHICH \nWAS CREATED TO HELP SAFEGUARD \nDELTA ASSETS. AND \nCRITICAL CONSIDERATIONS TO \nACHIEVING OUR MISSION\, WE HAVE \nIDENTIFIED NEEDS RESOURCES \nPARTNERSHIPS AND IMPORTANTLY \nLEADERS THAT ARE NEEDED AS MUCH \nOF THE PLAN RELIES ON A \nCOLLABORATIVE EFFORT AMONG A \nNUMBER OF AGENCIES. OUR \nPRESENTATION TODAY MORGAN IS \nGOING TO PROVIDE A PREVIEW OF \nSOME OF OUR APPLICATION \nSTRATEGIES. WE’RE INTERESTED TO \nHEAR YOUR FEEDBACK AROUND \nCLARITY OF STRATEGIES AND ANY \nPRIORITIES OR APPLICATIONS \nOUTLINED FOR BCDC TO HELP INFORM \nTHE FINAL DRAFT OF THE PLAN. \nNEXT SLIDE. AGAIN JUST TO \nORIENT THIS IS A MATCH DELTA \nWHICH IS ON THE RIGHT WITH THE \nSAN WAN KEEN RIVER DARK BLUE AND \nWHAT’S BEEN MARKED IN THE \nCENTER\, IDENTIFIED AS OUR \nOVERLAPPING JURISDICTIONS BCDC \nTHAT’S THE MIDDLE AND SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY ON THE LEFT THIS \nIS IN THE SPIRIT OF MANAGING THE \nONE BAY DELTA ESTUARY WHERE \nACTIVITIES TAKE PLACE IN THE BAY \nAFFECT THE DELTA AND THOSE THAT \nTAKE PLACE IN THE DELTA AFFECT \nTHE BAY. NEXT SLIDE\, CORY. \nTHE FIRST PHASE OF OUR PROJECT \nBEGAN IN 2018\, IT WAS A \nVULNERABLE ASSESSMENT IN WHICH \nWE IDENTIFIED AT RISK SYSTEMS \nFROM CLIMATE CHANGE HEAVILY \nRELY ON NATURAL AND PHYSICAL \nSCIENCES AND PRIMARY AND \nSECONDARY RESEARCH. WE FOUND \nTHE FOLLOWING\, FLOOD RISK IS ONE \nOF THE MOST PRESSING THREATS TO \nTHE DELTA AND IT’S GOING TO \nCONTINUE TO WORSEN IN THE FUTURE \nWITH CHANGES IN SEA LEVEL\, \nPRECIPITATION\, HYDROLOGY AND \nTEMPERATURE THESE ARE NOT ALL \nGOING TO IMPACT THE DELTA \nRESIDENTS IN THE SAME WAY OR IN \nAN EQUITABLE WAY AND WILL AFFECT \nTHE CENTRAL SOUTHERN DELTA MOST\, \nCONCENTRATION IN THE STOCKTON \nAREA THIS MEANS MANY OF THE \nRESIDENTS EXPOSED TO FLOODING \nMAY HAVE HIGHER SENSITIVITY TO \nFLOOD IMPACTS AND LOWER CAPACITY \nTO ADAPT. WE’LL TALK MORE ABOUT \nHOW FLOOD RISK IS DIFFERENT IN \nTHE DELTA THAN IN THE BAY WHEN \nWE COVER OUR STRATEGIES. \nPARTICULARLY THOSE RELATED TO \nFLOOD RISK REDUCTION. TWO\, \nDELTA WATER EXPORTS WILL BE LESS \nRELIABLE IN THE FUTURE DUE TO \nCLIMATE CHANGE. DELTA’S \nEXISTING WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM \nDOES NOT PROVIDE ENOUGH STORAGE \nTO CAPTURE ANTICIPATED INCREASES \nIN RUNOFF DUE TO MORE VARIABLE \nPRECIPITATION. IT’S WORTH \nPAUSING TO NOTE THAT IN THE \nDELTA\, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE \nHAVE FOUND OUT FROM THE \nVULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT IS THAT \nTHE DELTA SYSTEM IS MUCH MORE \nAFFECTED BY ANTICIPATED CHANGES \nIN RIVERING FLOWS\, FROM THE \nSACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN\, \nBASED ON ADJUSTED\, OR — THE \nSITUATION OF MORE PRECIPITATION \nAND FALLING AS RAIN AND LESS AS \nSNOW\, THEN THE REGION IS \nAFFECTED BY SEA LEVEL RISE. SO\, \nSEA LEVEL RISE AND RIVERING \nINFLOW ARE BOTH COMPONENTS OF \nTHE VULNERABILITY\, THE RIVERING \nAND THE FLOW ASPECT SEEMS TO BE \nMUCH MORE DIRECTING THE OUTCOMES \nIN THE DELTA. \nIN TERMS OF WATER QUALITY\, IN \nDELTA WATER USERS MAY BE \nTHREATENED BY WATER QUALITY \nDECLINES\, FUTURE DROUGHTS\, AND \nALL OF THAT EXPOSING MORE ACRES \nOF DELTA AGRICULTURE\, TO MORE \nSALINE WATER THAN HAS \nHISTORICALLY OCCURRED. DELTA \nAGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION TRENDS \nWILL SHIFT DUE TO CLIMATE \nCHANGE\, INCREASING TEMPERATURES \nAND THE NUMBER OF EXTREME HEAT \nDAYS\, ARE BOTH PROJECTED TO \nREDUCE YIELDS FOR MANY DELTA \nCROPS. AND THE NUMBER OF \nEXTREME HEAT DAYS WILL INCREASE \nTHROUGHOUT THE DELTA AND \nCOMMUNITIES IDENTIFIED AS MOST \nVULNERABLE TO THAT EXTREME HEAT \nARE LOCATED PREDOMINANTLY IN THE \nCITIES OF STOCKTON AND TRACY. \nAND I’LL ASK MORGAN TO JUMP IN \nAND GIVE THE PRESENTATION ON OUR \nUPCOMING ADAPTATION PLAN. THANK \nYOU. \n>>MORGAN CHAU: THANKS\, JEFF. \nAND GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR EISEN \nAND COMMISSIONERS. I’M HAPPY TO \nBE HERE PRESENTING TO YOU. AS \nCORY MENTIONED\, I USED TO WORK \nAT BCDC\, I WAS IN PERMITS\, \nANALYST IN SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT \nUNIT. SO IT’S NICE TO BE BACK. \nNEXT SLIDE. \nSO\, PHASE TWO IS REALLY THE \nDEVELOPMENT OF THE ADAPTATION \nPLAN THAT WE’RE SPEAKING ABOUT \nTODAY\, WHICH IT INCLUDES A RANGE \nOF ACTIONS TO IMPROVE REGIONAL \nRESILIENCE TO CLIMATE CHANGE FOR \nTHE DELTA. SO\, THIS GRAPHIC \nREALLY JUST SHOWS OUR PROCESS \nAND HOW WE LEANED ON\, REALLY\, AS \nJEFF MENTIONED\, PROBABLY THE \nMOST DIVERSE SET OF INTERESTS \nTHAT’S ON HAVE ENGAGED WITH AT \nTHE COUNCIL\, AS WELL AS OUR \nVULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT \nFINDINGS TO EXPLORE ADAPTATION \nNEEDS\, PRIORITIES\, AND DEVELOP \nSTRATEGIES TO ADDRESS THOSE. WE \nWORKED ACROSS FOUR FOCUS AREAS \nFOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE \nPLAN. \nAGRICULTURE\, FLOOD RISK \nREDUCTION\, ECOSYSTEM\, AND WATER \nSUPPLY RELIABILITY OVER THE LAST \nTWO AND A HALF YEARS\, WORKING TO \nINTEGRATE EQUITY THROUGH THE. \nWE ALSO WORKED ACROSS \nINTERDISCIPLINARY GROUP WHERE WE \nBROUGHT TOGETHER THOSE FOCUS \nGROUPS SEVERAL TIMES. OUR \nENGAGEMENT FOR SCOPING THE PLAN \nREALLY BEGAN IN 2021\, AND WE \nCOHOSTED A WORKSHOP SERIES WITH \nSEVERAL COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS \nIN STOCKTON WHICH IS A HIGHLY \nSOCIALLY VULNERABLE CITY IN THE \nDELTA\, AND THIS ENGAGEMENT WITH \nTHIS GROUP OF COMMUNITY \nORGANIZATIONS CONTINUED. AND \nTHEY HAVE SEVERAL OF THOSE HAVE \nINFORMED OTHER COMPONENTS OF OUR \nWORK INCLUDING OUR TRIBAL AND \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE WORK. WE \nHAVE ALSO INCORPORATED SEVERAL \nTRIBAL CONSULTATIONS INTO THE \nPLAN\, AT INFORMAL MEETINGS WITH \nOTHER AGENCIES AT THE STATE\, \nLOCAL\, AND FLOOD AND WATER \nAGENCIES. COUNCIL HOLDS MANY \nCOLLABORATIVE FORUMS THAT HAVE \nBEEN TOPICALLY RELEVANT FOR \nADAPTATION THAT HAVE BEEN \nINCORPORATED INTO THE PLAN. AND \nANOTHER CRITICAL COMPONENT IS \nFOR THE FIRST TIME\, FOR THE \nCOUNCIL\, REALLY REACHING AND \nHEARING DIRECTLY FROM DELTA \nFARMERS AND GROWERS WE’RE \nHEARING FIRSTHAND ABOUT \nCHALLENGES THEY’RE CURRENTLY \nGRAPPLING WITH\, HOW THEY’RE \nADAPTING AND WHAT THEY NEED TO \nFURTHER ADAPT. LASTLY\, WE HEARD \nA LOT FROM INTERVIEWS\, BOTH \nTHROUGH OUR ENVIRONMENTAL \nJUSTICE WORK AND ALSO RESULTS \nFROM THE REGION’S FIRST \nREPRESENTATIVE SURVEY OF DELTA \nRESIDENTS THAT HAS INFORMED OUR \nWORK. AS WE APPROACH HAVING \nPUBLIC DRAFT OF THE PLAN WE HAVE \nBEEN SPENDING A LOT OF CONCERTED \nEFFORT IN THREE CITIES IN THE \nDELTA THAT HAVE SCORED \nPARTICULARLY HIGH IN TERMS OF \nSOCIAL VULNERABLE CLIMATE \nIMPACTS FROM INDEX DEVELOPED IN \nPHASE ONE\, THOSE ARE FRO \nANTIOCH\, PITTSBURG\, AND \nSTOCKTON\, ANTIOCH AND PITTSBURG \nHAVE OVERLAPPING JURISDICTION \nREALLY OVER THE EDGE OF BCDC’S \nJURISDICTION AND OURS. NEXT \nSLIDE. \nSO\, WE’RE NOW AT THE POINT WHERE \nWE ARE PROPOSING OUR SET OF \nSTRATEGIES IN OUR PLAN\, THEY’RE \nBOTH PHYSICAL AND MANAGEMENT \nLEVEL STRATEGIES THAT WILL \nREALLY BE REALIZED DIFFERENTLY \nACCORDING TO THE SPECIFIC \nLOCATION IN THE DELTA. AND OUR \nFOCUS REALLY WITH THE \nSTRATEGIES\, IS TO MAINTAIN \nFLEXIBILITY AND TO BE ABLE TO \nINCORPORATE NEW CLIMATE DATA AS \nIT BECOMES AVAILABLE\, REALLY \nPRIORITIZING PROJECTS THAT OFFER \nMULTIPLE BENEFITS IN AN \nEQUITABLE MANNER. SO\, JEFF \nTOUCHED ON THIS\, BUT EACH \nSTRATEGY BEFORE I GET INTO THEM\, \nHAS A RECOMMENDED LEAD ACCORDING \nTO THE AGENCY THAT MAKES THE \nMOST SENSE TO LEAD. NOT \nNECESSARY LEANLY BY REGULATORY \nAUTHORITY\, AND SEVERAL PROPOSED \nPARTNERS. WE ALSO WORKED TO \nHIGHLIGHT STRATEGIES THAT WE \nFEEL\, ACCORDING TO COST\, AND \nORDER OF OPERATIONS\, THAT REALLY \nSHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED FIRST OR \nNEAR-TERM. WE HAVE DONE\, CORE \nMENTIONED SOME OF OUR ANALYSIS \nPREVIOUSLY\, BUT WE HAVE \nWORKED TO DEVELOP ADAPTATION \nCOSTS FOR THESE BIG PROJECTS \nCOMPARE THOSE TO VALUE OF ASSETS \nAT RISK WHICH WAS PART OF OUR \nPHASE ONE\, STRATEGIES AND \nRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OUR \nEXISTING DELTA PLAN WHICH IS OUR \nLONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR \nDELTA RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER \nSTATE REGIONAL RESOURCE SPECIFIC \nPLANS AS WELL AS CASE STUDIES \nTHAT EXEMPLIFY TYPES OF \nSTRATEGIES WE WANT TO SEE MOVING \nFORWARD. \nOKAY. NEXT SLIDE. \nTOUCH BRIEFLY ON HOW WE ARE \nINCLUDING EQUITY THROUGH THE ALL \nOF OUR STRATEGIES. IT REALLY\, \nEQUITY IS A COMPONENT IN\, I \nTHINK\, THREE MAIN WAYS. FIRST \nIN TERMS OF REPRESENTATIONAL \nJUSTICE. SO\, IN A LOT OF THE \nPROPOSED ACTIONS IN OUR PLAN\, WE \nARE REALLY WORKING AND RECOGNIZE \nIT’S INCREASINGLY IMPORTANT TO \nHAVE DECISIONS AND THE \nDECISION-MAKING BODIES THAT \nREPRESENT COMMUNITIES THAT ARE \nSERVED SO THAT COMMUNITIES ARE \nBOTH INFORMED REPRESENTED AND \nINVOLVED IN THESE PLANNING \nPROCESSES. ANOTHER IS THROUGH \nPRIORITIZATION OF INVESTMENTS \nTHAT’S CONTINUING TO WORK TO \nUNDERSTAND WHO FACES MOST RISK \nAND WHO NEEDS INVESTMENT FOR \nADAPTATION THE MOST. LASTLY \nHEARD ACROSS THE BOARD IN OUR \nDISCUSSIONS WAS NEED TO CONTINUE \nTO IMPROVE AND AMPLIFY RISK \nCOMMUNICATION AND EDUCATION\, AND \nREALLY PRESENT WHAT WERE OUR \nFINDINGS FROM PHASE 1 AND 2\, TO \nTHE MOST SOCIALLY VULNERABLE \nCOMMUNITIES IN OUR REGION. NEXT \nSLIDE. \nSO\, NOW TO THE STRATEGIES. THIS \nIS OUR FIRST OF OUR FOUR FOCUS \nAREAS IS FLOOD RISK REDUCTION\, \nWHICH HAS A LOT OF INTEREST IN \nTHE DELTA\, AS JEFF MENTIONED. \nWE HAVE SEEN SUBSTANTIAL \nPROGRESS\, BUT A LOT MORE NEEDS \nTO BE DONE TO ADAPT TO CLIMATE \nCHANGE. THESE GRAPHICS WE’LL \nHAVE FOR EACH FOCUS AREA FROM \nLEFT TO RIGHT SHOWS SUMMARY OF \nVULNERABILITIES\, AN ILLUSTRATIVE \nSUMMARY OF OUR TYPES OF \nSTRATEGIES WE’RE PROPOSING\, AND \nEXAMPLE ACTIONS. SO\, ON THE \nLEFT\, IN TERMS OF WHAT WE FOUND \nRELATED TO FLOOD VULNERABLE\, WE \nKNOW THAT CLIMATE CHANGE REALLY \n— WILL REALLY AFFECT THE ENTIRE \nSYSTEM FROM ALL DIRECTIONS IN \nTHE DELTA. SO THAT’S \nRIVERING INFLOWS\, FLOOD CONTROL \nWATER SUPPLY OPERATIONS. AS \nJEFF MENTIONED\, BRIEFLY \nDISTINCTION FROM HOW BCDC \nAPPROACHES FLOOD RISK WHICH IS \nMORE FOCUSED ON SEA LEVEL RISE\, \nWE’RE LOOKING AT FLOOD RISK AND \nRIVERING\, AND LEVEES \nOVERTOPPING. WHILE THERE IS \nSUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT IN OUR \nLEVEES IN PAST DECADES THERE IS \nSTILL A LOT OF WORK TO DO IN OUR \nSTRATEGY OUTLINING WHAT’S NEEDED \nTHROUGH A WELL ROUNDED APPROACH \nTO ADDRESSING BOTH HYDROLOGICAL \nVARIABILITY\, AND CHALLENGES \nPOSED BY CLIMATE OUR DELTA PLAN \nDOES LAY FOUNDATION FOR \nADDRESSING A LOT OF THESE \nSTRATEGIES FOR FLOOD RISK WE \nHAVE POLICIES RELATED TO HOW WE \nINVEST IN LEVEES AND SUPPORT \nFLOOD MANAGEMENT AND PLANNED USE \nDECISIONS. THE STRATEGIES GO \nBEYOND AND WE HAVE A FEW \nEXAMPLES\, STRATEGIES THAT \nTOUCHES ON SPECIFIC FLOOD \nMODELING NEEDS AND COLLABORATION \nAND COMMUNICATION ON THAT \nTOPIC. \nAND\, REALLY\, CONTINUING TO WORK \nON OUR DELTA LEVEE INVESTMENT \nSTRATEGY. ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A \nMORE NON-STRUCTURAL MEASURE IS \nTO RAISE AWARENESS ABOUT THE \nIMPORTANCE OF FLOOD INSURANCE\, \nIN THE DELTA REGION THERE\, IS A \nVERY LOW\, DESPITE THE FLOOD \nRISK\, THERE IS A VERY LOW \nPERCENTAGE OF FOLKS THAT \nACTUALLY HAVE FLOOD INSURANCE. \nNEXT SLIDE. \nTHE SECOND FOCUS AREA IS \nECOSYSTEM. SO\, THE DELTA \nECOSYSTEM REALLY PROVIDES \nHABITAT FOR FUNERALING A \nMIGRATORY PATHWAYS\, WE ALSO \nKNOW THE VALUE OF ECOSYSTEM AS A \nBUFFER FROM IMPACTS FROM CLIMATE \nCHANGE WE KNOW FROM \nVULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT THAT \nTHE ECOSYSTEMS AND DELTA WILL \nCONTINUE TO BE STRESSED AND HAVE \nLIMITED ROOM TO MIGRATE. AGAIN \nTHE DELTA PLAN WE HAVE POLICIES \nAND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO \nPROTECTING THE DELTA ECOSYSTEM \nWE HAVE ACTUAL SPECIFIC TARGETS \nFOR THE AMOUNT OF ACREAGE WE \nWANT TO RESTORE AND OUR \nSTRATEGIES HERE ALIGN WITH AND \nGO BEYOND WHAT IS IN OUR DELTA \nPLAN. IN A FEW THINGS WE CALL \nOUT CO-BENEFITS RELATED TO \nRESTORATION\, THAT’S RECOGNIZING \nREDUCED FLOOD RISK THAT CAN BE \nBROUGHT FROM PROJECTS\, AND THE \nIMPORTANCE OF IMPROVING ACCESS \nTO GREEN SPACE AND OPEN SPACES\, \nAND THE CULTURAL VALUE AND THE \nNEED TO WORK ALONGSIDE TRIBES \nIN THESE RESTORATION PROJECTS. \nANOTHER EXAMPLE FROM OUR \nSTRATEGIES IS THE IMPORTANCE OF \nHALTING AND REVERSING SUBSIZE \nSIDANCE\, DONE IN SEVERAL WAYS \nDEPENDING ON THE LAND OWNERSHIP\, \nAND FEASIBILITY SO IT COULD BE \nTHROUGH DIFFERENT TYPES OF \nRESTORATION BUT ALSO THROUGH \nPLANTING CROPS SUCH AS RICE. \nNEXT SLIDE. \nNEXT IS OUR AGRICULTURE FOCUS \nAREA AND\, \nREALLY\, AGRICULTURE IN THE DELTA \nIS A FUNDAMENTAL PART OF THE \nDELTA’S CULTURE\, HISTORY\, AND \nECONOMY\, IT’S REALLY THE \nECONOMIC ENGINE OF THE REGION IT \nPROVIDES JOBS AND SIGNIFICANT \nANNUAL ECONOMIC OUTPUT HOWEVER \nAGRICULTURE WE KNOW FROM OUR \nPHASE ONE REALLY FACES A LOT OF \nCHALLENGES WITH CLIMATE\, \nINCLUDING VARIABLE \nPRECIPITATION\, SALT WATER \nINTRUSION\, WATER QUALITY \nDECLINE\, FLOODING\, EXTREME HEAT\, \nAND REDUCED CHILL HOURS WHICH \nALL COMPOUND TO IMPACT BOTH CROP \nYIELD AND QUALITY. SO\, AGAIN \nOUR DELTA PLAN DOES LAY \nFOUNDATION FOR ADDRESSING \nAGRICULTURE AND NEEDS FOR \nADAPTATION. WE HAVE SEVERAL \nRECOMMENDATIONS FOR STATE \nAGENCIES TO REALLY ADAPTIVELY \nMANAGE AGRICULTURE LANDS AND \nALSO TO PROVIDE HABITAT \nCONDITIONS FOR FEASIBLE NATIVE \nSPECIES. OUR STRATEGIES ARE \nDIVERSE HERE. WE HAVE \nSTRATEGIES RELATED TO \nACKNOWLEDGING THE NEED FOR AN \nEQUITABLE REGIONAL FOOD SYSTEM. \nSO THIS INCLUDES THINGS LIKE \nLABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT \nFOR FARMS. WE HAVE QUITE A FEW \nACTIONS THAT SUPPORT CLIMATE \nSMART FARMING PRACTICES. SO\, \nTHESE ARE ACTIONS SUCH AS \nIRRIGATION\, EFFICIENCY\, BUILDING \nSOIL HEALTH\, PEST MANAGEMENT\, \nOTHER THINGS LIKE THAT\, \nRECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF \nDIVERSIFYING INCOME AND REVENUE \nFOR FARMS. SO\, SUPPORT FOR AGRO \nTOURISM\, CULTURAL OPPORTUNITIES\, \nFUNDING AND ENVIRONMENTAL \nCREDITS\, LIKE CARBON CREDITS AND \nTHEN WILDLIFE FRIENDLY FARMING. \nAND THEN WHERE FEASIBLE IDENTIFY \nWHERE LAND MIGHT NEED TO BE \nRETIRED OF THERE ARE OTHER USES \nTHAT WOULD BE OF HIGH VALUE. \nNEXT SLIDE. \nSO\, THIS IS OUR LAST. FOCUS \nAREA\, WATER SUPPLY\, \nRELIABILITY. \nTHE DELTA WATERSHED PROVIDES A \nPORTION OF WATER SUPPLY FOR \nAPPROXIMATELY 27 MILLION \nCALIFORNIANS. AND WE KNOW FROM \nCLIMATE CHANGE FROM OUR PHASE \nONE THAT OUR WATER SUPPLY WILL \nLIKELY DECREASE WITH DEMAND AND \nINCREASED — SORRY — WITH\, AS \nDEMAND INCREASES\, AND WE \nEXPERIENCE MORE VARIABLE PE \nSIPTATION AND DECREASED SNOWPACK \nAS JEFF ALREADY MENTIONED\, OUR \nINFRASTRUCTURE WILL ALSO BE AT \nRISK TO SEVERAL CLIMATE \nIMPACTS. \nSO\, AGAIN\, THE STRATEGIES HERE \nREALLY GO BEYOND THE \nFOUNDATIONAL POLICIES IN THE \nDELTA PLAN WHICH DOES REQUIRE \nSUPPLIERS TO REDUCE RELIANCE ON \nTHE DELTA. AND OUR STRATEGIES\, \nWE HAVE FIVE STRATEGIES. AND \nTHE FIRST IS REDUCING RELIANCE \nON THE DELTA. SO THERE ARE \nSEVERAL ACTIONS HERE\, SUCH AS \nFUNDING PROJECTS THAT REALLY \nPROMOTE URBAN AND AGRICULTURAL \nWATER CONSERVATION\, OR RECYCLED \nWATER. WE HAVE A STRATEGY \nRELATED TO INCREASING LOCAL \nSTORAGE OF SURFACE AND \nGROUNDWATER SUPPLIES\, BOTH NORTH \nAND SOUTH OF THE DELTA. A \nSTRATEGY RELATED TO MODIFYING \nRESERVOIR OPERATIONS TO BE \nADAPTABLE TO CHANGING CLIMATE \nCONTINUES. AND THEN\, LASTLY\, A \nSTRATEGY TO REVIEW AND CONSIDER \nMODIFYING WATER QUALITY \nSTANDARDS SO THAT THERE ARE \nOBJECTIVES THAT PROVIDE FOR \nSEVERAL BENEFICIAL USES OF \nWATER\, SUCH AS AGRICULTURAL\, \nFISHING\, RECREATIONAL TRIBAL AND \nOTHER HUMAN BENEFICIAL USES OF \nWATER. SORRY. OUR LAST ONE IS \nTO REALLY IMPROVE OR MODIFY \nINFRASTRUCTURE IN THE DELTA TO \nMINIMIZE IMPACTS OF THROUGH \nDELTA CONVEYANCE. NEXT SLIDE. \nOUR PLAN HAS A GOVERNANCE \nCHAPTER THAT REALLY ADDRESSES \nTHE UNIQUE HISTORY\, CHALLENGES\, \nAND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR \nADAPTATION GOVERNANCE IN THE \nDELTA. AS REALLY GOVERNANCE \nDOES DETERMINE THE PROCESS FOR \nFUNDING\, PLANNING AND \nIMPLEMENTING ALL OF THESE \nACTIVITIES THAT WE’RE TALKING \nABOUT THIS GRAPHIC THAT IS ON \nTHIS SLIDE WAS DEVELOPED BY A \nDELTA SCIENCE FELLOW\, TARA \nPOSEY\, AND UC DAVIS PH.D. \nCANDIDATE WHO IS DOING NETWORK \nMAPPING TO UNDERSTAND HOW \nCLIMATE COLLABORATIVES ARE \nCONNECTED AND JUST TO SHOW OUR \nPROJECT CONNECT MAPS AND \nUNDERSTANDING HOW CLIMATE \nCOLLABORATIVE ARE CONNECTED AND \nSHOWS IN OUR PROJECT COMPARATIVE \nEFFECTIVENESS IN THE REGION. \nTHIS IS JUST AS IMPORTANT \nWORKING TO HAVE PROCEDURAL \nJUSTICE\, ACROSS DECISIONS TO \nPRESENT COMMUNITIES THAT WE \nSERVE WE INCLUDE PRACTICES \nPARTICIPATORY GOVERNANCE \nADAPTADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT WE HAVE \nWORKING DOUBLE ON CONDITIONAL \nKNOWLEDGE THAT CAN HAVE A BETTER \nROLE IN DECISION-MAKING. JUST \nTO WRAP UP\, WE WANTED TO SHARE A \nLITTLE BIT ABOUT OUR ROLE MOVING \nFORWARD ALREADY TOUCHED ON THESE \nCOMPONENTS WHAT’S IMPORTANT FOR \nUS IS CONTINUE TO ADVANCE \nREPRESENTAL JUSTICE ADAPTATION \nDECISIONS THROUGH INCREASED \nCOMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS AND \nRELATIONSHIPS\, TO CONTINUE TO \nUSE RESOURCES WITH OUR PARTNERS \nTO AMPLIFY BETTER \nCOMMUNICATIONS. WE HAVE A \nSCIENCE PROGRAM THAT FUND A LOT \nOF RESEARCH IN THE REGION \nWORKING CLOSELY WITH THEM TO \nADDRESS A LOT OF THE RESEARCH \nGAPS THAT CAME OUT OF THESE \nCONVERSATIONS. I TOUCHED ON THE \nTRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE WORK AND \nTHEN REALLY THINKING ABOUT HOW \nTO FUND ALL OF THIS. IF THIS IS \nAN AREA WHERE WE REALLY LEARN \nAND TO COLLABORATE WITH THE \nPLANNING STAFF IS JUST THINKING \nABOUT REGIONAL FUNDING FOR \nADAPTING A AND LASTLY WORKING \nTHROUGH EXISTING REGULATORY \nAUTHORITY FOR OUR COVERED ACTION \nAUTHORITY\, JUST CONTINUING TO \nPROMOTE LAND USES THAT ENHANCE \nDELTA RESILIENCE HALTING REVERSE \nSUBSIDENCE AND REDUCE RISK \nOVERALL. \nNEXT SLIDE. THAT’S ALL FOR ME. \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HAVING \nUS HERE. AS WE’RE GETTING VERY \nCLOSE TO HAVING A DRAFT OUT FOR \nPUBLIC REVIEW. WE APPRECIATE \nYOUR TIME FOR LETTING \nUS PRESENT TODAY. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU\, MORGAN. BEFORE WE \nGET TO QUESTIONS FROM \nCOMMISSIONERS. DO WE HAVE ANY \nPUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING THIS \nAGENDA ITEM? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NONE \nIN-PERSON. AND NO HANDS \nRAISED. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nOKAY. SO\, THANK YOU\, CORY\, \nJEFF\, AND MORGAN FOR THAT VERY \nIN-DEPTH PRESENTATION. AND I’M \nGOING TO LOOK — OR SIERRA IS \nGOING LOOK FOR ME TO TELL ME IF \nTHERE ARE ANY COMMISSIONERS THAT \nWANT TO ASK QUESTIONS OR COMMENT \nON YOUR PRESENTATION. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NO \nHANDS RAISED VIRTUALLY. BUT YOU \nDO HAVE COMMISSIONER ECKLUND \nHERE IN-PERSON. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nOKAY. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: THANK YOU VERY \nMUCH FOR ALLOWING HE TO ASK AND \nQUESTIONS. YOU HAVE COME A LONG \nWAYS\, OBVIOUSLY\, IN ADDRESSING A \nLOT OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE \nCONFRONTING THE DELTA. A COUPLE \nOF TECHNICAL QUESTIONS. HAS THE \nRATE OF SUBSIDENCE INCREASED \nOVER TIME? \nOR DO WE KNOW? \n>>MORGAN CHAU: I DON’T ACTUALLY \nKNOW THE DETAILS OF THE RATE OF \nSUBSIDENCE. I THINK IT \nMIGHT — \nYEAH IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE \nWHOLE DELTA\, IT MIGHT \nINTERESTING\, IS A LOT ACTIVE \nWORK TO ADDRESS THOSE EXPOSED \nPEAT SOILS. WE CAN GET BACK TO \nYOU. \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: GO AHEAD. \n>>SPEAKER: I WAS GOING TO SAY \nFOR MOST OF THE DELTA\, THE \nPEAT SOIL IS SO DEEP SO \nTHAT ANYWHERE THERE IS \nTRADITIONAL LAND MANAGEMENT IT’S \nKIND OF SUBSIDING AT A FAIRLY \nCONSISTENT RATE THROUGH THE TIME \nTHERE ARE CERTAIN LOCATIONS TO \nDO SUBSIDENCE HALTING OR EVEN \nSUBSIDENCE REVERSE ACTIVITIES I \nKNOW THOSE ARE ENCOURAGED IN THE \nDELTA\, AN EXAMPLE\, \nWETLANDS\, AND CARBON \nSEQUESTRATION AT THOSE SITES\, \nTHEY HAVE USED ICE TO MANAGE \nSUBSIDENCE. IT’S A MAJOR TOPIC \nBUT IT HASN’T BEEN VERY — \nAT THIS POINT IT’S ALL \nUNIVERSALLY TAKEN AS LAND \nMANAGEMENT IN THE REGION BUT I \nKNOW THERE IS A LOT OF EFFORT TO \nPROMOTE IT MORE. \n>>CORY COPELAND: >>PAT \nECKLUND: \nSO THE RATE MAY HAVE SLOWED DOWN \nIN SOME AREAS BECAUSE OF THE \nREVERSAL THAT PEOPLE ARE WORKING \nSO HARD TO TRY TO EMBRACE\, \nCORRECT? \n>>CORY COPELAND: YEAH\, THOUGH\, \nI WILL SAY THOSE ARE RELATIVELY \nLIMITED. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: LIMITED? \n>>CORY COPELAND: — PROJECTS. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: YEAH. I THINK \nTHE RATE OF SUBSIDENCE\, FROM \nWHAT I KNEW YEARS AGO\, WAS \nINCREASING QUITE A BIT. AND \nTHERE WAS A LOT OF EFFORT TO TRY \nTO REDUCE IT. BUT I KNOW THAT \nTHAT’S STILL A MAJOR ISSUE. THE \nCOMMENT WAS MADE ABOUT FLOOD \nINSURANCE. FLOOD INSURANCE\, I \nKNOW\, IS REALLY SUPER EXPENSIVE\, \nA LOT OF FOLKS THAT I KNOW IN \nTHE DELTA THAT MANAGE A LOT OF \nTHOSE ISLANDS\, OR WHATEVER\, THEY \nMAY NOT NECESSARILY HAVE THE \nFUNDS. IS THERE ANY FINANCIAL \nSUPPORT FROM THE FEDERAL OR \nSTATE GOVERNMENT TO HELP \nSUBSIDIZE THE COST OF THAT \nINSURANCE FOR THEM? ESPECIALLY \nIF THEY’RE DOING MORE PUBLIC \nWORK OR WHATEVER ON THEIR LAND \nMANAGEMENT. ANY OPPORTUNITY FOR \nFINANCIAL ASSISTANCE ON THAT? \nIT’S A POOR REGION. \n>>MORGAN CHAU: YEAH. THAT’S A \nREALLY GOOD QUESTION AND POINT. \nAND I WILL — SO\, WE KNOW — I \nTHINK IT’S A LITTLE BIT AROUND \n20% OF RESIDENTS HAVE FLOOD \nINSURANCE. SO IT IS REALLY \nLOW. \nAND IT’S EXPENSIVE. WE TRACK \nFEMA’S PROGRAMS. I KNOW FEMA \nDOES HAVE THE COMMUNITY RATING \nSYSTEM. SO THAT’S AT A \nCOMMUNITY SCALE. YOU CAN \nUNDERGO A LOT OF DIFFERENT \nACTIVITIES TO GET LOWER RATES. \nI DON’T KNOW ABOUT A LOT OF \nOTHER PROGRAMS AT THE FEDERAL \nLEVEL. BUT WE ARE ALSO — WE \nARE ALSO TRACKING SOME OTHER \nSMALLER SCALE EFFORTS TO GET \nCOMMUNITIES MORE PROTECTED. \nKATHY SHAFER\, WHO I THINK SHE IS \nA POST DOC\, MAY BE A PH.D. AT \nUC DAVIS\, DOES A LOT OF RESEARCH \nRELATED TO FLOOD INSURANCE AND\, \nLIKE\, FLOOD PREPAREDNESS IN THE \nDELTA\, AND SHE HAS BEEN WORKING \nWITH THE COMMUNITY ISLETON THEY \nCREATED A GEOLOGIC HAZARD \nABATEMENT DISTRICT WHICH IS A \nWAY YOU CAN ACCESS MORE FUNDS TO \nHELP WITH PREPAREDNESS SO IT’S \nNOT JUST INSURANCE BUT INSURANCE \nCOULD BE A COMPONENT OF THAT. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: ARE THERE \nRESTORATION OF THE LEVEES ACTIVE \nEFFORTS TO HELP STRENGTHEN AND \nRESTORE THOSE LEVEES AS THERE \nWAS IN THE PAST? OR HAS IT \nDIMINISHED? \n>>MORGAN CHAU: I’LL LET JEFF \n>>JEFF HENDERSON: THERE ARE \nONGOING EFFORTS THAT CONTINUE\, \nTHE STATE IS CONTINUING TO FUND \nWHAT’S KNOWN AS THIS SUBVENTIONS \nPROGRAM THAT PROVIDES MECHANISM \nFOR MAINTENANCE AND \nREHABILITATION OF THE LEVEES. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: THAT’S GREAT. \nI’M GLAD TO HEAR THAT. \nTHE CANAL S THERE AN EFFORT TO \nLIMIT THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT \nGOES DOWN THE CANCEL TO SOUTHERN \nCALIFORNIA? SORE IS THAT \nSOMETHING THAT’S PRETTY MUCH SET \nIN STONE? OR DO YOU KNOW? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: WHO \nWANTS TO TAKE THAT QUESTION? \n>>CORY COPELAND: WELL\, DO YOU \nWANT ME TO HOP IN? I SUSPECT \nTHEY DON’T WANT TO COMMENT ON IT \nBECAUSE IT’S LIKELY TO COME \nTHROUGH THERE OFFICE AS \n>>JEFF HENDERSON: CORY\, GO \nAHEAD. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: I IMAGINE IT’S A \nCONFLICTING QUESTION. \n>>CORY COPELAND: THE CANAL IS \nNOW THE DELTA BAY PROJECT BEING \nPROPOSED BY DWR AND AS I \nUNDERSTAND IT IS AROUND \nENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RIGHT NOW. \nI SUSPECT AT SOME POINT THAT \nWILL GO BEFORE THE STEWARDSHIP \nCOUNCIL TO BE REVIEWED. AT THIS \nPOINT IT’S TO BE REVIEWED \nPHASE. \nSOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE \nOPERATIONS ARE\, LIKE\, HOW MUCH \nWATER WOULD BE YIELD — I DON’T \nTHINK WE CAN COMMENT — \n>>PAT ECKLUND: PROBABLY SHOWS \nMY AGE. THANK YOU FOR \nADDRESSING THAT. MY LAST \nQUESTION YOU TALK ABOUT THE \nCHANGE OF LAND USE\, I KNOW THAT \nGIVEN MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE IN \nTHE DELTA IS THAT THERE IS A LOT \nOF FAMILIES THAT\, YOU KNOW\, SORT \nOF\, PASS ON THE PROPERTY DOWN \nTHROUGH THE DIFFERENT \nGENERATIONS. HOW IS THAT BEING \nENCOURAGED? IS INCENTIVES OF \nBUYING THEIR PROPERTY ONE OF THE \nISSUES? OR YOU HAVE REALLY \nIDENTIFIED OTHER MECHANISMS \nWHERE YOU CAN REALLY ENCOURAGE \nTHE — CHANGING THE USE WHICH IS \nGOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR A \nLOT OF HOMEOWNER — LANDOWNERS? \n>>MORGAN CHAU: YEAH I CAN START \nMAYBE JEFF AND CORY CAN ADD. \nTHE DELTA’S AN INTERESTING PLACE \nESPECIALLY COMPARED TO THE BAY\, \nWHICH IS URBAN. PRIMARILY THE \nDELTA HAS A LOT OF STRONG \nDEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS A LOT \nOF THE LAND USE CHANGES THAT WE \nEXPLORE FOR DELTA ADAPTS IS \nLOOKING AT WHERE THERE IS \nPOTENTIALLY FARMLAND OR \nABANDONED FARMLAND THAT IS NOT \nACTIVE ANYMORE. LIKE YEAH IS \nTHERE LAND USE INCENTIVES FOR IT \nTO BECOME SOMETHING ELSE. SO \nLIKE PEAT SOILS THAT ARE EXPOSED \nAND OXIDIZING\, SUBSIDING\, LIKE \nIS IT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE AN \nOPTION TO WET THAT LAND\, CAN IT \nBE MANAGED\, LIKE\, COULD YOU GROW \nRICE THERE. I THINK THOSE ARE \nSOME OF THE CHANGES THAT HAVE \nBEEN EXPLORED FROM THE \nCONVERSATIONS WE HAD WITH \nFARMERS THROUGHOUT THE DELTA \nEVEN YOU KNOW DIFFERENT PARTS OF \nTHE DELTA HAVE THEIR DIFFERENT \nCHALLENGES\, SPECIFICALLY WITH \nFARMING\, FARMERS — SOME FARMERS \nARE OPEN TO\, YOU KNOW\, EXPLORING \nDIFFERENT LAND USES. IT REALLY \nIS A QUESTION OF FINANCIAL \nFEASIBLE AND SOMETIMES WANTING \nMORE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. WE \nPARTNERED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF \nFOOD AND AGRICULTURE IN THE \nINTERVIEWS THAT WE CONDUCTED \nBECAUSE THEY HAVE A LOT OF THESE \nINCENTIVE PROGRAMS THEY PROVIDE \nTO GROWERS\, TO HELP THEM BE MORE \nFINANCIALLY PROFITABLE. YEAH \nTHAT’S SOME OF THE TOPICS WE \nHAVE EXPLORED. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: GREAT. THANKS. \nI REALLY APPRECIATE THE \nPRESENTATION\, AND REALLY \nAPPRECIATE WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN \nABLE TO DO IN THE DELTA P THE \nDELTA\, FOR PEOPLE WHO DO NOT \nKNOW\, THE DELTA IS A VERY \nSPECIAL PLACE. AND\, REALLY \nENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO GET TO KNOW \nIT. BECAUSE IT DOES DEFINITELY \nHAS A TREMENDOUS IMPACT ON THE \nWHOLE SAN FRANCISCO BAY. AND\, \nSO\, JUST REALLY WANT TO \nCOMPLIMENT EVERYBODY WHO HAS \nBEEN INVOLVED IN THIS. AND MY \nHAT’S OFF TO ACCOMPLISHMENTS \nTHAT YOU HAVE BEEN ABLE TO \nMAKE. \nTHANK YOU. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: CHAIR EISEN\, \nCAN I ASK A QUESTION? THIS IS \nLARRY. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: OF \nCOURSE. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: MORGAN AND \nJEFF GREAT TO SEE YOU\, OF \nCOURSE. THE PROGRESS YOU ALL \nHAVE MADE ON DELTA ADAPT IS \nMARVELOUS. WE ALL LOOK AT IT \nFROM THE WEST SIDE AND YOU’RE \nFROM THE EAST SIDE\, AND \nTHANKFULLY BETWEEN\, WE HAVE \nGRAPPLED WITH OVER THE LAST \nCOUPLE OF YEARS HOW YOU TAKE THE \nSTRATEGY AND START GETTING \nTRACTION ON THE GROUND. WE HAVE \nBAY ADAPT AND WE NOW HAVE THIS \nTHING CALLED SB272 WHICH REALLY \nGIVES US A REAL PUSH TO ENSURE \nWHAT BAY ADAPT DOES REALLY HAS \nSOME REAL MAJOR IMPACT AND CAN \nGET TRACTION. HOW HAVE YOU ALL \nSTARTED LOOKING AT IMPLEMENTING \nTHIS AND WORKING THROUGH THE \nPROCESS OF HAVING TO WORK WITH \nTHE HEAVY WEIGHTS LIKE DWR AND \nFOOD AND AG\, AS WELL AS THE \nINCREDIBLY WELL ENTRENCHED AND \nWELL MEANING FOLKS WHO HAVE \nOWNED LAND IN THE DELTA SINCE\, \nYOU KNOW\, THE MID-1800’S\, FOR \nHEAVEN’S SAKE\, AND THE LIKE. I \nMEAN\, THE NUMBER OF INTERESTS \nTHAT YOU ALL HAVE TO DEAL WITH \nIS CERTAINLY AT LEAVE THE AS \nLONG AS OURS. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHAT’S A BIG QUESTION\, \n>>JEFF HENDERSON: YEAH. I’M \nSTILL THINKING. NO. THANK YOU\, \nLARRY. WE’RE JUST AT THE \nINITIAL STAGES OF BEGINNING TO \nTHINK ABOUT IMPLEMENTATION\, AND \nARE ACTUALLY LOOKING TO LEARN AS \nMUCH AS POSSIBLE FROM THE \nPATHWAYS THAT YOU ALL HAVE \nCHARTED. I THINK ONE OF THE \nOTHER CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE \nHAVE DISCUSSED IS REALLY \nENLISTING THE DELTA PLAN \nINTER-AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION \nCOMMITTEE OR DPIIC WHICH IS \nESSENTIALLY A COMMITTEE FORMED \nAND LARRY SITS ON THIS \nCOMMITTEE\, ON BEHALF OF BCDC\, AS \nWELL. IT’S A COMMITTEE FORMED \nAT THE AGENCIES THAT ARE CHARGED \nIN THE DELTA PLAN WITH VARIOUS \nDIFFERENT RESPONSIBILITIES FOR \nIMPLEMENTATION. AND WE’RE \nREALLY LOOKING TO USE THE DPIIC \nAS A PLACE TO BRING AND OF THESE \nRECOMMENDATIONS AND START \nUNPACKING THEM. AND LOOKING TO \nWORK WITH ALL THE INDIVIDUAL \nAGENCIES TO IDENTIFY WHAT \nRESOURCES THEY MAY BE ABLE TO \nBRING TO THE TABLE\, WHAT LESSONS \nLEARNED THAT THEY HAVE FROM \nVARIOUS DIFFERENT EXPERIENCES\, \nAND REALLY TO USE THAT AS A \nPLACE TO CONSOLIDATE THE \nIMPLEMENTATION OF DELTA ADAPT. \nTHAT’S SOME OF OUR EARLY \nTHINKING\, IN COMBINATION WITH\, \nTHEN\, MOVING TOWARD A BIT MORE \nOF A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING \nSTRUCTURE THAT REALLY HELPS TO \nSOLIDIFY THE ROLES AND \nRESPONSIBILITIES OF THE VARIOUS \nAGENCIES\, AS THEY RELATE TO THE \nSPECIFIC STRATEGIES. MORGAN\, IS \nTHERE MORE YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD \nTO THAT? \n>>MORGAN CHAU: NO. YEAH. I \nTHINK OUR REGULAR CHECK-INS WITH \nBCDC\, SINCE WE’RE DOING SIMILAR \nN A LOT OF WAYS\, ADAPTING A WORK \nWE’RE OPERATING WITH DIFFERENT \nACTORS AND DIFFERENT SETTINGS \nBUT WE CAN LEARN A LOT FROM EACH \nOTHER\, JUST I THINK THE OTHER \nTHING ABOUT THE DELTA WE HAVE \nIDEAS FOR THE \nMOU STRUCTURE AT THE DPIIC LEVEL \nBUT ALSO THERE ARE THINGS LIKE \nISLETON MODEL FOR FLOOD RISK AND \nPREPAREDNESS THAT CANNOT BE DONE \nYOU KNOW AROUND ISLETON IDEAS \nTHAT CORE MENTIONED SHERMAN I \nLAND EXPERIMENTS AND \nEXPERIENCE AROUND SOMETHING \nLIKE THAT WE REPLICATE THINGS \nTHAT ARE ALREADY HAPPENING IN \nOTHER LEVEL AS YOU KNOW AT THE \nHIGHER LEVEL. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \n>>SPEAKER: WANTED TO FOLLOW UP \nON A COMMENT THAT I APPRECIATED \nI ONE OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN \nTHE BAY A COUPLE OF WAYS THAT \nARE CLEAR TO ME WITH DELTA \nPLANNING AND DIFFERENT \nADAPTATION IN THE BAY PLAN THE \nTWO ARE DIFFERENT FIRST IS THE \nDELTA IS A DIFFERENT WATER \nSUPPLY SOURCE FROM OTHER PARTS \nOF THE STATE THAT MEANS THAT \nWATER CONSERVATION IN SAN DIEGO \nCAN BE CONSIDERED PART OF A \nDELTA ADAPTATION STRATEGY. \nTHAT’S NOT EASY. IT’S ALSO TRUE \nTHAT THE FLOOD RISK IN THE DELTA \nIS DRIVEN TO A SUBSTANTIAL PART \nBY FLOOD COMING IN FROM AND \nWATER MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES\, \nUPSTREAM FROM THE DELTA. THE SO \nFLOOD MANAGEMENT UPSTREAM FROM \nTHE DELTA IS AN IMPORTANT PART \nOF PROTECTING COMMUNITIES LIKE \nSTOCKTON. I WANT TO ASK HOW \nYOU’RE THINKING ABOUT THOSE \nBOUNDARY CHALLENGES. ON THE ONE \nHAND ARE YOU INCLUDING UPSTREAM \nFLOOD MANAGEMENT MULTI-BENEFIT \nPROJECTS UPSTREAM AS A FLOOD \nADAPTATION STRATEGY IN THE DELTA \nAND TO WHAT EXTENT ARE YOU GOING \nTO BE FOCUSING ON THE PHYSICAL \nSAFETY OF THE DELTA\, DELTA \nAGRICULTURE AND SO FORTH \nCOMPARED TO WATER MANAGEMENT \nBENEFITS WHERE THE DELTA COUNCIL \nMAY HAVE A HARD TIME MOVING THE \nNEEDLE? IT’S A DIFFERENT \nPICTURE AND MORE COMPLICATED IN \nSOME WAYS THAN THE WORK WE’RE \nDOING IN THE BAY. \nMORTGAGE. \n>>SPEAKER: GOOD POINT \nESPECIALLY FOR FLOOD RISK \nREDUCTION PROPOSED STRATEGIES \nAND AROUND WATER SUPPLY \nRELIABILITY A LOT OF WHAT NEEDS \nTO HAPPEN IN THE DELTA TOUCH ON \nYOU KNOW UPSTREAM DON STREAM \nACTIVITIES IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY \nHEALTH SAFETY AND WELL-BEING \nTHAT’S A LITTLE BIT FOCUSED TO \nCOMMUNITIES THAT LIVE WITHIN OR \nADJACENT TO OUR DELTA BOUNDARIES \nYOU MAKE A GOOD POINT AND IT’S \nINCLUDED IN OUR STRATEGIES. \nRIGHT NOW THE DRAFT PLAN IT DOES \nIN SOME WAYS LOOK LIKE IT \nMASSIVE MENU OF STRATEGIES. WE \nHAVE DONE SOME — INITIAL \nPRIORITIZATION IN TERMS OF\, LIKE \nI SAID\, LIKE WHAT WE REALLY FEEL \nNEEDS TO HAPPEN FIRST\, WHAT \nCOULD HAPPEN WITH EXISTING FUNDS \nTHEN THERE IS ALSO THAT FILTER \nWHERE IT COMES IN AND GOES WELL \nWHEN’S FEASIBLE WITHIN OUR \nCONTROL WHAT CAN WE LEAD WHAT \nARE OUR PARTNERS WILLING TO \nLEAD\, WHAT ARE WE TRACKING THAT \nIS ALREADY KIND OF HAPPENING BUT \nWE WANT TO HAPPEN MORE. SO\, I \nTHINK THERE IS A LOT OF \nDIFFERENT LEVELS AT WHICH WE CAN \nENGAGE ESPECIALLY WHEN WE \nTALKING ABOUT STRATEGIES OUTSIDE \nOF THE DELTA. BUT\, YEAH\, SO \nIT’S CHALLENGING IT MAKE GOOD \nPOINT AND WE’RE TRYING TO THINK \nABOUT IT TO THE BEST OF OUR \nABILITIES. JEFF DID YOU WANT TO \nADD? \n>>JEFF HENDERSON: COMMISSIONER \nNELSON\, YOUR QUESTION ABOUT \nBOUNDARY ISSUES MADE ME — AS DO \nA NUMBER OF THINGS\, REMINDED ME \nTHAT THE DELTA STEWARDSHIP \nCOUNCIL IS ACTUALLY A STATEWIDE \nAGENCY THAT REPRESENTS STATEWIDE \nINTERESTS AS THEY PERTAIN TO THE \nDELTA. SO\, YES\, WE DO NEED TO \nBE CONSIDERING THINGS LIKE WATER \nCONSERVATION IN SAN DIEGO\, AND \nHOW THAT AFFECTS\, IN TURN\, THE \nAMOUNT OF WATER PUMPED THROUGH \nTHE DELTA\, AND IN TURN\, THE \nAMOUNT OF WATER STORED IN A \nRESERVOIR UPSTREAM. SO\, THESE \nARE THINGS THAT WE ARE VERY \nAWARE OF. I THINK\, DELTA \nADAPT ITSELF DOES PAY A \nCONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF ATTENTION \nTO THE DELTA ITSELF\, AND IF WE \nHAD ONE OF OUR OWN \nSELF-CRITIQUES OF THE WEEK IS \nPROBABLY THAT IT DOESN’T DO AS \nMUCH AS IT COULD TO ADDRESS SOME \nOF THE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE \nHAPPENING OUTSIDE OF DELTA TO \nAFFECT THE HEALTH IN THE DELTA. \nI DO\, THOUGH\, UNDERSTAND THAT \nTHE STRATEGIES\, AS MORGAN \nMENTIONED\, THE STRATEGIES\, WHERE \nPOSSIBLE\, DO RECOMMEND \nACTIVITIES THAT OCCUR UPSTREAM \nOR DOWNSTREAM FROM THE DELTA\, \nTHAT ARE NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE \nCLIMATE BENEFITS THAT WE’RE \nSEEKING IN THE DELTA. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: \n>>SPEAKER: JUST ONE LAST \nTHOUGHT GIVEN THE BREADTH OF \nADAPTATION ACTIONS THAT ARE \nRELEVANT TO THE DELTA IT’S GOING \nTO BE IMPORTANT FOR THE CAN ONLY \nTO THINK THROUGH THE AREAS WHERE \nYOU FOLKS REALLY ARE GOING TO \nDRIVE THE DEBATE FORWARD AND \nREALLY MOVE THE NEEDLE THAT \nYOU’RE GOING TO HAVE A REALLY \nBIG BROAD ADAPTATION LIST. \nOR QUESTIONS REGARDING THE \nDELTA ADAPT PRESENTATION? ALL \nRIGHT. \nTHANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO HELPED \nME GET THROUGH THIS ALMOST \nENTIRELY VIRTUAL PRESENTATION. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: AND \nCOMMISSION MEETING. WE ONE \nOTHER ITEM. AND THAT IS \nADJOURNMENT. DO I HAVE A MOTION \nTO ADJOURN? BARRY\, THANK YOU. \n\n\n \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs 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. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant 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. \nIf 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. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf 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. \nCampaign Contributions\nState 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. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings 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.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/june-20-2024-commission-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240606T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240606T170000
DTSTAMP:20240917T220500Z
CREATED:20240119T035417Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240917T220500Z
UID:10000098-1717678800-1717693200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:June 6\, 2024 Commission Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Commissioners are located at the primary physical location and may be located at the teleconference locations specified below\, all of which are publicly accessible. The Zoom video-conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually is also specified below. \nMeeting starting time 1:00 P.M. \nPrimary Physical Meeting Location \nMetro Center375 Beale Street\, Board RoomSan Francisco\, CA 94105415-352-3600 \nTeleconference Locations \n\nRichmond City Council Office: 440 Civic Center Plaza\, Richmond\, CA 94804\n675 Texas St.\, Ste. 6002\, Fairfield\, CA 94533\n890 Osos St.\, Ste. H\, San Luis Obispo\, CA 93401\nDepartment of Transportation: 111 Grand Ave.\, Oakland\, CA 94612\n2379 Sheffield Dr.\, Livermore\, CA 94550\n1084 Clarendon Cres\, Oakland\, CA 94610\n400 County Center\, Redwood City\, CA 94063\n176 E. Blithedale Ave.\, Mill Valley\, CA 94941\nSanta Clara County Government Center: 70 W Hedding St\, 10th Floor\, Clerk’s Conf. Rm.\, San Jose\, CA 95110\n11780 San Pablo Ave.\, Ste. D\, El Cerrito\, CA 94530\nFront Porch at 112 Trellis Dr.\, San Rafael\, CA 94303\n\nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/87214727080?pwd=XpHUp0iSwZMfdyPKA6OaiUhlJcg9Ew.L5fNYRJW34IrS-62 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID872 1472 7080 \nPasscode506054 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic 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]Public comment\nApproval of Minutes for May 16\, 2024 Meeting(Sierra Peterson) [415/352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nCommission Consideration and Possible Vote on Authorization of Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan Technical and Policy Assistance Program Development ContractThe Commission will consider and possibly vote on authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a $200\,000 contract to provide a Technical and Policy Assistance work plan and resource toolkit for local governments as they develop rising sea level adaptation plans in compliance with SB 272.(Dana Brechwald) [415/352-3656; dana.brechwald@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nCommission Strategic Plan Progress ReportSenior Staff will present an update on the progress associated with the Commission’s 2023-2025 Strategic Plan.(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3653; larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nBriefing on Misson-Based ReviewThe Commission will hear a briefing from Department of Finance staff on the outcomes of a Mission-Based Review it conducted of BCDC’s permitting program\, at the request of BCDC. Staff will also discuss how the results of the review will feed into strategies for improving the permitting program.(Ethan Lavine) [415/352-3648; ethan.lavine@bcdc.ca.gov]Staff presentation // Presentation\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				This report lists the administrative permit applications that have been filed and are pending with the Commission. The Executive Director will take the action indicated on the matters unless the Commission determines that it is necessary to hold a public hearing. The staff members to whom the matters have been assigned are indicated at the end of the project descriptions. Inquiries should be directed to the assigned staff member prior to the Commission meeting. \nAdministrative Permit Applications \nThe following administrative permit applications have been filed and are presently pending with the Commission. The Executive Director will take the action indicated on the matters unless the Commission determines that it is necessary to hold a public hearing. \n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nEast Bay Regional Parks District2950 Peralta Oaks CourtOakland\, CA 94605 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2019.001.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\nMay 24\, 2024\n\n\n90th Day\nAugust 22\, 2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nIn the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot shoreline band jurisdictions\, from Point Molate to past Castro Point (north of the east span of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge)\, in the City of Richmond\, Contra Costa County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nConduct the following activities to construct a segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail: \n\nIn the Bay:Repair revetment by placing 67 cubic yards of riprap along 191 linear feet of shoreline as part of the repairs to the Northern Revetment Area.\nWithin the 100-foot Shoreline Band:\n\n\n\nPrepare the site by removing and regrading areas where asphalt\, concrete pad and platforms\, vegetation (including invasive species) currently exist within the Bay Trail alignment.\nRepair revetment by placing 768 cubic yards of riprap along the Revetment Areas. Where the trail is at-grade\, the repairs will consist of placing rock slope protection fabric\, riprap and earthen backfill\, and an erosion control blanket with hydroseed.\nReplace a damaged 18- by 41-foot-long corrugated metal pipe culvert with a 9-foot-wide\, 85-foot-long channel containing a 4-foot-wide\, 12-inch-deep rock-lined\, low-flow channel and 2.5 feet of gravel on either side\, totaling approximately 34 total cubic yards of new riprap. This work will include restoring and revegetating the area with native riparian species to create 0.017 acres of new ephemeral stream habitat.\nReplace an existing dilapidated wooden staircase to the beach with a concrete beach access ramp\, reinforced with 59 cubic yards of new riprap.\nConstruct\, use\, and maintain a new 2.5-mile-long Bay Trail segment.\nInstall 385 linear feet of 6- to 8-foot-high chain link fencing and 4\,714 linear feet of 3.5-foot-high wooden fencing at various locations along the trail to ensure user and habitat safety as well as prevent unauthorized access to restricted access areas.\nInstall 6-foot-tall manually operated chain-link gates at both ends of the trail segments\, two benches\, and wayfinding and coastal access signage.\nConstruct\, use\, and maintain in-kind ADA access from the Point Molate Beach Park parking lot to and from the Bay Trail.\n\n\n\nAt the time of this listing\, East Bay Regional Parks District and the City of Richmond (co-applicant) are still finalizing easement agreements with the underlying property owners for the Bay Trail extension and has provided a letter demonstrating the property owners’ intent to execute the agreements. Permit conditions will include a requirement to submit copies of the final executed easements to BCDC prior to commencing work. \n\n\n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Pierce Abrahamson; 415/352-3607 or pierce.abrahamson@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nSeecon Financial and Construction Company\, Inc.4021 Port Chicago HighwayConcord\, CA 94520 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2024.007.00md \n\n\n\nFiled\nApril 19\, 2024\n\n\n90th Day\nJuly 18\, 2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Primary Management area of the Suisun Marsh\, at Duck Club 122\, in Solano County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nRegrade two duck club ponds on the interior of a managed wetland by removing an 18\,000 cubic foot interior levee and placing the fill material in an adjacent pond\, to join two ponds. The project will increase the area of the managed pond habitat and will not involve any permanent or temporary impacts to tidal sloughs or marshes outside of the managed pond. \n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Rowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\nRegionwide Permits \nThe Executive Director has issued the following regionwide permits since the last listing. \n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nBallena Bay Townhouse Associationc/o Common Interest Management315 Diablo Road\, Suite 221Danville\, CA 94526 \n\n\nRegionwide Permit No. NOI2023.011.00-RWP-3 \n\n\n\nLocation\n\nIn the Bay\, at 80 townhomes located at 1201-1237 Ballena Boulevard\, 300-354 Tideway Drive\, and 401-465 Cola Ballena\, in the City of Alameda\, Alameda County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nReplace 40 sets of sets and landings\, including the following activities: \n\nTemporarily install access scaffolding;\nTemporarily detach and store 40 existing ramps by securing them to the top of the existing docks;\nRemove existing stairs and landings and install new wooden stairs and landings with stainless steel handrails and mounting hardware within the same footprint;\nRe-install the existing ramps; and\nRemove the access scaffolding.Contact: Katharine Pan; 415/352-3650 or katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov\n\n\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\nCity of Alameda Public Works Department950 W. Mall SquareAlameda\, CA 94501\n\nRegionwide Permit No. NOI2023.018.00-RWP-5 \n\n\n\nLocation\nWithin the Commission’s 100-foot shoreline band\, at 1250 and 1300 Eastshore Drive\, in the City of Alameda\, Alameda County.\n\n\nDescription\n\nRepair a sinkhole\, including the following activities: \n\nRemove an existing 6-foot-high\, 10-foot-wide fence and install a new 6-foot-high\, 10-foot-wide double gate;\nFill a 15-foot-wide\, 7-foot-deep sinkhole with 100 square feet of controlled low strength material (flowable fill); and\nConstruct a 9-foot-wide\, 6-foot-high\, 3- to 4.5-foot-deep gabion wall.\n\nContact: (Katharine Pan; 415/352-3650 or katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nCity of San Mateo330 West 20th AvenueSan Mateo\, CA 94403 \n\n\nRegionwide Permit No. NOI2023.019.00-RWP-2 \n\n\n\nLocation\n\nIn the Bay\, near the San Mateo Bridge\, at 37°34’53.20”N\, 122°15’18.32”W. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nRepair an existing 54-inch-diameter outfall pipe by: \n\nRemoving approximately 34 cubic yards of sediment from the final 100 feet section of the pipe; and\nReplacing two broken lifting lugs to restore the stopgate function.Contact: Rowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov\n\n\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nContra Costa Water District1331 Concord AveConcord\, CA 94520 \n\n\nRegionwide Permit No. NOI2023.020.00-RWP-2 \n\n\n\nLocation\n\nNear 5050 Imhoff Road in the City of Martinez\, Contra Costa County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nIn the Bay: \n\nUse Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) to install a 638-linear-foot\, 36-inch-diameter HDPE pipeline and a 656-linear-foot\, 36-inch-diameter HDPE pipeline 60-80 ft below ground surface;\nTemporarily construct eight five-foot-deep and one-foot-diameter monitoring wells that will be removed after project construction\n\nIn the 100-foot Shoreline Band: \n\nUse Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) to install a 233-linear-foot\, 36-inch-diameter HDPE pipeline and a 222-linear-foot\, 36-inch-diameter HDPE pipeline 60-80 ft below the ground surface over a 1\,861 square-foot area\, and three permanent monitoring wells;\nTemporarily use 38\,698 square-feet of upland areas for construction staging and access roads; and\nTemporarily construct up to 15 five-foot-deep\, one-foot-diameter monitoring wells that will be removed after project construction.Contact: Rowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov\n\n\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nGiselle Shepatin and Gregg Doyle31 Sandy Beach RdVallejo\, CA 94950 \n\n\nRegionwide Permit No. NOI2023.022.00-RWP-7 \n\n\n\nLocation\n\n31 Sandy Beach Road\, Vallejo CA 94950. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nIn the Bay: \n\nInstall five 16-inch-diameter concrete pilings and one 12-inch-diameter concrete piling (after-the-fact); and\nReplace one four-inch-by-12-inch redwood beam under an existing pile supported single-family residence (after-the-fact).Contact: Rowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov\n\n\n\n\nEmergency Permits \nThe Executive Director has issued the following emergency permit since the last listing. \n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nCity of Redwood City1017 Middlefield RoadRedwood City\, CA 94063 \n\n\nEmergency Permit No. E2024.002.00 \n\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot shoreline band jurisdictions\, at Redwood Shores community\, in the City of Redwood City\, San Mateo County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nSignificant erosion was reported April 22\, 2024\, and upon inspection\, a cavity was observed to be forming under the pedestrian trail atop the levee. The trail was immediately closed\, and City Public Works crews coordinated with the Engineering Division to investigate the cause. The situation was monitored continuously\, and the pedestrian controls were improved to keep the public safe. Additional investigations found that a previously unknown culvert had been buried under the levee with an inflatable pipe plug. Evidence suggests that the plug had come loose\, allowing tidally influenced flows to scour and erode the adjacent levee banks. The plan is to isolate the repair area with water-filled cofferdams\, dewater as necessary to perform the repair work\, and backfill the eroded section to restore the levee structure. The adjacent levee slopes are vegetated\, and the work area will be restored in-kind. Given the limited access to the site\, there is no estimated timeline for construction at this point. Once the repair plan is finalized\, a complete project description will be prepared for use in the permitting process. The City has already engaged a geotechnical firm to provide design and construction assistance and will be retaining a biological monitor to be onsite during all construction activity. \nContact: Julie Garren; 415/352- 3624 or julie.garren@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Articles about the Bay and BCDC \n\n100+ easements for one flood wall?\nRichmond\, San Rafael bridge limits access to cyclists and pedestrians\nInundation district is a feature-length film about the implications of one city’s decision to ignore the threats posed by climate change and spend billions of dollars on building a new waterfront district — on landfill\, at sea level.\nCartoonist Eddie Ahn draws on community\, environmental justice in new memoir\nThe drowning south where seas are rising at alarming speed\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				\n \n \n\nTranscript\n\nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. AND WELCOME TO OUR HYBRID\, BUT TODAY\, ALMOST FULLY VIRTUAL BCDC COMMISSION MEETING. MY NAME IS REBECCA EISEN\, I AM THE VICE CHAIR OF BCDC\, I AM CHAIRING THIS MEETING BECAUSE CHAIR WASSERMAN IS\, UNFORTUNATELY\, BUT NECESSARILY ABSENT TODAY. I AM GRATEFUL TO SEE COMMISSIONER MOULTON PETERS ON MY SCREEN BECAUSE SHE HAS AGREED TO BE OUR VICE CHAIR TODAY IN THE EVENT WE HAVE AN INTERNET PROBLEM. SO I’M HOPEFUL WILL NOT HAPPEN. OUR FIRST ORDER IS TO CALL THE ROLL AND SIERRA IS GOING TO HELP ME OUT HERE BECAUSE I CAN’T SEE ALL OF YOU ON MY SCREEN AT ONCE SO SHE’S GOING TO LET ME KNOW IF YOUR HAND IS RAISED OR IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK.  FOR NOW\, PLEASE BE SURE YOUR CAMERA IS ON THROUGHOUT THE MEETING\, AND UNMUTE YOURSELF FOR THE ROLL CALL. AND THEN ONCE YOU HAVE RESPONDED\, MUTE YOURSELVES ONCE AGAIN. SIERRA?  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER ADDIEGO?  \nSPEAKER: HERE.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: AMBUEHL?  \nDAVID AMBUEHL: HERE.  AHN?  \nEDDIE AHN: HERE.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: ECKERLY? COMMISSIONER ECKLUND?  \nPAT ECKLUND: PRESENT.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER GILMORE?  \nMARIE GILMORE: HERE.   \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER GIOIA?  \nJOHN GIOIA: HERE.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER GORIN?  \nSUSAN GORIN: PRESENT.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER GUNTHER?  \nANDREW GUNTHER: HERE.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER HASZ?   \nKARL HASZ: HERE.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER JOHN-BAPTISTE?  \nALICIA JOHN BAPTISTE: HERE.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: MOULTON-PETERS?  \nSTEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: HERE.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER NELSON?  \nBARRY NELSON: HERE.   \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER PEMBERTON?  \nSHERI PEMBERTON: HERE.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER SHOWALTER?  \nPATRICIA SHOWALTER: HERE.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER ZEPEDA?  \nCESAR ZEPEDA: HERE.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: HAVE I MISSED ANYONE?   \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: COMMISSIONER EISEN.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: OH\, APOLOGIES\, VICE CHAIR EISEN. [LAUGHTER] I HAVE A TOTAL 16 PRESENT.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A QUORUM PRESENT. SO WE ARE DULY CONSTITUTED TO CONDUCT BUSINESS. NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS IS PUBLIC COMMENT.  IF ANYONE WANTS TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY MATTER ON WHICH THE COMMISSION EITHER HAS NOT YET HELD A PUBLIC HEARING OR IS IN THE ON TODAY’S AGENDA\, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO DO SO. SIERRA\, ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE BUILDING WHO WISH TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT?  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: THERE IS NO ONE PRESENT IN THE BUILDING\, BUT THERE IS A HAND RAISED ONLINE.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ALL RIGHT. YOU MAY CALL ON THEM.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: MR. BRUCE BEYERT.  YOU MAY UNMUTE.  \nSPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON VICE CHAIR EISEN. MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. CAN YOU HEAR ME?  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: YES.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: YES WE CAN.  \nSPEAKER: MY NAME IS BRUCE BEYERT TRACK TRAILS RICHMOND ACTION COMMITTEE I’M HERE TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS YOU ASKED AFTER THE BRIEFING LAST MONTH ON THE RICHMOND SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE PILOT PROGRAM THE QUESTION ASKED ABOUT HOW USAGE OF BAY TRAIL ACROSS RICHMOND SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE COMPARED WITH OTHER BAY AREA BRIDGES.  THE BAY TRAIL TRAVERSES BENICIA STRAITS RICHMOND CENTER FAIR BRIDGE OF COURSE THE BAY BRIDGE EAST SPAN AS WELL AS THE DUMBARTON BRIDGE. UC BERKELEY’S PARTNER FOR ADVANCED TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY IN THE REPORT SAID THE FOLLOWING IN THE MOST RECENT PEAK SEASON BICYCLE TRAFFIC ON THE BRIDGE WAS HIGHEST OF ALL STATE OWNED TOLL PASS INCLUDING SAN FRANCISCO OAKLAND BAY BRIDGE. TO BE — END OF QUOTE — TO BE MORE SPECIFIC\, DURING THE LAST 45 DAYS\, WEEKEND BICYCLE TRIPS ON THE RICHMOND SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE WERE 324 PER DAY\, VERSUS 206 ON THE BAY BRIDGE. ON WEEKDAYS\, BICYCLE TRIPS AVERAGE 132 ACROSS THE RSR BRIDGE\, VERSUS 128 ON THE BAY BRIDGE. PEDESTRIAN USAGE IS VERY LOW ON THE RICHMOND SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE BECAUSE THE PILOT WAS DESIGNED FOR TRANSPORTATION\, THAT IS BICYCLISTS AND NOT FOR RECREATION AND TO BE PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY. FOR EXAMPLE\, THERE ARE NO RESTROOMS ON EITHER END OF THE BRIDGE AND THERE ARE ONLY A HANDFUL OF PARKING SPACES. THIS CONTRASTS DRAMATICALLY WITH THE BAY BRIDGE WHICH HAS A VERY LARGE USER FRIENDLY PARKING AREA WITH RESTROOMS AT THE BRIDGE YARD IN OAKLAND.  OF COURSE\, NONE OF THE STATE OWNED BRIDGES CAN COMPARE WITH THE ICONIC GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE WHICH IS INTERNATIONAL TOURIST DESTINATION AND LITERALLY CRAWLING WITH PEOPLE ON FOOT AND BICYCLE. SO THE BAY BRIDGE IS MOST HEAVILY USED BY BICYCLES OF ALL STATE OWNED BRIDGES. FINALLY CALTRANS LAST MONTH IN APRIL ACTUALLY FILED REQUEST TO EXTEND RICHMOND CENTERVILLE BRIDGE PILOT AND TRACK SUPPORT AND ASK TO BE EXTENDED ADMINISTRATIVELY TO THE END OF 2025 AS THE BAY AREA TOLL AUTHORITY HAS REQUESTED THIS WILL CLEAR THE DECKS THE EXTENSION WILL BE SETTLED AND YOU WILL BE IN GOOD POSITION TO ADDRESS THE PROPOSAL COMING LATER TO SHUT DOWN THE BAY TRAIL RICHMOND SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE FOUR DAYS A WEEK TO PROVIDE FOR BREAK DOWN LANE FOR AUTOMOBILES WHICH OF COURSE I THINK IS A TERRIBLE IDEA. THANK YOU.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: THANK YOU. NO MORE HANDS RAISED.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU.  THAT CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. WE WILL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ABOUT ANY ITEM THAT IS ON OUR AGENDA WHEN WE ARE CONSIDERING THAT ITEM. A FEW THINGS FOR THE CHAIR REPORT\, WE ARE ALMOST ENTIRELY VIRTUAL TODAY BECAUSE OF THE FIRST FLOOR CONSTRUCTION AT THE METRO CENTER. BUT OUR STAFF TELLS US THAT THAT CONSTRUCTION IS ON SCHEDULE. AND IF THAT REMAINS THE CASE\, WE CAN HOPE AND EXPECT THAT WE WILL REGAIN USE OF BOTH THE BOARDROOM AND THE YERBA BUENA ROOM FOR OUR MEETING NEXT MONTH\, WHICH WILL BE ON JULY 18TH\, AS ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS NOTED\, WE WILL NOT HAVE A MEETING ON JULY 4TH. OUR STAFF WILL KEEP US INFORMED REGARDING THE PROGRESS OF THE CONSTRUCTION\, AS THEY START PLANNING FOR THAT MEETING. TODAY IS THE FIRST MEETING WHERE WE WILL CONSIDER A CONSENT CALENDAR.  AND I KNOW MOST OF THE COMMISSIONERS ARE FAMILIAR WITH CONSENT CALENDARS FROM THE VARIOUS BOARDS THEY HAVE SAT ON. IDEALLY\, A CONSENT CALENDAR HELPS US TO CUT THROUGH RED TAPE REGARDING NON-CONTROVERSIAL MATTERS\, AND GIVES US MORE TIME TO ENTERTAIN PUBLIC COMMENT AND TO HAVE OUR DISCUSSIONS AND OUR PRESENTATIONS. SO\, WE’RE GOING TO GIVE IT A TRY AND SEE HOW THAT GOES. WE WILL ASK FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR WHEN WE GET TO IT\, IN A MINUTE\, AND WE WILL ALSO NEED TO TAKE A ROLL YOU CALL VOTE TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE A MAJORITY VOTE APPROVING THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE RISING SEA LEVEL WORKING GROUP IS GOING TO BE MEETING AT THE SAME DAY AT OUR NEXT MEETING\, JULY 18TH\, BUT IN THE MORNING. SO WILL THE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE WORKING GROUP. THOSE MEETINGS ARE GOING TO BE SCHEDULED BACK TO BACK\, SO THAT EVERYBODY CAN ATTEND ALL OF THEM.  AND THEY WILL BE LISTED ON OUR BRAND-NEW WEB SITE’S BRAND-NEW CALENDAR. AND LARRY IS GOING TO TELL US ABOUT THAT WHEN WE GET TO HIS REPORT. FINALLY\, AS I SAID\, OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE JULY 18TH. I DO HOPE THAT EVERYBODY HAS A SAFE AND HAPPY 4TH OF JULY\, IT SOUNDS LIKE PAT HAS WONDERFUL 4TH OF JULY PLANS. AT OUR MEETING ON MAY 18TH\, WE MAY TAKE UP THE FOLLOWING MATTERS\, ONE\, A PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE VOTE ON THE RESTORATION OF CHIPPS C-H-I-P-P-S ISLAND\, WHICH IS IN THE DELTA. A BRIEFING ON THE PROPOSED ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR OUR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORS\, AND\, FINALLY\, AN UPDATE ON THE PROGRESS OF BCDC’S ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS. EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS.  IF A COMMISSIONER HAS INADVERTENTLY FORGOTTEN TO PROVIDE OUR STAFF TO WITH EX PARTE WRITTEN OR ORAL EXPERT COMMUNICATIONS YOU MAY REPORT ON THEM AT THIS POINT BY RAISING YOUR HAND. PLEASE REMEMBER YOUR WRITTEN REPORT SHOULD BE DETAILED ENOUGH FOR THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND THE CONVERSATION’S MAIN TOPICS BUT YOUR ORAL REPORT SHOULD NOT BE LONGER THAN TWO MINUTES. SIERRA IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONER WHO HAS RAISED HIS OR HER HAND?  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NONE IN-PERSON\, OR VIRTUALLY.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: GREAT. THANK YOU. THAT BRINGS US TO OUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT.  LARRY?  \nLARRY GOLDZBAND: THANK YOU CHAIR EISEN. SUMMER TIME AND AS THE GERSHWIN BROTHERS WROTE LIVING IS EASY TODAY IS SUMMER SOLSTICE LONGEST DAY OF THE YEAR IF YOU PLAN TO GO TO THE BEACH THIS WEEKEND JUST REMEMBER IN JULY 1975 JAWS WAS RELEASED WITH STAR WARS BELIEVING RELEASED MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND THREE YEARS LATER THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY WAS FOREVER CHANGED. SUMMER TIME ISN’T JUST A TIME TO HANG OWL WE’RE WORKING HARD IN SHORELINE PLAN GUIDELINES DISCUSSIONS ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AND PERMIT REQUESTS AND BUDGET NEWS AFTER ALL THAT HARD WORK WE’LL BE READY FOR ICE CREAM. THERE IS ONLY ONE STAFFING ANNOUNCEMENT TO BE MADE TODAY. TODAY IS STEVE GOLDBECK’S FINAL STAFF MEETING AS A FULL-TIME PERMANENT STATE EMPLOYEE. STEVE JOINED BCDC AS A VOLUNTEER 38 YEARS AGO AND WAS HIRED A YEAR LATER AS A COASTAL PLANNER.  AMONG HIS MANY ROLES AT BCDC HE WROTE THE COMMISSION’S FIRST WATER QUALITY POLICIES AND A FEW YEARS LATER WAS PRINCIPLE STAFF MEMBER IN CHARGE OF FIRST CREATING AND THEN IMPROVING BCDC’S DREDGING AND SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. INITIATED AND LED THE BENEFICIAL REUSE STUDIES WHICH WAS START OF THE REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IN THE BAY AREA AND ESTABLISHED THE LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT STRATEGY PROGRAM HOW TO MANAGE DREDGE MATERIALS. HE HAD A CENTRAL ROLE IN BCDC’S EFFORTS TO RESTORE SONOMA BAYLANDS AND HAMILTON WETLANDS AND WAS THE MOVER BEHIND CREATING DREDGED MATERIALS MANAGEMENT OFFICE\, FIRST MULTI-AGENCY COORDINATION IN THE BAY AREA AS A RESULT OF THESE AND OTHER EFFORTS WAS AWARDED ROGER B. JONES AWARD EXCELLENCE COASTAL MANAGEMENT AND RECEIVED COMMENDATION FROM PRESIDENT AL GORE’S AS PART OF VP NATIONAL AWARD FOR REINVENTING GOVERNMENT PROGRAM. HE’S BEEN BCDC’S CHIEF DEPUTY SINCE 2010 AND ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. WE HAVE ASKED STEVE TO COME BACK AS A RETIRED ANNUITANT AT SOME POINT AFTER A RESTFUL PERIOD AWAY FROM US. HE HAS BEEN CRUCIAL IN TRAINING THAN MENTORING OUR STAFF WHOSE OVERALL TENURE IS FAR LESS IN 2024 THAN EVEN FIVE YEARS AGO. AND HE HAS STARTED WORKING ON CREATING TRAINING PROGRAM FOR OUR STAFF.  MOST IMPORTANT\, HE HAS BEEN A TREMENDOUS PARTNER. HE AND BRAD McCRAY PROPPED ME UP DURING MY FIRST YEARS WHEN I KNEW LITTLE ABOUT COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS. HE KNEW QUICKLY HOW I TEND TO WORK\, WHICH IS MOST DIFFICULT THING TO OUT WHEN YOU GET A NEW BOSS. HE CREATED GREAT INTRO TO ANY DISCUSSION THAT GOES LIKE THIS\, QUOTE\, "LARRY\, WE HAVE AN ISSUE; BUT DON’T DO ANYTHING YET." WE SHALL MISS STEVE WANDERING AROUND THE OFFICE SCOPING OUT PROJECTS\, PROOFREADING REPORTS AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT HE DOES. BUT AT LEAST WE’LL HAVE HIM AS A RETIRED ANNUITANT FOR A WHILE. AND I CAN ASSURE HIM WE KNOW HIS TELEPHONE NUMBER WHEN WE NEED ADVICE. STAFF HAD A BURRITO LUNCH WITH SOME GREAT CAKE BEFORE TODAY’S MEETING.  WE PLAN TO HAVE A LOW-KEY SEND-OFF FOR STEVE THIS SUMMER\, AND WE HOPE STEVE WILL CONTRIBUTE SOME OF HIS GREAT RED WINE FOR THAT OCCASION. SO\, STEVE\, I AM SURE YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY JUST A FEW WORDS?  \nSTEVEN GOLDBECK: THANK YOU\, LARRY. I HAVE A 20-MINUTE POWERPOINT AND THEN A 10 MINUTE MOVIE TO SHOW. NO. I CALL BCDC THE JOB I CALLED MY CAREER\, AND IT’S BEEN INTERESTING RIDE. AND I ALWAYS THOUGHT I WOULD GO OFF AND DO SOMETHING ELSE WHEN THINGS GOT BORING HERE; BUT THEY NEVER GOT BORING.  WELL\, MAYBE THERE WAS A MEETING OR TWO THAT DIDN’T MEET THE REQUIREMENTS. [LAUGHTER]. BUT OVERALL\, IT’S BEEN AN AMAZING TIME\, AND I HAVE ENJOYED ALL OF THE WORK THAT THE BCDC DOES\, AND WORKING WITH ALL THE STAFF. I FEEL LIKE I CAN RETIRE NOW HAVING ACHIEVED SOME INTERESTING THINGS\, IN ADDITION TO [INDISCERNIBLE] WORKING ON THE CLIMATE CHANGE POLICIES\, AS THE FIRST IN THE NATION\, IT’S SOMETHING I’LL ALWAYS TREASURE. AND I’M LOOKING FORWARD TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SENATE BILL 272\, AS WELL. BUT IT’S REALLY BEEN PARTNERSHIPS THAT HAVE ALWAYS MADE ME ENJOY WORKING AT BCDC WITH THE STAFF\, AS I TOLD THEM TODAY AT OUR LITTLE LUNCHEON\, BUT ALSO WORKING WITH COMMISSIONERS. I HAVE BEEN REALLY IMPRESSED WITH THE COMMISSIONERS WE HAVE HAD AT BCDC\, ALWAYS IMPRESSED WITH COMMISSIONERS WHO COME TO BCDC FROM WHATEVER BACKGROUND OR APPOINTMENT\, BUT ALWAYS TOOK ON THE ROLE OF BEING A REGIONAL BCDC COMMISSIONER. AND THAT’S HOW BCDC HAS PROSPERED\, SO\, I WANT TO SAY IT’S BEEN AN HONOR AND A PLEASURE WORKING WITH BCDC STAFF AND NEW COMMISSIONERS\, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO MY NEW ROLE.  SO\, THANKS SO MUCH.  \nLARRY GOLDZBAND: TWO THINGS TO FOLLOW THAT UP. FIRST WE HAVE TO LOOK FOR A NEW MEMBER OF SENIOR STAFF TO THIS DEPARTURE. YOU RECEIVED TWO WEEKS AGO LINKS TO THE JOB AND WILL GET IT AGAIN TODAY IN THE COMMISSION SUMMARY PLEASE DISTRIBUTE THEM TO ANYBODY YOU BELIEVE SHOULD RECEIVE THEM. PERHAPS LATE BREAKING NEWS EVENT BCDC’S BOCCE TEAM WHICH HISTORICALLY HAS BEEN KNOWN AS THE MEAN HIGH TIDES\, HAS NOW CHANGED ITS NAME AT LEAST FOR THE NEXT SEASON TO STEVIE G. AND THE SHORELINE BAND. SO\, WE DO THAT\, BECAUSE STEVE HAS BEEN A — I THINK\, STEVE\, YOU WERE A CHARTER MEMBER OF THE BOCCE GROUP\, AND REMAINS A STALWART\, AND THE BYLAWS OF THE BOCCE RULES LEAGUE SAY THAT RETIRED ANNUITY ANTS CAN PARTICIPATE IN BOCCE GAMES\, JUST SO YOU KNOW. WITH THAT\, I HAVE ONE MORE ANNOUNCEMENT THAT CHAIR EISEN NOTED.  THE MAJOR NEWS AT BCDC DURING THE PAST TWO WEEKS IS THE DEPLOYMENT OF OUR NEW WEB SITE. THANKS TO A GREAT EFFORT BY A NUMBER OF STAFF\, MOST ESPECIALLY REYLINA\, ELSA\, AND ETHAN\, AND VARIOUS OTHER STATE STAFF AND A VERY GOOD CONSULTANT TEAM\, OUR NEW WEB SITE IS BOTH EASIER TO USE\, AND CAN BE EXPANDED TO CREATE GREATER FUNCTIONALITY. MOST IMPORTANT FOR THE PUBLIC\, IT IS MUCH BETTER ORGANIZED\, AND WE ARE WORKING HARD TO FULFILL ONE OF OUR STRATEGIC PLAN OBJECTIVES BY USING AS MUCH PLAIN LANGUAGE AS POSSIBLE. PLEASE CHECK IT OUT. LOOK AT THE NEW CALENDAR FUNCTION\, ESPECIALLY\, THAT CONTINUES TO MAKE ME SMILE. AND WE’RE STILL TINKERING WITH IT AND WILL BE FOR MANY MONTHS. AND WE CERTAINLY LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR COMMENTS.  IF YOU FIND SOMETHING OR DON’T FIND SOMETHING THAT YOU EITHER LIKE OR DON’T LIKE\, PLEASE LET US KNOW. THAT COMPLETES MY REPORT\, CHAIR EISEN\, I’M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ANY QUESTIONS FOR LARRY? WELL\, LET ME SAY\, STEVE\, THAT WAS UNBELIEVABLE AND STUNNING LIST OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS. AND ON BEHALF OF A VERY GRATEFUL COMMISSION\, WE’RE GOING TO MISS YOU\, AND WE’RE LOOKING FORWARD TO THE\, I THINK LARRY CALLED IT A SEND-OFF\, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE IT’S JUST A TRANSITION. ALL RIGHT. WE’RE NOW AT THE EXCITING BRAND NEW CONSENT CALENDAR.  AT THIS POINT IN THE AGENDA\, WE’RE GOING TO CONSIDER THAT THERE ARE TWO ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. ONE IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR OUR JUNE 6TH MEETING\, AND THE SECOND IS THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF A REVISED STIPULATED CEASE AND DESIST AND CIVIL PENALTY ORDER FROM THE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM. AND THAT REGARDS A PROPERTY IN SAN FRANCISCO AT 224 SEA CLIFF AVENUE. ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE CHAIR MARIE GILMORE HAS ALREADY CONCURRED IN THE INCLUSION OF THIS ORDER IN THE CONSENT CALENDAR. SO\, FIRST\, SIERRA DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING THE CONSENT CALENDAR?  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NO ONE IN PERSON\, AND NO HANDS RAISED.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ALL RIGHT.  SO\, THEN\, AS INDICATED\, WE DO TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSENT CALENDAR. MAY I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO ADOPT THE CONSENT CALENDAR? SIERRA\, LET ME KNOW WHO MOVES.  \nPAT ECKLUND: I’LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU.  \nLARRY GOLDZBAND: AND PAT SHOWALTER.  \nPATRICIA SHOWALTER: I’LL BE GLAD TO SECOND THE CONSENT CALENDAR.   \nLARRY GOLDZBAND: ECKLUND MOVES SHOWALTER SECONDS.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU. SIERRA\, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER ADDIEGO?  \nMARK ADDIEGO: YES.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER AHN?  \nEDDIE AHN: AYE.   \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER AMBUEHL? [LAUGHTER]  \nLARRY GOLDZBAND: I THINK THAT COUNTS. WE SEE IT.  \nDAVID AMBUEHL: AYE.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER ECKERLY?  \nJENN ECKERLE: YES.   \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: ECKLUND?  \nPAT ECKLUND: AYE.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: GILMORE?  \nMARIE GILMORE: YES.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: GIOIA?  \nJOHN GIOIA: YES.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: GUNTHER?   \nANDREW GUNTHER: YES.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: HASZ?  \nKARL HASZ: AYE.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS?  \nSTEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: YES.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER NELSON? COMMISSIONER PEMBERTON?   \nSHERI PEMBERTON: AYE.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER SHOWALTER?  \nPATRICIA SHOWALTER: YES.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER ZEPEDA?  \nCESAR ZEPEDA: YES.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: CHAIR EISEN?  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: YES.   \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: HAVE I MISSED ANYONE? THE CONSENT CALENDAR PASSES WITH 16 YESES\, ZERO NOS\, AND ZERO ABSTENTIONS.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU\, SIERRA. ALL RIGHT. WELL\, WE DO NOT HAVE AN ADMINISTRATIVE LISTING TODAY\, BUT COMMISSIONER GUNTHER ASKED AT OUR LAST MEETING THAT OUR STAFF EXPLAIN HOW THE ADMINISTRATIVE LISTING PROCESS WORKS AND HOW IT DIFFERS FROM OTHER TYPES OF PERMITTING APPROVALS. SO\, HARRIET ROSS WHO IS OUR REGULATORY DIRECTOR HAS PREPARED A RESPONSE FOR THE COMMISSION. BUT BEFORE WE GET TO HARRIET’S RESPONSE\, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING THIS AGENDA ITEM?   \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NONE IN PERSON\, AND NO HANDS RAISED.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU. HARRIET\, YOU CAN PLEASE EXPLAIN TO US OUR ADMINISTRATIVE LISTING PROCESS?  \nHARRIET ROSS: YES. GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR EISEN AND COMMISSIONERS. AGAIN\, I’M HARRIET ROSS. FIRST OF ALL\, BCDC HAS SEVERAL CATEGORIES OF PERMITS\, AS YOU ALL HAVE NOTICED\, I’M SURE.  WHEN THE COMMISSION HEARS A PROJECT OR VOTES SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID LAST MONTH IN MAY\, 505 BAYSHORE\, THAT’S CONSIDERED A MAJOR PERMIT. BUT THE COMMISSION’S RULES HAVE DEDICATED AUTHORITY TO REVIEW AND ACT ON SOME OTHER PERMITS TO ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. SO\, THE PERMITS THAT APPEAR IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE LISTINGS ARE CONSIDERED MINOR REPAIRS AND IMPROVEMENTS AND THAT’S DEFINED BY THE COMMISSION’S REGULATIONS AND BY THE COMMISSION ITSELF. THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT TYPES OF PROJECTS INCLUDED IN THIS DEFINITION OF MINOR REPAIRS AND IMPROVEMENTS. SOME EXAMPLES TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT CAN BE SINGLE BOAT DOCKS LESS THAN 1500 SQUARE FEET SHORELINE PROTECTION THAT WOULD FILL LESS THAN 10\,000 FEET OF THE BAY\, ROUTINE REPAIRS THAT DON’T INVOLVE SIGNIFICANT ENLARGEMENT OR CHANGES IN USE. JUST TO NAME A FEW THINGS. NOW\, BEFORE THE DIRECTOR ASKED TO ISSUE OR DENY A PERMIT\, THEY’RE REQUIRED TO ADVERTISE ACTIONS TO THE COMMISSION AND PUBLIC.  WE DO THIS BEFORE EVERY MEETING\, THERE IS A LISTING OF ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS ITEM AT THE BEGINNING OF COMMISSION MEETINGS. SUMMARY OF PROJECTS AND PROPOSED ACTIONS BY THE STAFF. IF THE COMMISSION AGREES WITH THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S CLASSIFICATION THAT A PROJECT IS INDEED CONSIDERED A MINOR REPAIR OR IMPROVEMENT\, THEN NO ACTION IS NEEDED. AND THAT’S TYPICALLY WHAT HAPPENS. I HAVE BEEN HERE FOR NINE MONTHS NOW\, AND I THINK WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THAT PROCESS EVERY MEETING WITHOUT ANY FANFARE. THEN THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WILL ACT ON PENDING APPLICATIONS WITHIN THE MANDATED DEADLINES. SO\, THE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS OR PERMITS DON’T REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAY BE ISSUED WITHIN A SHORTER TIME FRAME.  NOW\, HOWEVER\, IF THE COMMISSION — AND YOU ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISAGREE WITH THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S DETERMINATION THAT A PROJECT IS INDEED A MINOR REPAIR OR IMPROVEMENT AND IF THAT’S THE CASE WE’LL HOLD A HEARING TO DISCUSS IF THAT — IF THE PROJECT DOESN’T FIT THE DEFINITION OF THE COMMISSIONER’S VOTE ON THIS TYPE OF PERMIT — SORRY\, IF IT DOESN’T MEET THE DEFINITION OF THIS PERMIT THEN WE VOTE AS A COMMISSION ON THE TYPE OF PERMIT IT SHOULD BE. IF THE COMMISSION VOTES THE ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT IS NOT THE RIGHT PERMIT THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR IS REQUIRED BY THE COMMISSION RULES TO DENY THE APPLICATION. THEN THE APPLICATION NEEDS TO BE REAPPLIED AS A MAJOR PERMIT\, WHICH INCLUDES PUBLIC HEARING AND COMMISSION VOTE. VOTES THEN ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT\, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE PUBLIC HEARING AND COMMISSION VOTE. SO\, THAT’S THE MAIN ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT INCLUDED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE LISTING. WE ALSO LIST OTHER PERMITS SUCH AS REGION-WIDE ON A REGULAR BASIS. AND I THINK THE PLAN IS TO GO OVER THAT IN DETAIL AT FUTURE TRAINING.  THAT’S JUST THE BASICS OF WHAT GOES ON IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE LISTING AND HOW THAT’S DIFFERENT FROM THE MAJOR PERMITS THAT YOU ALL CONSIDER FROM TIME TO TIME. ANY QUESTIONS?  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ANY QUESTIONS OF HARRIET? COMMENTS?  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NO HANDS RAISED.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU. THANK YOU HARRIET.  AND YOUR STATEMENT THAT WE COULD REMOVE SOMETHING FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE LISTING IF WE WISHED REMINDED ME THAT THAT IS ALSO TRUE OF OUR CONSENT CALENDAR. AND I FORGOT TO MENTION THAT IF AT ANY POINT IN TIME SOMEBODY WANTED TO LIFT SOMETHING ALL THE COMMISSION — I MEAN THE CONSENT CALENDAR\, AND HAVE A REGULAR\, SORT OF\, ITEM FOR THAT MATTER\, THAT CAN BE DONE. SO\, I NEGLECTED TO MENTION THAT.  \nGREG SCHARFF: I WANTED TO ADD TO THAT CHAIR EISEN IT TAKES TWO COMMISSIONERS. IF ONE COMMISSIONER WANTS TO DO IT\, IT TAKES TWO COMMISSIONERS TO SAY WE’RE GOING TO REMOVE IT FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU GREG. FIND A PARTNER IF YOU WANT TO REMOVE SOMETHING FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR.  WE’RE GOING TO HAVE THREE BRIEFINGS NOW. THE FIRST ONE IS WITH RESPECT TO SAND MINING ISSUES. IT’S A BRIEFING BY THE BCDC STAFF AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE SAND MINING INDUSTRY. IT’S GOING TO BE WITH REGARD TO ISSUES THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION’S TEMPORARY SAND MINING COMMISSIONER WORKING GROUP\, WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED RECENTLY. AND THEY’RE GOING TO BE CONSIDERING THESE ISSUES DURING THE REMAINDER OF THE YEAR. LAST WEEK\, BCDC DISTRIBUTED RESEARCH STUDIES ON ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED BY OUR COMMISSION DURING THE SAND MINING PERMIT PROCESS BACK IN 2015. THAT RESEARCH WAS REVIEWED BY AN INDEPENDENT SCIENCE PANEL. SO\, TODAY\, BCDC STAFF IS GOING TO PROVIDE A SHORT PRESENTATION ON THE RESEARCH AND THE FINDINGS PROCESS\, AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE SAND MINING COMPANIES ARE GOING TO PROVIDE A SHORT PRESENTATION ON MINING ACTIVITIES.  SO\, THE PURPOSE OF THIS BRIEFING IS TO HIGHLIGHT THE TOPICS THAT THE WORKING GROUP IS GOING TO CONSIDER. SO\, COMMISSIONERS SHOULD AWAIT THAT WORK BEFORE WE EXPRESS ANY OPINIONS WE HAVE ON THE STUDIES OR THE POSSIBILITY OF CONSIDERING A PERMIT FOR FUTURE SAND MINING ACTIVITIES. TODAY WE’RE GOING TO HEAR THE SHORT PRESENTATIONS. AND OF COURSE\, THERE WILL BE TIME FOR ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS THAT COMMISSIONERS HAVE. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM BEFORE WE BEGIN? I’M SORRY.  [LAUGHTER] LET’S HAVE THE PRESENTATION BEFORE WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT. BRENDA IS GOING TO MAKE THE PRESENTATION.  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: THANK YOU VICE CHAIR EISEN. YOU CAN ALL SEE MY SCREEN?  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: YES.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: YES.  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS I’M PLEASED TO PRESENT FINDINGS ON THE NEW SIGNS ON SAND IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY AN OVERLOOKED AREA OF THE SEDIMENT SYSTEM THIS NEW SCIENCE IS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE COMMISSION’S REQUIREMENTS IN ITS 2015 SAND MINING PERMITS.  MY PRESENTATION\, AS CHAIR EISEN MENTIONED\, WILL BE TO REVIEW THE HISTORY OF SAND MINING IN THE BAY\, THE COMMISSION’S PERMITTING SAND ACTIVITIES IN 2015 PROCESS AND ORGANIZATION FOR IDENTIFY THE STUDIES AND RESEARCH AND FINDINGS THEN INDEPENDENT SCIENCE PANEL ON RESEARCH AND FINALLY PATH FORWARD IN THE NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS. AND MY SCREEN IS NOT FORWARDING. SO\, LET ME JUST DO IT THIS WAY. OKAY. SO\, AS SOME OF YOU ARE AWARE\, MINING IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY HAS OCCURRED FOR ALMOST A CENTURY\, VIA SMALL COMPANIES THAT BEGAN AROUND THE 1930S\, AND PERHAPS BEFORE THAT. THE COMMISSION’S RECORDS OF THIS ACTIVITIES ARE LIMITED TO THE DOCUMENTED SAND MINING FROM VARIOUS PERMITS OF THESE SMALL COMPANIES THAT WERE PERMITTED IN THE 1970S. OVER TIME\, THE SMALL COMPANIES WERE CONSOLIDATED. AND ESPECIALLY IN THE LATE 1990S\, SEVERAL OF THE SMALL COMPANIES\, ALONG WITH THE STATE LAND LEASES\, OR PRIVATE — OR PRIVATE LEASES WERE CONSOLIDATED UNDER HANSON AGGREGATES\, WHICH IS NOW MARTIN MARIETTA\, AND\, ALSO\, LIND MARINE.  ALSO NOTE A THIRD SAND MINING COMPANY\, SUISUN ASSOCIATES WHICH IS A JOINT EFFORT — GIANT COMPANY OF LIND MARINE AND MARTIN MARIETTA. IN THIS GRAPHIC\, YOU SEE HERE\, IN THE UPPER RIGHT\, THERE IS A VERY SMALL MAP\, BILL BUTLER WITH LIND MARINE WILL SHOW YOU A BETTER MAP SHORTLY\, BUT THE SAND — CENTRAL SAN FRANCISCO BAY AND IN SUISUN CHANNEL IN BAY AREA CALLED MIDDLE GROUND SHOAL AND SUISUN CHANNEL ITSELF. THE MINING\, AS RECORDED BY PERMITS\, BY MINING COMPANIES BETWEEN 1970S AND 2023 HAS BEEN VARIABLE. IT GOES UP AND DOWN AND TRACKS THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY’S WORK. SAND MINING IS DONE PARTICULARLY TO PROVIDE AGGREGATE TO THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IN THE BAY REGION. IT’S NOT THE ONLY SAND THAT’S PROVIDED TO THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY. THERE IS ALSO IMPORTED SAND FROM BRITISH COLUMBIA AND SAND TRUCKED IN FROM VARIOUS QUARRIES IN THE REGION.  BUT THE MINERS WILL TELL YOU MORE ABOUT THAT IN THE NEXT PRESENTATION. BUT YOU WILL NOTE THAT DURING THE EARLY 2000s WAS THE PEAK OF THE SAND MINING AND THAT WAS AROUND THE DOT COM PERIOD WHEN THERE WAS A HUGE AMOUNT OF BUILDING GONE ON IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY. YOU WILL ALSO SEE A DIP AROUND 2018 AND 2014 WHICH MARKS A SIGNIFICANT RECESSION IN THE REGION AND ACKNOWLEDGE BACK THEN DECLINING OVER TIME AND IT TENDS TO TREND ALONG WITH THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY’S WORK AND WE’LL SEE HOW IT CONTINUES IN THE FUTURE. IN 2015\, THE COMMISSION HEARD FOR THE FIRST TIME THREE MAJOR PERMITS IN A PUBLIC HEARING AND VOTE. AND THEY ISSUED THREE PERMITS. THE FIRST PERMIT WAS FOR CENTRAL BAY FOR 1.4 PER CUBIC YARDS OF SAND OVER MULTIPLE LEASE PARCELS ISSUED TO HANSON AGGREGATES NOW MARTIN MARIETTA. SUISUN BAY HAD A PERMIT ISSUE FOR 185\,000 CUBIC YARDS ANNUALLY AND THAT WENT TO SUISUN ASSOCIATES AND LIND MARINE HAD A SPECIFIC PERMIT ISSUED ON A PRIORITY LEASE FOR 100\,000 CUBIC YARDS AROUND MIDDLE GROUND SHOAL.  PERMITS ARE FOR A TEN YEAR PERIOD AND THEY DIFFERENT STUDIES TO MITIGATE AND BETTER UNDERSTAND IMPACTS OF SAND MINING SO THE COMMISSION ALONG WITH THE WATER BOARD REQUIRED WATER QUALITY MONITORING STUDY AND REQUIRED BENTHIC HABITAT STUDY THEN MOST RECENT WORK REQUIRED STUDY OF SAND TRANSPORT AND SAND BUDGET POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE MINING OF THE SAND\, AND PHYSICAL PROCESS IN THE BAY AND IN THAT ACTION THE COMMISSION REQUIRED THE MINERS TO CONTRIBUTE $1.2 MILLION TO THESE EFFORTS. THERE WAS MITIGATION REQUIRED AS PART OF THESE PERMITS\, INCLUDING REMOVAL OF SOME BAY FILL WHICH WAS PRIMARILY UNDERTAKEN AT CROCKETT AND MARINA\, A DEFUNCT MARINA NEAR THE CITY OF CROCKETT NEAR THE BENICIA BRIDGE INSTALLATION OF FISH SCREENS ON ALL OF THE EQUIPMENT ALL OF THE PUMPING EQUIPMENT TO REDUCE ENTERTAINMENT OF FISH FROM THE WATER BEING PUMPED ON THE DREDGES TO SLURRY THE SAND. AT THAT TIME THERE WAS A LOT OF CONCERN ISSUES RAISED AROUND SAND MINING THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME THERE WAS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THAT REGARD AND THE COMMISSION SPECIFICALLY HAD A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS\, INCLUDING HOW MUCH SAND IS IN THE BAY WHAT’S THE VOLUME AND WHERE IS IT\, WHAT AREAS ARE IN TRANSPORT WHAT AREAS ARE RELIC SANDS IS THE SAND BEING MIND AND TRANSPORT FOR RELIC AND WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF MINING RELIC SAND AND IMPACTS TO ACTIVE SANDS\, AND CONSEQUENCES OF THAT MINING TO BAY BEACHES AND TIDES THAT IT FEEDS. QUESTIONS CAME UP WITH WHETHER YOU DIG A BIG HOLE AND SOME SEDIMENTS COME DOWN FROM THE DELTA THAT FILL THE HOLE RATHER THAN GOING TO BAY BEACHES. THE QUESTION ASKED WHETHER OR NOT THERE SHOULD BE MODIFICATION OF MINING VOLUME AT DIFFERENT SITES OR SITES THEMSELVES UNDER WHAT CONDITION SHOULD WE ALLOW MINING OR NOT AND WHAT’S SUSTAINABLE VOLUME FOR MINING AND SUBSTANTIAL DEPLETION\, COMMISSION AT THE TIME SUGGESTED MONITORING FOR IMPACTS OF EXTRACTION OF RELIC SAND AND SAND TRANSPORT WAS IMPORTANT ALSO WANTED TO UNDERSTAND BETTER BCDC’S AUTHOR AND JURISDICTION IN RELATIONSHIP TO SAND MINING AND LASTLY THE QUESTION CAME UP AROUND IMPACTS TO BENTHIC LIFE IN THE BAY BUT THAT’S NOT A SUBJECT OF TODAY’S PRESENTATION SO THAT UPGRADE WENT OUT. AFTER THE PERMIT’S WERE ISSUED IN APRIL 2015 WE WENT AWAY FROM THAT HEARING AND BEGAN TO WORK WITH MINORS AND THE COMMISSION REQUIRED $1.2 MILLION TO SUPPORT THE SAND STUDIES THAT MONEY WAS DEPOSITED INTO THE STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY’S COASTAL TRUST FUND OVER FOUR YEARS SO WE ALLOWED A PERIOD OF TIME FOR THAT MONEY TO BUILD UP. ONCE THAT DEPOSIT WAS COMPLETE THE STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY AND BCDC BEGAN TO WORK TOGETHER WITH A SELECTED SAND TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE WHO DEVELOPED FURTHER THE QUESTIONS AROUND HOW WE MANAGE SAND MINING\, WHAT THE IMPACTS OF MINING ARE.  THEY WORKED TOGETHER TO DEVELOP SCUDDY SCOPES WE REQUESTED REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS WHICH WERE LISTED AT THE STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY’S WEB SITE AND PROPOSALS REVIEWED BY THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE. IN ADDITION DURING THE LATTER PART OF THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE’S MAIN WORK AND INDEPENDENT SCIENCE PANEL FORMALIZE THEY REVIEWED THE SCOPES AND REVIEWED PROPOSALS THAT CAME IN THEY IDENTIFIED AND INTERVIEWED SAND SCIENCE TEAMS AND WORKED WITH TEAMS TO CREATE AND APPROPRIATE STUDIES TO BEST ANSWER MANAGEMENT QUESTIONS AND WHEN STUDIES WERE COMPLETED THEY REVIEWED FINDINGS AND DEVELOPED A FINDINGS REPORT WITH THE SAND TECH CONSULTING FIRM. JUST SO YOU KNOW WHO IS ON THESE GROUPS. THE SAND TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION OFFICE STEERING COMMITTEE CAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE INCLUDED CONSERVANCY\, BCDC\, COASTAL COMMISSION\, STATE LANDS COMMISSION ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS WATER BOARD NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES AND COW FISH AND WILDLIFE SAN FRANCISCO BAY KEEPER NON-PROFIT HIGHLIGHT INTERESTED IN WORKING AND MARIN M REPRESENTATIVES AS WELL AS CONSULTING FIRM ASSISTED IN THE WORK\, DEPENDENT SCIENCE PANEL INCLUDED FIVE DISTINGUISHED SCIENTISTS\, BOB BATTAGLIO FROM ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\, DR. CRAIG JONES FROM INTERVAL [INDISCERNIBLE] IN CONSULTING AND DR. JOHN LAJIER FROM UC DAVIS AND DAVID SHOLHAMER\, USGS EMERITUS\, AS WELL AS DR. PAUL [INDISCERNIBLE]\, USGS EMERITUS.  A DISTINGUISHED GROUP OF FOLKS WORKING ON DEVELOPING THESE STUDIES AND REVIEWING THEM. THERE WE GO. AS I MENTIONED\, THE SAND TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE WORKED TO REFINE THE COMMISSION’S QUESTIONS AND ADD SOME OF THEIR OWN QUESTIONS ON WHAT KINDS OF INFORMATION WE WANTED OUT OF THESE SAND STUDIES. THE QUESTIONS AS DEFINED INCLUDED SAND MINING AT EXISTING AREAS AT PRIMITIVE LEVELS HAVING MEASURABLE DEMONSTRABLE IMPACT ON SEDIMENT TRANSPORT AND SUPPLY WITHIN SAN FRANCISCO BAY ASKED WHAT’S THE SUSTAINABLE NUMBER AND SUSTAINABLE DEPLETION MUCH LIKE THE COMMISSION DID\, THEY ASKED WHAT IS THE ANTICIPATED PHYSICAL EFFECTS OF SAND MINING AT PERMITTED LEVELS ON SAND TRANSPORT AND SUPPLY WITHIN THE BAY AND OUTER COAST AND IMPACT TO ACTIVE SANDS CONSEQUENCES TO BEACHES AND TIDES\, IMPACT TO RELIC SANDS AND FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES TO MINING THE BAY. SO SIMILAR BUT MORE SPECIFIC THAN THE QUESTIONS THE COMMISSION ASKED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. THE RESEARCH TEAMS — I’M NOT GOING TO READ ALL THESE FOLKS NAMES BUT I FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO PUT THE AGENCIES ORGANIZATIONS AND SCIENTISTS UP FOR YOU TO SEE BECAUSE AGAIN THIS IS A DISTINGUISHED GROUP OF SCIENTISTS WHO WORKED VERY HARD ON A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT STUDIES TO HELP THE COMMISSION UNDERSTAND THE IMPACTS OF SAND MINING AND UNDERSTAND THE SAND TRANSPORT SYSTEM A LOT BETTER THAN WE DID TEN YEARS AGO. WE LOOKED AT SAND BUDGET\, SAND SUPPLY\, MORPHOLOGICAL CHAINS IN TRANSPORT ANALYSIS.  WE ALSO HAD SOME SAND TRANSPORT MODELING THAT WAS DONE\, AND SAND PROVIDENCE\, OR ALSO KNOWN AS FINGERPRINTING UNDERSTANDING THE ORIGIN OF WHERE THE SAND CAME FROM AND MULTIPLE DIFFERENT FOLKS FROM DIFFERENT ENTITIES WORKING TOGETHER ACROSS THESE DIFFERENT STUDS TO INTEGRATE THIS WORK. SO\, HERE IS THE KEY FINDINGS. AND THIS IS ADDITIONAL FINDINGS IN THE FINDINGS REPORT. THESE ARE THE OVERARCHING FINDINGS. THERE ARE ALSO REGIONAL FINDINGS THAT I’M NOT INCLUDING IN MY PRESENTATION TODAY\, AND THE STUDIES THEMSELVES ARE ALSO INCLUDED IN APPENDIX G WITH EVEN MORE INFORMATION ARE IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN DIVING IN DEEP. SO\, THE KEY FINDINGS INCLUDE THAT THE VOLUME OF MIND SAND IS SIGNIFICANT RELATIVE TO THE BAY’S SAND BUDGET IT REPRESENTS LARGEST OUTFLOW OF SAND IN THE BAY INCLUDING NET SAND DISCHARGE TO THE OCEAN. ADDITIONALLY SAND IS MIND FASTER THAN IT IS BEING REFRESHED AND THEREFORE SAND IS A NON-RENEWABLE RESOURCE OVER THE LONG-TERM.  SUISUN BAY SAND IS NOT BEING REPLENISHED AND THUS A FINITE RESOURCE AND THE BED IS BEING LOWERED AND SYMMETRIC MODELING AND BUDGET STUDIES ALL SUPPORT FINDING SAND MINING AFFECTS AND IN HIGHLY LOCALIZED WITH EFFECTS DIMINISHING WITH DISTANCE FROM THE EVENT LOCATION. THE EFFECT IS PRONOUNCED IN AREAS OF NEGLIGIBLE SAND TRANSPORT SUCH AS SUISUN BAY WHERE DEPRESSIONS CAUSED BY MINING PERSIST IN THE BED OVER TIME. THE NEXT FINDINGS\, CENTRAL BAY SAND IS RELIC\, MEANING IT WAS DEPOSITED BETWEEN 20\,000 AND 6\,000 YEARS AGO AS SEA LEVELS ROSE AND THE RIVER DISCHARGE POINT MIGRATED THROUGH THE BAY TO PRESENT LOCATION IN THE DELTA PART OF THE LARGE BAY OCEAN RESERVOIR OF SAND. SANDS DERIVED FROM THE WATERSHED OF THE SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN RIVERS ARE NO LONGER A SIGNIFICANT SOURCE TO THE BAY OCEAN AND LARGE VOLUMES OF SAND DO NOT MOVE THROUGH THE SYSTEM DURING TIMES OF HIGH FLOW\, I.E.\, WET WINTERS AS WAS PREVIOUSLY ASSUMED EFFECTS OF MINING TO BEACHES ECOLOGICALLY IMPORTANT REMAIN UNQUANTIFIED. SAN FRANCISCO BAY AND THE PACIFIC OCEAN SHARE SAND\, AND IN EACH TIDAL CYCLE SAND IS TRANSPORTED BETWEEN THE BAY AND THE OCEAN EFFECTIVELY LINKING THE TWO SAND DEPOSITS INTO A SHARED POOL. THE SIZE OF THE SHARED POOL OF SAND AND THUS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE REDUCTION DUE TO MINING IS UNKNOWN. SO\, THAT IS THE HIGH-LEVEL FINDINGS\, OVERARCHING FINDINGS OF THE INDEPENDENCE SCIENCE PANEL.  WE’LL FURTHER DIG INTO THIS INFORMATION AND FURTHER CODIFY WHAT IT MEANS FOR MINING ACTIVITIES AND PERMITTING IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY. GOING FORWARD\, WE HAVE TODAY’S BRIEFING AND ALL THE SCIENCE THAT HAS GONE INTO IT\, INTO THAT FINDINGS REPORT WHICH IS 35 TO 40 PAGES LONG. NOT TOO LONG OF A READ. YOU SHOULD DEFINITELY READ IT AND THESE ARE THE INDEPENDENT SCIENCE PANEL FINDINGS. WE’LL TAKE THE INFORMATION AND DIG THROUGH IT IN THE COMMISSION ARE WORKING GROUP WHICH I’LL TALK ABOUT IN A MINUTE. WE’LL USE THE COMMISSIONER IDENTIFIED QUESTIONS WE’LL STUDY IN REVIEW AND HAVE PUBLIC DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT THIS ALL MEANS. THE STATE LANDS COMMISSION IS CURRENTLY IN A CEQA REVIEW PROCESS SO WE’RE ANTICIPATING OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS THAT STATE LANDS WILL BE REVIEWING DRAFT CEQA DOCUMENT.  AND BCDC’S ROLE IN THAT IS TO REVIEW AND COMMENT ON IT ALONG WITH OTHER RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES. LATE THIS YEAR\, WE’RE ANTICIPATING PERHAPS DECEMBER\, WE WOULD ANTICIPATE THE SAND MINING COMPANIES SUBMITTING THROUGH NEW APPLICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL SAND MINING IN THE FUTURE. AND LASTLY\, PROBABLY AROUND EARLY SPRING\, APRIL 2025\, WE WOULD ANTICIPATE THE COMMISSION HEARING AND VOTING ONCE AGAIN ON SAND MINING ACTIVITIES IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY\, AS PROPOSED BY THE MINERS. SO\, THE SAND STUDIES COMMISSIONER WORKING GROUP. WE HAVE THREE COMMISSIONERS WHO HAVE GRACIOUSLY\, ONCE AGAIN\, AGREED TO SIT ON A COMMISSIONER WORKING GROUP AND HELP STAFF DIG THROUGH IMPORTANT INFORMATION THAT WILL INFLUENCE HOW WE PERMIT AND THINK ABOUT POLICY APPLICATION WHEN WE GET THE PERMIT APPLICATION. SO\, IT WILL BE CHAIRED BY PAT SHOWALTER\, AND ANDY GUNTHER\, AND BARRY NELSON WILL BE THE TWO COMMISSIONERS ON THE WORKING GROUP. WE HAVE FOUR MEETINGS PLANNED AND SCHEDULED.  AND PLEASE COME TO THESE MEETINGS IF YOU ARE INTERESTED. BECAUSE THEY WILL BE FASCINATING AND WE’LL HAVE DIFFERENT PRESENTERS HERE TO HELP EXPLAIN SOME OF THE SCIENCE. SO\, THE FIRST ONE IS IN MID-JULY. IT’S AN AFTERNOON MEETING. AUGUST 21ST\, AND SEPTEMBER AND NOVEMBER ARE ALL MORNING MEETINGS. THEY’RE GOING TO BE TWO HOURS IN LENGTH\, AND THEY WILL BE VIRTUAL. SO EASY TO ATTEND.  AGAIN\, THEY WILL BE FULLY OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. AND I THINK WITH THAT\, THAT IS MY PRESENTATION. WE CAN PROBABLY HOLD QUESTIONS FOR MY PRESENTATION UNTIL AFTER THE MINERS — THE MINING REPRESENTATIVES GIVE THEIR PRESENTATION\, UNLESS THERE ARE SOME CLARIFYING QUESTIONS NOW.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: SO\, DO WE HAVE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS NOW BEFORE WE MOVE TO THE MINERS PRESENTATIONS? IT LOOKS LIKE COMMISSIONER JOHN-BAPTISTE HAS HER HAND UP.  \nALICIA JOHN BAPTISTE: I HAD A CLARIFYING QUESTION YOU CAN EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN BY SAND BUDGET\, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN.  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT LIKE A BANK ACCOUNT THERE IS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF SAND WITHIN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY COMING IN AND OUT SOME OF THAT IS HAPPENING IN A NATURAL PROCESS ACCUMULATING OVER TIME THEN THE SAND LEAVING THE OCEAN THERE’S ALSO HUMAN EXTRACTION OF SAND EITHER THROUGH NAVIGATING DREDGING OR MINING ACTIVITIES.  SO\, IT’S A SCIENTIFIC PROCESS IN WHICH SCIENTISTS DO THE BEST THEY CAN TO BOUND THE AMOUNT OF\, IN THIS CASE\, SAND THAT IS PRESENT\, IN THE ACTIVE TRANSPORT LAYERS\, THEN BALANCE OUT WHAT THEY BELIEVE IS COMING IN AND OUT TO GET A MASS OF EQUILIBRIUM IT’S NOT WEIGHT OF VOLUME OF EQUILIBRIUM OR WEIGHT\, IT’S ACTUALLY MASS THAT IS DEFINITELY SOMETHING WE WILL BE TALKING MORE ABOUT AT THE COMMISSIONER WORKING GROUP BECAUSE IT’S A TECHNICAL BUT STANDARDIZED SCIENTIFIC PROCESS.  \nALICIA JOHN BAPTISTE: THANK YOU.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ANY ADDITIONAL CLARIFYING QUESTIONS? OR SHALL WE TURN TO THE MINERS PRESENTATION? ALL RIGHT.  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: OKAY. I HAVE FIGURE OUT.  STOP SHARING. PROUD TO INTRODUCE TO YOU TODAY BILL BUTLER OF LIND MARINE\, ERICA GERA AND MICHAEL BISHOP OF MARTIN MARIETTA WHO WILL TELL YOU MORE ABOUT SAND MINING AND THEIR PERSPECTIVES. THANK YOU. AND WELCOME BILL\, ERICA\, AND MICHAEL.  \nBILL BUTLER: THANK YOU. CAN YOU HEAR ME? I’M NOT SURE WHO IS GOING TO SHARE THE PRESENTATION.  GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR EISEN MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION MY NAME IS BILL BUTLER. I AM VICE PRESIDENT WITH LIND MARINE. PRESENTING THE SAND MINING OVERVIEW ON BEHALF OF BOTH LIND AND MARTIN MARIETTA THIS AFTERNOON. JOINING ME AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AS BRENDA INDICATED\, IS ERICA GERA AND MIKE BISHOP FROM MARTIN MARIETTA\, WE ALSO HAVE AARON HOLLOWAY AND NICK FROM GHG WHO ARE COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS FOR THE SAND MINERS AND ALSO CHRISTIAN MARSH FROM COUNCIL DOWNEY BRAND THEY’RE AVAILABLE TO HAVE QUESTIONS. NEXT SLIDE. SOME OF YOU MAY RECALL DETAILS ABOUT SAND MINING FROM THE COMMISSION IN ACTIVITY NINE YEARS AGO. I’LL TAKE THIS MOMENT TO REFRESH OVERVIEW OF BAY SAND MINING.  I’M GOING TO BRIEFLY COVER THESE TOPICS. WHY SAND MINING HAPPENS\, WHO IS INVOLVED AND WHERE\, WHEN\, HOW\, AND HOW MUCH THAT IT HAPPENS. NEXT SLIDE. SO\, THE PURPOSE OF SAND MINING IS TO OBTAIN A COMMERCIAL GRADE AGGREGATE THAT IS USED FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION\, GOING INTO CONCRETE\, ASPHALT\, AND OTHER BUILDING MATERIALS THAT ARE USED TO BUILD THE HOMES\, SCHOOLS\, HOSPITALS\, ROADS\, AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AROUND THE BAY. MARINE SAND IS A KEY COMPONENT IN BAY AREA RESTORATION AND RESILIENCE PROJECTS\, AS WELL. ALL OF THESE THINGS WHICH HELPS SUPPORT THE QUALITY OF LIFE THAT WE ENJOY HERE IN THE BAY AREA. UTILIZING A LOCAL RESOURCE FOR OUR LOCAL NEEDS IN THE REGION THAT’S TRANSPORTED VIA WATERWAYS TO SITES WHERE THE RESOURCE IS UTILIZED AND IN LARGE LOADS THAT EQUAL ROUGHLY 100 TO 140 TRUCK LOADS OF MATERIAL\, ALL HELP TO REDUCE THE OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS.  AND ALSO PROVIDE REGIONAL JOBS FOR OUR LOCAL RESIDENTS. NOW IT’S IMPORTANT TO NOTE HERE THAT NOT ALL SAND IS COMMERCIAL GRADE SAND. IT NEEDS TO BE DURABLE\, CLEAN\, WELL GRADED\, AND OF THE RIGHT SIZE. THE BAY SANDS WHERE MINING OCCURS\, MEET THESE CRITERIA. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO\, HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF LOCAL PROJECTS THAT ARE UTILIZING BAY SANDS. AND THEY RANGE FROM\, AS I SAID\, CONSTRUCTING SCHOOLS\, HOSPITALS\, AFFORDABLE HOUSING\, REBUILDING FROM WILDFIRE DAMAGE\, TO ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION PROJECTS\, LIKE AT HUNTERS POINT\, AND BEACH RESTORATION\, FOR EXAMPLE\, AT CROWN BEACH IN ALAMEDA\, WHICH WAS DONE FOR RESILIENCE AND SEA LEVEL RISE DEFENSE.  NEXT SLIDE. SO\, AS BRENDA INDICATED EARLIER\, THERE ARE TWO ACTIVE SAND MINING COMPANIES OPERATING IN THE BAY. MARTIN MARIETTA\, FORMERLY HANSON\, AND LIND MARINE\, AS WELL AS THE JOIN VENTURE ENTITY THAT IS FORMED BY THESE TWO COMPANIES. NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. THESE FIGURES ILLUSTRATE WHERE SAND MINING TAKES PLACE IN THE BAY. THING IF ON THE LEFT IS THE CENTRAL BAY LEASES. THEY SPAN 2600 ACRES CONSISTING OF NINE PARCELS LEASED FROM THE CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION.  MARTIN MARIETTA\, EXCLUSIVELY MINES THESE AREAS\, AND THIS IS WHERE THE BULK OF SAND MINING TAKES PLACE. THE MIDDLING IF IS\, I GUESS\, FITTINGLY MIDDLE GROUND LEASE AREA\, A 367 ACRE PRIVATE PARCEL IN SUISUN BAY\, AND LIND MARINE EXCLUSIVELY MINES THIS LOCATION. AND THEN FINALLY\, ON THE RIGHT\, THE SUISUN ASSOCIATE’S LEASE\, WHICH CONSISTS OF TWO PARCELS IN THE SUISUN CHANNEL AT THE EAST END OF SUISUN BAY. AND THIS 938 ACRE LEASE AREA IS LEASED FROM STATE LANDS TO THE SUISUN ASSOCIATES JOINT VENTURE\, MADE UP OF MARTIN MARIETTA AND LIND. AND LIND MARINE HAS CONDUCTED THE MINING HERE OVER THE PAST TEN YEARS. NEXT SLIDE. SO\, THE NEXT SEVERAL FIGURES ARE GOING TO HELP DESCRIBE HOW THE SAND IS MIND.  THE TWO COMPANIES EACH OPERATE A SAND MINING BARGE THAT’S LIND MARINE’S ON THE LEFT AND MARTIN MARIETTA’S ON THE RIGHT. THESE ARE SIMILAR IN HOW THEY OBTAIN SAND FROM OUR RESPECTIVE AREAS. IN BOTH CASES\, THE SAND MINERS USE TUGBOATS TO MOVE THE SAND TO THE MINING LOCATIONS. NEXT SLIDE. AT THE MINING LOCATIONS\, THE BARGE IS FILLED BY PUMPING A SAND WATER SLURRY FROM THE BAY FLOOR. ON THE RIGHT IT SHOWS THE SAND PIPE ON THE BARGE WHICH IS LOWERED INTO THE SUBSTRATE\, AND A PUMP ON BOARD THE BARGE PUMPS THE SAND WATER MIXTURE INTO A LOADING CHUTE THAT RUNS THE LENGTH OF THE BARGE\, ILLUSTRATE IN THING IF ON THE LEFT. THE SHOOT IS EQUIPPED WITH SEVERAL SCREENED GATES THAT ALLOW SAND AND WATER TO FLOW INTO THE BARGE HOPPER.  ANY MATERIALS LARGER THAN SAND FLOW OVER THE SCREENS AND THEN ARE DISCHARGED BACK INTO THE BAY THROUGH A PIPE AT THE END OF THE SHOOT THAT EXTEND UNDER THE BARGE. NOW\, AS THE SAND AND WATER MIXTURE FILLS THE BARGE\, WATER\, WHICH ALSO CONTAINS SOME FINE MATERIAL\, DECANTS FROM THE TOP OF THE HOPPER\, AND IS ALSO DISCHARGED BACK INTO THE BAY THROUGH PIPES THAT EXTEND UNDER THE BARGE. PUMPING CONTINUES UNTIL THE BARK HOPPER IS FILLED WITH WET SAND AND ONCE IT’S FILLED\, THE BARGES ARE TRANSPORTED TO A NUMBER OF SITES AROUND THE BAY WHERE THE SAND IS OFF-LOADED\, STOCKPILED\, AND THEN DISTRIBUTED TO CUSTOMERS. NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. THESE FIGURES SHOW A COUPLE OF THE DIFFERENCES IN THE SAND MINING BARGES. AND THEY SHOW THE END OF THE SAND MINING PIPES. ON THE LEFT\, MARTIN MARIETTA’S BARGE IS EQUIPPED WITH A SUCTION DRAG HEAD THAT IS PLACED ABOUT TWO FEET INTO THE BAY SUBSTRATE WHEN IT’S LOWER.  THE TUGBOAT KEEPS THE BARGE AS STATIONARY AS POSSIBLE\, BUT THEN MOVES TO NEW LOCATIONS\, AS NECESSARY\, TO CONTINUE THE SLURRY. IN THE SUISUN BAY LOCATIONS\, LIND MARINE SUCTION PIPE ILLUSTRATED THERE ON THE RIGHT\, IS PUSHED FIVE OR SIX FEET INTO THE SUBSTRATE\, AND THE BARGE IS ANCHORED TO LIMIT MOVEMENT DURING MINING. BOTH BARGES ARE EQUIPPED WITH THOSE CYLINDRICAL SCREENS THAT YOU CAN SEE FOR THE SLURRY WATER TO PREVENT ENTRAINMENT OF FISH INTO THE PIPES. IN OF THE CENTRAL BAY\, MARTIN MARIETTA MIND SAND FROM DEPTHS RANGING BETWEEN 60 AND 90 FEET. IN SUISUN BAY LIND MINES IN AREAS THAT ARE ANYWHERE FROM 22 TO 40 FEET DEEP. NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. NOW THESE NEXT SEVERAL FIGURES ILLUSTRATE THE LEVELS OF MINING ACTIVITY OCCURRING IN THE THREE AREAS OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS.  BRENDA SHOWED A VERY SIMILAR SLIDE TO THIS\, WHICH WAS THE SUMMATION OF ALL OF THESE FIGURES. THIS PARTICULAR FIGURE SHOWS THE ACTIVITY ON THE CENTRAL BAY LEASES FROM 2\,000 TO 2023. AND IT ILLUSTRATES THE VARIABILITY OF MINING TO MEET THE DEMAND THAT BRENDA TALKED ABOUT\, THE HIGHER DEMAND FOR CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS OCCURS GENERALLY WHEN THE ECONOMY IS STRONG AND MANY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS ARE UNDERWAY. WHEN THE ECONOMY SLOWS DOWN\, CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY DECREASES AND SO DOES THE DEMAND FOR CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS. NOW THESE ECONOMIC CYCLES CAN ALSO BE INFLUENCED BY EXTERNAL FACTORS\, YOU KNOW? LIKE NATURAL DISASTERS OR EVEN THE UPCOMING CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION THAT WE’RE DEALING WITH. I’LL MENTION IT’S IMPORTANT TO HAVE PERMIT LIMITS THAT RECOGNIZE THIS VARIABLE AND HIGH ENOUGH TO OFFER THE FLEXIBILITY TO MEET THESE CHANGES IN DEMAND. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.  THIS FIGURE SHOWS ACTIVITY ON THE SUISUN ASSOCIATE’S LEASE OVER THE SAME 23-YEAR PERIOD. IT SHOWS A DIFFERENT CURVE. BECAUSE HERE\, THE VARIABILITY WAS IMPOSED BY AVAILABLE BY PERMITTED VOLUMES IN THE LOW PERIODS THERE IN 2012 AND 2014 THEN WHEN MINING WAS REAUTHORIZED IN 2015\, THERE WAS AN INCREASE IN PERMITTED VOLUMES THAT WERE SHIFTED TO THIS LEASE FROM THE MIDDLE GROUND LEASE. NEXT SLIDE. HERE YOU CAN SEE THAT REDUCED VOLUME THERE IN THE LATER YEARS\, IN THE LAST TEN YEAR PERIOD\, WHEN THESE VOLUMES WERE SHIFTED TO THE SUISUN ASSOCIATES LEASE AREA. NEXT SLIDE. SO\, WHAT’S NEXT?  BRENDA DID A GOOD JOB OF DESCRIBING THIS PROCESS EARLIER. AND WE’RE NOW HERE AT AN IMPORTANT MILESTONE. THIS REPORT IS THE LAST MAJOR PERMIT CONDITION TO BE FULL FIT IN OUR CURRENT PERMITS. AND THIS REPORT REALLY BUILDS ON A HOST OF OTHER STUDIES AND INFORMATION COMPILED THROUGH THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESSES THAT HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS IN THE PRIOR ROUNDS OF CEQA ANALYSIS AND PRIOR ROUNDS OF PERMITTING AND STUDY. AND MANY OF THE FINDINGS OF THIS REPORT REAFFIRM THE FINDINGS FROM THESE PAST STUDIES\, INCLUDING SOME OF THE DEMONSTRABLE IMPACTS ON SEDIMENT TRANSPORT AND SUPPLY BEYOND LOCALIZED AREAS WITHIN THE LEASES\, WEREN’T REALLY IDENTIFIED. WE GREATLY APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY THAT WE HAVE TO BE PART OF THE SEDIMENT ATTACK\, AND STUDIES DEVELOPED AND AT THE END ALSO APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS. WE DO HAVE A FEW COMMENTS AND ISSUES ON THESE REPORTS THAT REMAIN OUTSTANDING.  AND THOSE COMMENTS ARE INCLUDED IN THE REPORT’S APPENDICES WHICH YOU ALL SHOULD HAVE A COPY OF\, AND WE ENCOURAGE TO YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE. YOU KNOW\, FINALLY\, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SAY A BIG THANK YOU TO THE SEDIMENT TECH\, MEMBERS\, AND BCDC AND COASTAL CONSERVANCY STAFF\, THE INDEPENDENT SCIENCE PANEL MEMBERS AND THE STUDY AUTHORS FOR ALL THEIR WORK ON THIS VERY COMPLEX ISSUE. IT WAS A HUGE TASK\, AND THE WORK IS VERY MUCH APPRECIATED. AND\, SO\, WITH THAT\, I — WE’RE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS MIGHT HAVE. THANK YOU.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU\, BILL. BRENDA\, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ADDITIONAL?  OR ARE WE —  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: NO. WE’RE READY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND/OR COMMISSION QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION. THANK YOU.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: OKAY WHY DON’T WE TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT FIRST. SIERRA\, DO WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISH TO COMMENT?  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: WE DO\, CURRENTLY HAVE ONE HAND RAISED. JIM McGRATH.   \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: OKAY.  \nSPEAKER: GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS JIM McGRATH. SOME OF YOU KNOW WHO I AM. I JUST WANT TO SAY\, FIRST\, THAT THIS IS A STUNNINGLY GOOD BIT OF SCIENCE. I DIDN’T READ EVERY SINGLE WORD. BUT I SKIMMED EACH ONE OF THE REPORTS.  THE KEY CONCLUSION HERE IS THAT THE SEDIMENT THAT’S IN MOTION AT THE MOUTH OF THE BAY IS RELIC SEDIMENT. AND THAT DOESN’T REALLY SURPRISE ME. I CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION IN MONTEREY BAY AT THE MOUTH OF THE SALINAS RIVER. THAT MEANS IT’S NOT REFRESHED IN THE SAME NATURE. BUT UNLIKE MONTEREY BAY\, YOU FACE A VERY DIFFERENT SITUATION HERE. WHILE THE LOSS OF SEDIMENT TO MINING MAY BE DIRECTLY INVOLVED\, A LOSS OF SEDIMENT THAT EVENTUALLY MAKES IT TO THE SAN FRANCISCO AND MARIN COUNTY BEACHES\, THERE IS A HUGE AMOUNT OF SEDIMENT INVOLVED IN THAT TRANSPORT SYSTEM. AND THE AMOUNT IS RELATIVELY SMALL\, SIGNIFICANT\, I THINK\, IS THE CONCLUSION.  BUT THE THING I WANTED TO POINT OUT TO YOU IS THAT\, WELL\, IT MAY BE THAT THIS EXACERBATES FUTURE EROSION STOPPING SAND MINING PROBABLY NOT HAVE AN APPRECIABLE EFFECT ON THE NEED FOR ADAPTATION ALONG THE BEACHES SO IT’S A COMPLICATED QUESTION THAT YOU’RE GOING TO FACE IN THE FUTURE. WITH THAT\, I’LL STOP. I’LL TRY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMITTEE\, THE SUBCOMMITTEE. JUST ONCE AGAIN WANT TO SAY\, JUST REALLY EXCELLENT WORK BY THE STAFF OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU. ANY — I SEE AT LEAST ONE MORE HAND RAISED. SIERRA\, DO YOU SEE THAT?   \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: I DO. BRENDA I WANT TO CLARIFY\, IS NICK PART OF THE PRESENTATION\, BRENDA?  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: SO\, NICK IS WITH THE CONSULTING FIRM HIRED BY THE SAND MINERS. NICK\, I DON’T KNOW IF YOU MAKING A PUBLIC COMMENT OR IF YOU ARE TRYING TO COMMENT AS PART OF THE SAND MINING PRESENTATION? BUT MAYBE YOU CAN CLARIFY?  \nSPEAKER: YEAH. THE MINING TEAM ASKED IF I COULD MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT.   \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: GO AHEAD.  \nSPEAKER: DEAR VICE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION MY NAME IS NICK S\, SENIOR COASTAL SCIENTIST WITH GHD ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS TO THE MINING TEAM EXPERTISE IN COASTAL SEDIMENT AND TRANSPORT HERE TO PROVIDE OBSERVATIONS OF THE SAND SCIENCE STUDIES AND ISP PROCESS AND APPRECIATION FOR THE PROCESS AND CHALLENGE OF GENERATING COMPILING RESEARCH ON A COMPLICATED ISSUE\, COMMEND THE HARD WORK OF RESEARCH TEAMS AND ISP STUDIES TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE THE NEW RESEARCH BUILDS ON SIGNIFICANT WORK ON SAND TRANSPORT PATHWAYS REAFFIRMING A NUMBER OF FINDINGS\, MINING HAS LOCALIZED EFFECTS SHOULD BE EXAMINED AT INDIVIDUAL LEASE AREA SCALE\, CONSISTENT WITH PRIOR RESEARCH IN AREAS OF INACTIVE SAND TRANSPORT. REPORT ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THE STATES 2012 EIR ACKNOWLEDGING THAT RESOURCE IS PREVIOUSLY RECOGNIZED BY BCDC COMMISSIONERS ISP REPORT ACKNOWLEDGES MIND SAND IS RELIC DEPOSITED THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO\, IMPORTANTLY THE STUDIES AND SUMMARY REPORT DO NOT IDENTIFY ANY SPECIFIC MEASURABLE OR IMPACT BEYOND LEASE AREAS THEMSELVES INSTEAD REPORT FINDINGS BEYOND LEASE AREAS ARE UNKNOWN WE CONTINUE TO HAVE CONCERNS REGARDING REPORTS AND BUDGET ANALYSIS SHARED CONCEPT MODEL CAPTURED AND WRITTEN COMMENT LETTER SUBMITTED BY LIND AND MARTIN MARIETTA. DOUBLE COUNTING OUTFLOWS CAUSED BY MINING AND DREDGING ACTIVITIES BOTH DREDGE VOLUMES AND SAND OUTFLOWS. RESULTING IN DRAMATIC OVERESTIMATE OF SAND OUTFLOWS FROM THE BAY ADDITIONALLY SAND BUDGET STUDIES ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE FLUX SAND FLOWS INTO OR OUT OF THE BAY REMAINING HIGHLY UNCERTAIN. THE ISP REPORT PROVIDES SEVERAL OVER- GENERALIZATION FOR EXAMPLE\, DETERMINATION THAT SAN FRANCISCO BAY AND PACIFIC OCEAN SHARE A COMMON POOL OF SAND IS OVER GENERALIZED AS THESE ARE LARGE BODIES OF WATER WITH COMPLEX PROCESSES\, TRANSPORTING AND CLIMATE\, AND I URGE STUDIES FOR DETAILED NUANCED FINDINGS. WE LOOK FORWARD TO COLLABORATING WITH BCDC STAFF ON THE UPCOMING WORKING GROUP PROCESS AND BELIEVE THAT CONTINUED DIALOGUE CAN BE ADDRESSED.  THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT? I CAN SEE COMMISSIONERS DO WANT TO ASK QUESTIONS.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: I SEE NO OTHER HANDS RAISED.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: AS WE SAID AT THE BEGINNING\, THIS IS A LONG PROCESS AND CLARIFYING QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT IN TIME ARE CERTAINLY WELCOME. SO\, I THINK PAT SHOWALTER\, I SAW YOUR HAND UP FIRST\, SIERRA WILL CALL ON FOLKS AS THEY RAISE THEIR HAND.   \nSPEAKER: CHAIR EISEN\, IS IT IS THIS TIME FOR COMMENTS AS WELL AS QUESTIONS? OR SHOULD I JUST ASK THE QUESTIONS?  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: WELL\, I THINK YOU SHOULD JUST ASK YOUR QUESTIONS AND WE’LL SEE HOW IT GOES. OBVIOUSLY —  \nPATRICIA SHOWALTER: OKAY. SURE. I WILL JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT I WAS REALLY INTERESTED TO HEAR ABOUT THE REDUCTION OF GHGS. BECAUSE OF THE TRUCK TRAFFIC THAT DOESN’T OCCUR BECAUSE OF THIS.  AND I REALLY LOOK FORWARD TO LEARNING MUCH MORE ABOUT THAT. I DO NOT REALLY EXPECT AN ANSWER TO THAT. BUT I JUST DISH WANT TO BRING THAT UP AS A REAL QUESTION THAT I HOPE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT. AND I’LL BE GLAD TO MAKE A FEW COMMENTS LATER.  \nSPEAKER: PAT I’M NOT SURE THAT’S REALLY WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THIS MEETING.  \nPATRICIA SHOWALTER: OKAY. I DIDN’T KNOW.   \nGREG SCHARFF: THANK YOU\, GREG.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: SO\, I DO SEE —  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS\, YOU ARE NEXT.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU\, SIERRA.  \nSTEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU FOR THE REPORT. SO\, I GUESS IT’S CLEAR THAT SAND SUPPLIES ARE A LIMITED RESOURCE. MY QUESTION IS TO WHAT EXTENT OTHER ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS FOR CONSTRUCTION USE MIGHT BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE WORK FOR THIS TASK FORCE?  AND AS AN EXAMPLE\, I USE THE FACT THAT WE’RE USING RECYCLED CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS IN OUR ROAD PROJECTS\, AS ROAD BASE\, SO WE’RE REGRINDING CONCRETE AND ASPHALT TO USE\, AND THIS WOULDN’T BE SUITABLE FOR EVERYTHING. BUT I DO THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT ALTERNATIVES AND OPTIONS TO A LIMITED SAND SUPPLY. I JUST WONDER IF THAT’S SOMETHING WE COULD ENTERTAIN. THANK YOU.  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: YES IT’S CERTAINLY SOMETHING I THINK WE COULD BRAIN IN THE COMMISSIONER WORKING GROUP. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER GUNTHER?   \nANDREW GUNTHER: THANK YOU. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF SOMEONE CAN TELL ME\, WHAT IS THE —  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER GUNTHER —  \nANDREW GUNTHER: — PERCENT OF THE SAND USED WEEKLY IN CONSTRUCTION. HOW MUCH OF THAT SAND DOES THE SAND FROM THE MIND BAY COMPOSE. WHAT PERCENT OF THE OVERALL DEMAND FOR SAND?  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: I DON’T THINK WE’RE PREPARED TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION TODAY. WE DID HAVE AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS PREPARED BY THE SAND MINERS IN 2015\, THAT I THINK THOSE NUMBERS WOULD HAVE TO BE REANALYZED. AND THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND MINES AND GEOLOGY WOULD PROBABLY BE A GOOD SOURCE TO HELP UNDERSTAND THE AGGREGATE USE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND LOCALLY\, BUT WE’RE NOT PREPARED TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR YOU TODAY\, COMMISSIONER GUNTHER.   \nANDREW GUNTHER: SO WE CAN JUST ADD IT TO THE AGENDA OF THE WORKING GROUP?  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: SURE.  \nANDREW GUNTHER: OKAY.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER GIOIA WE’LL GO TO YOU NEXT THEN WE’LL MOVE TO COMMISSIONER NELSON IN ROOM.  \nJOHN GIOIA: MY CLASSMATE BARRY NELSON’S HAND WAS UP FIRST.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: IT WAS FIRST WE’RE TAKING VIRTUAL FIRST THEN QUESTIONS IN THE ROOM.  \nJOHN GIOIA: I THINK I HEARD TO COMMISSIONER GUNTHER’S QUESTION\, BECAUSE IT’S THE SAME AS MINE\, I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THE SAND THAT’S MIND FROM THE BAY WHERE IS IT USED?  IS IT USED ALL AROUND THE BAY OR IS IT EXPORTED TO AREAS OUTSIDE FOR USE SO END USE OF THE SAND THAT’S MIND IN THE BAY. I REALIZE YOU DON’T HAVE THAT INFORMATION NOW BUT I THINK THAT WOULD BE AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE WORK GROUP ANALYSIS. AND SECOND\, WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVE SOURCES FOR SAND? AND WHAT ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL OR ECONOMIC RAMIFICATIONS OF THOSE ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS? SO\, OTHER SOURCES\, IN OTHER WORDS.  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: YEAH. I BELIEVE YOUR QUESTION IS — YOUR FIRST QUESTION IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN COMMISSIONER GUNTHER’S\, WHICH IS\, I THINK\, THE PERCENTAGE OF BAY SANDS IN COMPARISON TO ALL SANDS USED IN THE REGION.  YOURS IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT WHICH IS\, IS THE BAY SAND USED LOCALLY. I THINK THE ANSWER TO THAT IS\, YES\, THE BAY MIND SAND IS USED LOCALLY. I BELIEVE BILL AND ERICA WILL CONFIRM THAT. BUT IT IS A VERY LOCAL RESOURCE OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS.  \nJOHN GIOIA: IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO KNOW WHAT PERCENT OF IT\, IF ANY\, IS EXPORTED OUTSIDE THE BAY AREA FOR USE.  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: YES. WE CAN GET YOU THAT NUMBER.   \nJOHN GIOIA: AND I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER GUNTHER’S QUESTION OF\, WHAT PERCENT OF MIND BAY SAND IS USED IN THE AREA VERSUS OTHER AREAS AND THE ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF SAND IF SAND WERE LESS AVAILABLE FROM THE BAY AND WHAT ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS RELATED TO IMPACTS OF THAT.  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: YES THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE WOULD HAVE TO RESEARCH AND PROVIDE AS PART OF THE COMMISSIONER WORKING GROUP AND WE’LL PUT THAT ON THE LIST.  \nJOHN GIOIA: YOU SEEM TO BE CLEAR THAT THERE IS SAND IS NOT SUSTAINABLE HAVING DIVISION QUANTITY\, WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO FURTHER UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT OF THIS SAND MINING ON BAYSHORE AND BEACHES?  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: SO IN EACH OF THE — WELL IN THE FINDINGS REPORT IN EACH OF THE STUDIES\, THERE ARE ADDITIONAL RESEARCH THAT CAN HELP US GET AT THOSE QUESTIONS. ONE OF THE MAIN ISSUES IN US UNDERSTANDING THE QUANTITY OF SAND THAT IS IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY WAS THE MERE COST OF TAKING THREE DEEP CORES TO UNDERSTAND THE DEPTH OF THE SAND VOLUME THAT WAS DEPOSITED BACK AT THE TURN OF THE ICE AGE. SO\, WE COULD HAVE SPENT $1.2 MILLION ON THAT ONE STUDY BUT WE CHOSE NOT TO BECAUSE THAT WOULD HAVE GOTTEN US FAR LESS INFORMATION AND FRANKLY THE AMOUNT OF SAND BEING MIND IS IN THE UPPER PART OF THAT. THAT WAS AN OPEN QUESTION.  WE DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH FUNDS TO GO AND TRY TO MAKE THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE SAND IN THE SYSTEM AND IT GETTING TO BEACH TRANSPORT. THAT’S A FULLY DIDN’T DIFFERENT STUDY SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL STUDIES THAT WE COULD DO IF ADDITIONAL FUNDS WERE PROVIDED\, BUT $1.2 MILLION IS NOT A LOT OF MONEY WHEN YOU ARE STUDYING DEEP WATER SYSTEMS THAT ARE QUITE LARGE. I’LL LEAVE IT AT. WE COULD GO ON\, BUT THAT’S THE SHORT ANSWER.  \nJOHN GIOIA: COMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS MENTIONED ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND IT MAY BE FOR SOME KIND OF PROJECTS THERE ARE\, OTHERS THEY’RE NOT\, ARE YOU GOING TO BE LOOKING MORE AT THAT?  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: WE CERTAINLY CAN. WE HAVE TO MEET WITH OUR WORKING GROUP CHAIR TO DEFINE BETTER EXACTLY WHAT WE’RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT EACH OF THE WORKING GROUPS BUT WE CAN REQUIRE THAT AS PART OF THE INFORMATION TO SUPPORT THE FEASIBILITY OF SAND MINING IN THE BAY AND ALTERNATIVES TO SAND MINING IN THE BAY.  I SEE BILL’S HAND UP MAYBE I’LL TURN IT OVER TO HIM TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT ALTERNATIVES.  \nJOHN GIOIA: THANK YOU.  \nBILL BUTLER: THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER GIOIA THANK YOU FOR THOSE QUESTIONS. I CAN CONFIRM THAT THE BAY SAND MIND FROM THE BAY STAYS VERY REGIONAL WITHIN THE BAY AREA. IT DOESN’T REALLY GO FOR USES OUTSIDE OF THE BAY. REGARDING ALTERNATE SOURCES OF MATERIAL\, ABSOLUTELY\, I THINK THAT’S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN LOOK AT A LITTLE HARDER\, GOING FORWARD.  AS I MENTIONED BRIEFLY IN THE PRESENTATION\, YOU KNOW\, WHEN I SAID THAT ALL SAND IS NOT CONSTRUCTION GRADE SAND. AND EVEN FOR CONSTRUCTION GRADE SAND\, ALL SAND IS NOT CREATED EQUAL FOR THAT EITHER. SO YOU’RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT THAT FOR DIFFERENT USES\, ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS\, THERE IS DIFFERENT ALTERNATE MATERIAL THAT CAN BE SUITABLE FOR THAT. BUT THAT’S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ADDRESS AND GET YOU THE ANSWER TO GOING FORWARD.  \nJOHN GIOIA: THANKS.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER NELSON?  \nBARRY NELSON: THANKS.  I’LL TURN THAT OFF NOW. THAT IS NOT OFF. OKAY. WE’RE WORKING?  \nSPEAKER: YES.  \nBARRY NELSON: [LAUGHTER] THANK YOU. SO\, JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.  SOME COMMISSIONERS HAVE ASKED SOME OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS I WAS GOING TO ASK. FIRST IS\, IT’S PRETTY CLEAR FROM THIS WORK THAT WE’RE MINING RELIC SAND\, WHICH MEANS THAT THIS ONGOING EXTRACTION ISN’T SUSTAINABLE. YOU CAN PUT A LITTLE TIME FRAME AROUND THAT? ARE WE TAKING A 10th OF A PERCENT EVERY YEAR? TAKING A 20th PERCENT EVERY YEAR. I’M TRYING TO GET A SENSE OF WHAT THE TIME FRAME IS AROUND THE NON-RENEWABILITY OF THAT RESOURCE.  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: I CAN’T BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE THE TOTAL VOLUME OF SAND.  WE DON THAT SAND IS NO LONGER COMING IN FROM THE DELTA AND WE KNOW THAT THE SAND FROM THE WATERSHEDS IS NOT BEING SUPPLIED TO THE BEDS BEING MIND. WE DO SEE AREAS WHERE THE BED IS BEING LOWERED AND WE CAN SHOW PICTURES OF THAT IN THE COMMISSION WORKING GROUP. THE OTHER THING IS WE DID VERY SPECIFIC ANALYSIS OF VERY LOCALIZED MINED AREAS\, AND THERE IS A LIMITED PORTION OF THOSE MINED AREAS WHERE SAND IS IN TRANSPORT. WHERE IT IS IN TRANSPORT MAXIMUM AMOUNT IN THOSE AREAS REFRESH I BELIEVE WAS 55% IN THAT AREA. AND THERE ARE OTHER AREAS THAT ARE NOT BEING REFRESHED. THERE IS VARIABLE WITHIN THE SITES DETAILED WITHIN SOME OF THE STUDIES WE OPTED NOT TO GET INTO LOTS OF DETAILS TODAY ABOUT THE STUDIES WITH THE FULL COMMISSION.  \nBARRY NELSON: WE CAN TALK ABOUT SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS LATER THAT I HAVE QUESTIONS THAT WE CAN FOLLOW UP WITH ON THAT LATER ON.  THE OTHER QUESTION WAS THE CONCLUSIONS ENACT THAT THE IMPACTS ON BEACHES AND SHORES AREN’T QUANTIFIED I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS BUT AGAIN MAYBE THAT WAITS FOR OUR WORKING GROUP.  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: DEFINITELY SOME SCIENTISTS WHO HAVE IDEAS WITH TALK ABOUT THAT FURTHER IN THE WORKING GROUP.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: —  \nSPEAKER: I’M ASSUMING THE BEACHES ARE GIVING SOME OF THAT SAND BACK IN TO FILL THE HOLE.  \nCESAR ZEPEDA: IT’S ALREADY BEEN ASKED. THANK YOU.  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: THANK YOU.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER PEMBERTON.   \nSHERI PEMBERTON: THANK YOU. I THINK ONE OF THE COMMENTS I HEARD WAS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SAND MINING AND I THINK BRENDA MENTIONED THAT WOULD BE PUT ON THE LIST FOR DISCUSSION DURING ONE OF THE WORKING GROUP MEETINGS. AND I WANTED TO SEE IF I COULD GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON THAT. WOULD THAT BE IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS AS A RESPONSIBLE AGENCY IN THE CONTEXT OF CEQA? OR KIND OF LIKE WHAT’S BEING ASKED AND WHAT WOULD BE ON THE WORKING GROUP AGENDA AS IT RELATES TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS AND HOW DOES THAT RECONCILE WITH CEQA?  \nSPEAKER: I DON’T THINK WE HAVE FLUSHED OUT EXACTLY WHAT’S GOING TO BE IN ALL OF THE WORKING GROUPS YET I THINK WE’RE STILL DECIDING AND LOOKING AT THAT GETTING INPUT FROM COMMISSIONERS AND FROM THE WORKING GROUP THEMSELVES.  \nSHERI PEMBERTON: OKAY.   \nBRENDA GOEDIN: COMMISSIONER PEMBERTON I’LL NOTE FOR YOU THAT CHRIS HEWITT WHO I UNDERSTAND IS IN THE CEQA LEAD HAS BEEN PARTICIPATING IN ALL OF THESE MEETINGS AND HAS ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS SO HE’S WELL AWARE OF THE STUDIES AND FINDINGS.  \nSHERI PEMBERTON: THANK YOU BRENDA. I APPRECIATE THAT.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER ECKLUND?  \nPAT ECKLUND: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WASN’T SURE HOW TO RAISE MY HAND\, SINCE I’M IN-PERSON. ACTUALLY\, I HAVE A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION TO THAT.  BECAUSE THE COMMENT THAT WAS MADE IS THAT THE — I CALL IT\, LIKE\, A VACUUM CLEANER\, AND YOU HAVE A SCREEN ON IT TO PREVENT FISH FROM COMING IN\, WHAT ABOUT THE BENTHIC ORGANISMS THAT ARE IN THE SAND? HAVE THERE BEEN ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT TO THE ORGANISMS WHETHER THEY’RE SUCKED UP WITH THE SAND? DO YOU ACTUALLY SEE THEM? I’M KIND OF CURIOUS ABOUT THE PRACTICAL ASPECT OF THIS VACUUM CLEANER\, AND THIS SUCKING UP THE SAND AT THE BOTTOM. YOU CAN HELP ME TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MECHANISM IS?  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: YES. SO\, THERE IS TWO MECHANISMS.  ONE IS\, LIKE\, THE VACUUM CLEANER HAD THAT YOU SAW\, BELIEVE IT HAS A SIX BY SIX INCH OPENING GREAT\, AND SO ANYTHING — PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG BILL ERIK OR MIKE\, ANYTHING SMALLER THAN SIX BY SIX GREAT COULD GO THROUGH THE DRAG HEAD ITSELF AND THE SCREEN IS ON THE PUMP THAT BRINGS IN THE WATER AND THE SCREEN WILL NOT SCREEN SOUGHT NICHE BUT NOT PLANK TON AND LARVAE. THE DRAG HEAD ITSELF WOULD LIKE TAKE THE MATERIAL\, THE ANIMALS IN THE TOP OF THE SAND INTO AND THE PUMP THROUGH THE SYSTEM MANY OF THOSE ANIMALS ARE SOFT-BODIED AND WOULD NOT BE SEEN IN THE SAND BECAUSE OF THE ROUGHNESS OF THE SAND THROUGH THE PIPE. WE DID DO A BENTHIC STUDY I CAN’T REMEMBER THE YEAR\, I FEEL LIKE IT WAS 2017 OR 18\, AND THERE ARE SOME CONCLUSIONS THAT\, LIKE\, THE CRITTERS THAT ARE LIVING IN THE SAND ARE EARLY COLONIZERS BECAUSE THE SAND ITSELF IS SUCH A MOVING SYSTEM THAT YOU DON’T GET\, LIKE\, SOLID BUILT UP BENTHIC COMMUNITIES LIKE YOU MIGHT FIND IN FINE SAND\, BUT YOU WOULD ASSUME THAT THE CRITTERS ARE BEING SUCKED UP IN THAT VACUUM-LIKE HEAD. AND THEN ON THE OTHER TYPE\, WHICH YOU SAW\, WHICH LIND MARINE USES\, IT’S MORE OF A — I EQUATE IT TO\, LIKE\, A STRAW IN THE SAND. AND\, SO\, IT IS DOWN DEEPER\, POTENTIALLY IN AN AREA WHERE YOU DON’T HAVE INVERTEBRATES LIVING. BECAUSE IT’S DEEP UNDER THE SAND. SO\, THERE MAY BE SOME DIFFERENCES.  BUT WE DO NOT HAVE A STUD BETWEEN THE TWO TYPES OF MINING\, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE\, AGAIN\, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I’M WRONG. THAT GETS TO BE A VERY CONCLUSIVE STUDY. BUT THERE HAS NOT BEEN A LOT OF WORK AMONG THE BENTHIC COMMUNITY SIMPLY BECAUSE IT’S DEEP AND VERY DIFFICULT TO PLACE A MONITOR ASIDE FROM TWO STUDIES.  \nPAT ECKLUND: SO\, ARE WE GOING TO BE DOING ANY FUTURE WORK ON THE IMPACT OF THE BENTHIC ORGANISMS?  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: THERE MAY BE SOME AS PART OF THE CEQA DOCUMENT\, BUT HONESTLY I DO NOT KNOW WE DO NOT CURRENTLY HAVE ANY REQUIREMENTS IN THE EXISTING PERMIT FOR ADDITIONAL IMPACTS TO THE BIOTA.  \nPAT ECKLUND: THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD IS THERE WAS MENTION OF A PRIVATE PARCEL. I THINK IT WAS IN THE MIDDLE GROUND.  CAN SOMEONE HELP ME TO UNDERSTAND WHY IS THERE A PRIVATE PARCEL IN THE BAY? AND ARE THERE OTHER PRIVATE PARCELS THAT WE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN TOLD ABOUT YET?  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: YES. SO THAT PARCEL WAS ORIGINALLY OWNED BY THE NAVY. IT IS NOW THE GROSSLY FAMILIES IT’S A PRIVATE PARCEL I WAS LUCKY TO BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SUBTIDAL HABITAT GOALS PROJECT IN 2010 AS PART OF THAT PROJECT WE LOOKED AT THE OWNERSHIP OF SAN FRANCISCO BAY BOTTOM WHICH IS A LOT OF IT OWNED BY THE STATE\, THERE ARE SOME OWNED BY PRIVATE IMPORTANT OWNERS AND IF YOU WANT TO SEE THE OWNERSHIP OF THE BOTTOM OF THE BAY\, YOU CAN GO TO THE SUBTIDAL GOALS HABITAT PROJECT ON THE WEB AND LOOK AT BAYLAND OWNERSHIP MAP. AND IT WILL SHOW YOU THE PRIVATE PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF SAN FRANCISCO BAY. IT’S QUITE FASCINATING.   \nPAT ECKLUND: YEAH. I’M VERY INTERESTED IN THAT PART OF IT. THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD WAS THAT IT WAS MENTIONED THAT SOME OF THE SAND IS USED FOR RESTORATION OF BEACHES. SO\, WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE SAND THAT IS ACTUALLY USED IN THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES VERSUS RESTORATION PROJECTS. DO WE KNOW WHAT THAT IS?  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: WELL\, I CAN TELL YOU WHAT I KNOW AND BILL CAN ADD. SO\, ONE PROJECT\, ALAMEDA CROWN BEACH\, THERE IS ACTUALLY A FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT THAT WAS BUILT MANY\, MANY YEARS AGO TO REDUCE EROSION ON THAT FRONT\, AND APPROXIMATELY EVERY 20 YEARS\, ABOUT 80\,000 CUBIC YARDS OF SAND IS PLACE ON THAT BEACH TO REFRESH THE BEACH SAND THAT’S ERODED OVER THAT 20 YEAR PERIOD.  AND I BELIEVE THE LAST TIME WE PLACED THAT AMOUNT OF SAND ON THAT BEACH WAS 2013. THE RAMBRU ISLAND TOOK SOME SAND THERE’S A SMALL RESTORATION PROJECT AT RAMBRU ISLAND THAT TOOK MAYBE 2\,000 CUBIC YARDS OF SAND AND THAT CAME OUT OF SAN FRANCISCO MARINA WEST SOME OF THE LARGER PIECES OF SAND MATERIAL FROM\, I THINK\, FROM HANSON\, CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG\, MARTIN MARIETTA\, FROM THEIR YARD WHERE THEY HAVE A\, SORT OF\, TAILINGS SAND THAT THEY’RE NOT USING FOR THE CONCRETE MATERIALS AND THEN THERE IS ANOTHER SMALL RESTORATION PROJECT I BELIEVE AROUND PEER 94 THAT SAN FRANCISCO IS USING MOSTLY TAILINGS FROM THE HANSON MARTIN MARIETTA I DON’T KNOW THE VOLUME THOSE ARE PRIMARY SAND FROM THE MINING FOR RESTORATION AND I’M HAPPY TO HEAR FROM MINERS FOR MORE.  \nPAT ECKLUND: ACKNOWLEDGED WRITTEN IN THE REPORT RELEASED THURSDAY.  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: SPECIFICALLY THAT IS NOT ON THE RESTORATION OF THE SAND BUT COULD QUANTIFY THAT FOR YOU.  \nPAT ECKLUND: WHAT PERCENTAGE CURRENTLY BEING USED FOR FUTURE REFRESHED AND WHAT THE NEED IS. THANK YOU. INTERESTING PRESENTATION. HAVING BEEN ON THE HOPPER DREDGE DECADES AGO\, I SEE A LOT OF RELATIONSHIP TO THIS ACTIVITY.  SO\, THANK YOU.  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: THANK YOU.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: VICE CHAIR EISEN. THERE ARE NO MORE HANDS RAISED.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I WANT TO THANK YOU\, BRENDA FOR YOUR WONDERFUL PRESENTATION.  AND FOR THE MINER’S PRESENTATION. AND I SPECIFICALLY WANT TO THANK PAT\, ANDY\, AND BARRY\, WHO CAN SEE MAYBE NOT REGRETTING THAT THEY VOLUNTEERED FOR THIS WORKING GROUP COMMITTEE. BUT CAN SEE THAT THIS IS QUITE A TASK. AND I APPRECIATE ALL OF THE COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS. BECAUSE I THINK THAT REALLY HELPS OUR WORKING GROUP WHO IS GOING TO BE DOING SO MUCH HEAVY LIFTING ON THIS TO\, SORT OF\, SEE WHAT THE COMMISSION IS GOING TO BE INTERESTED IN KNOWING AND UNDERSTANDING BEFORE WE GET DO THIS PERMIT PROCESS. SO\, THANKS TO ALL OF YOU. WE NOW HAVE —  \nLARRY GOLDZBAND: VICE CHAIR EISEN\, YOU CAN ASK ONE THING?  WE MAY BE LOSING A PERSON OR TWO\, DEPENDING ON PHONE CALLS\, ET CETERA\, WHO MAYBE COMING BACK\, ET CETERA AND SO ON\, IT MIGHT BE GOOD FOR YOU TO SAY THE COMMISSION WILL GO INTO COMMITTEE IF THAT HAPPENS\, AND JUST IN THE FUTURE\, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT’S ON THE RECORD. THERE ARE NO VOTES SCHEDULED.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: OKAY. YES. WE DON’T HAVE ANYTHING THAT WE NEED TO VOTE ON\, BUT IF WE LOSE OUR QUORUM\, WE WILL GO INTO COMMITTEE\, AS YOU PUT IT. IS THAT — DOES THAT DO IT\, LARRY?  \nLARRY GOLDZBAND: AWESOME.   \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: OKAY. SO\, THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS AN UPDATE ON THE PROGRESS MADE BY THE SEDIMENT FOR WETLAND ADAPTATION PROJECT. AND THE PURPOSE OF THAT PROJECT IS TO INCREASE THE AVAILABILITY AND USE OF SEDIMENTS AND SOILS TO RESTORE AND ADAPT WETLANDS TO RISING SEA LEVELS. OUR SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT WORKING GROUP WAS CREATED SPECIFICALLY TO MEET THIS CHALLENGE. AND BCDC HOSTED A TWO-DAY IN-PERSON PUBLIC WORKSHOP ON THIS TOPIC IN JANUARY AND IN FEBRUARY. SO\, MAYA MCLERNEY OF OUR STAFF IS GOING TO BEGIN THE BRIEFING ON THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU\, MAYA.   \nMAYA MCLERNEY: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON VICE CHAIR EISEN AND COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS MAYA MCLERNEY\, AND I AM A PROJECT MANAGER FOR SEDIMENT FOR WETLAND ADAPTATION PROJECT I WORKED CLOSELY WITH BRENDA GODEN AND ERIK BEE MAN ON THIS PROJECT. I’LL PROVIDE A BRIEFING ON SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT WORKSHOPS THAT WE HELD EARLIER THIS YEAR AND BENEFICIAL REUSE ACTION PLAN THAT WE’RE DEVELOPING RIGHT NOW. BEFORE I GET INTO THAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT WETLANDS AND SEDIMENT FOR WETLAND ADAPTING A PROJECT MORE GENERALLY. YOU LIKELY ALREADY KNOW THIS BUT WETLAND WILL NOT BE ABLE TO KEEP UP WITH SEA LEVEL RISE WITHOUT OUR HELP WE NEED TO ACT NOW TO HELP WETLAND BE ABLE TO ADAPT BY RAISING ELEVATIONS AND SUPPORTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PLANS AND ECOSYSTEMS.  THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF WORK DONE IN THE AREA OF SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT IN OUR REGION SPECIFICALLY AND WE’RE BRINGING ALL OF THAT TOGETHER THROUGH OUR SEDIMENT FOR WETLAND ADAPTATION PROJECT. OUR PROJECT GOAL IS TO INCREASE THE BENEFICIAL REUSE OF SEDIMENT AND SOIL FOR WETLAND HABITAT RESTORATION RESILIENCE SEA LEVEL RISE ADAPTATION IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA. PART OF THIS PROJECT\, AS PART OF THAT PROJECT\, BCDC IS DEVELOPING A BENEFICIAL REUSE ACTION PLAN BASED ON STAKEHOLDER PROCESS THAT WE CONDUCTED EARLIER THIS YEAR. THIS IS A REGIONAL CALL TO ACTION WITH TASKS THAT WILL BE UNDERTAKEN THROUGH INCREASED COLLABORATION WITH AND AMONG STAKEHOLDERS AND ENTITY NOT ONLY BCDC WHO WILL SHARE IN THE GOAL OF INCREASING BENEFICIAL REUSE IN WETLAND TO HELP ADAPT TO RISING SEAS. BCDC WILL UNDERTAKE POLICY CHANGES LATER THIS YEAR AND DEVELOP FINANCIAL STRATEGY TO SUPPORT BENEFICIAL REUSE. WHAT EXACTLY IS BENEFICIAL REUSE YOU MAY BE ASKING. WE’RE TALKING ABOUT RECOGNIZING SEDIMENT AND SOIL AS A VALUABLE NATURAL RESOURCE NECESSARY FOR SEA LEVEL RISE ADAPTING A AND SHIFTING MINDSET FROM TREATING IT AS A WASTE PRODUCT TO BE DISPOSED OF TO SEEING AS A RESOURCE THAT CAN BE OFFICIALLY REUSED TO SUPPORT GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND NATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS LIKE MARSH RESTORATION AND HABITAT REHABILITATION AND ENHANCEMENT ALONG THE EDGE OF THE BAY.  WE’RE TALKING ABOUT SEDIMENT AND SOIL FROM DREDGED NAVIGATION CHANNELS\, STREAMS AND FLOOD PROTECTION CHANNEL MAINTENANCE MATERIALS AND EXCESS CONSTRUCTION SOILS. SO SEDIMENT WETLAND ADAPTATION PROJECT SWAP FOR SHORT FOCUSED ON ENSURING THAT THESE MATERIALS ARE REUSED FOR BENEFICIAL PURPOSE SPECIFICALLY TO SUPPORT WETLAND SO THE TIMELINE FOR THE SWAP IS SHOWN HERE ON THE NEXT SLIDE. WE’RE IN PHASE ONE CURRENTLY OF THE THREE FACE\, THREE YEAR PROJECT. THIS PHASE IS ALL ABOUT STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT AT THE END OF THE FIRST PHASE WE’LL HAVE BENEFICIAL REUSE ACTION PLAN FOR THE REGION AND WILL INCLUDE TASKS FOR ALL STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED IN SEDIMENT NOT JUST BCDC AND WE’LL HAVE A COALITION OF STAKEHOLDERS TO SUPPORT IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS ACTION PLAN. PHASE ONE WILL WRAP UP IN 2024 PRETTY SOON IN 2024\, AND WITH PHASE 2 AND 3 TAKING PLACE FROM THE END OF 2024 THROUGH 2025. AND THIS PHASES 2 AND 3 WILL INCLUDE A POTENTIAL BAY PLAN AMENDMENT AND FINANCING STRATEGY TO ASSESS COSTS AND FEASIBILITY AND FUNDING FOR BENEFICIAL REUSE AND PART OF THE PROJECT DESIGN INCLUDES MEETINGS WITH OUR SEDIMENT BENEFICIAL REUSE COMMISSIONER WORKING GROUP SOME OF WHOM ARE IN THE ROOM. AND WE ARE ALSO MEETING WITH — YEAH WE’RE GOING TO BE MEETING ALSO WITH OUR CORE TEAM. MEETING WITH A BENEFICIAL REUSE WORKING GROUP WHO IS GOING TO BE GUIDING OUR STAFF WORK ON THE PROJECT AND IS GOING TO BE INCREASINGLY IMPORTANT ROLE TO PLAY AS WE GET INTO THE BAY PLAN AMENDMENT PART OF THIS PROCESS.  AND COLLABORATION IS AT THE HEART OF THIS. YOU KNOW\, AS WE MEET REGULARLY WITH OUR CORE TEAM\, WE’RE GOING TO BE GOING THROUGH THE — [LAUGHTER] SO\, ALONG WITH BCDC\, OUR CORE TEAM IS MADE UP OF THE REGIONAL WATER BOARD\, THE STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY\, THE SF ESTUARY INSTITUTE\, SF JOINT VENTURE AND US EPA\, THESE GROUPS ARE ASSISTING IN CONCEPT AND CONTENT DEVELOPMENT. WE’RE GRATEFUL TO THESE AND ALL PARTNERS IN THE PROJECT. TOGETHER WITH THE CORE TEAM AND OUR SEDIMENT AND BENEFICIAL REUSE WORKING GROUP WE DESIGNED AN INFORMATIONAL BRIEFING SERIES THAT WAS ROLLED OUT AT THE WORKING GROUP MEETINGS IN 2023. SO\, THE COMMISSIONER WORKING GROUP INVITED EXPERTS TO COME AND PRESENT TO THE COMMISSIONERS ON THE WORKING GROUP AND INTERESTED MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO DESCRIBE THE SEDIMENT PROCESSES AND CHALLENGES AND BRING EVERYONE UP TO SPEED ON THE ISSUES. THESE INFORMATIONAL BRIEFINGS WERE INTENDED TO PREPARE COMMISSIONERS FOR THE BAY PLAN AMENDMENT CONVERSATIONS TO COME AND TO PREPARE STAKEHOLDERS AND THE PUBLIC FOR CONVERSATIONS HELD AT THE WORKSHOP EARLIER THIS YEAR. THE BRIEFINGS COVERED SF BAY SEDIMENT TRANSPORT SYSTEM\, THE PROCESS OF NATURAL SEDIMENT SUPPLY TO BAY MARSHES\, SEDIMENT CONSIDERATIONS AND CHALLENGES AND WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECTS\, NAVIGATION DREDGING AS A SOURCE OF SEDIMENT AS WELL AS FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS AS A SOURCE OF SEDIMENT AND CONSTRUCTION AND UPLAND SOURCES OF SEDIMENT AND SOILS. WE WRAPPED UP THE SERIES OF BRIEFINGS IN NOVEMBER LAST YEAR ALL PRESENTATIONS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE COMMISSION’S WEB SITE.  AND THEN IN JANUARY WE TURNED OUR ATTENTION TO THE SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP. THIS WAS A TWO-DAY WORKSHOP THAT WAS HELD EARLIER THIS YEAR AND IT WAS A CHANCE FOR STAKEHOLDERS TO COME TOGETHER AS A COMMUNITY. WE HAD OVER 50 AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS IN ATTENDANCE TO SUPPORT CHANGES IN HOW SEDIMENT IS MANAGED IN THE BAY AREA. THIS WORK BUILDS ON AND WIDENS THE COALITION OF INTERESTED PARTIES IN THIS ARENA A WE BELIEVE THIS GROUP CAN AND WILL MAKE REAL CHANGES OVER THE YEARS TO COME. THE WORKSHOP HAD BREAKOUT SESSIONS TO DISCUSS ISSUES AND PERCEIVED BARRIERS AND WE PRESENTED POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS. NOW\, THE ISSUE OF HOW INCREASED BENEFICIAL — OR INCREASING BENEFICIAL REUSE AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED IN A NUMBER OF FORUMS BY MOST STAKEHOLDERS WHO ATTENDED THE WORKSHOP BUT WE NEVER COLLECTED EVERYONE TOGETHER TO REACH CONSENSUS AND FORMALIZE INFORMATION UNTIL NOW\, OPPORTUNITIES FOR BARRIERS SEDIMENT AND SOIL REUSE AND GAINED CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF IDEAS RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING ACTIONS AND POTENTIAL PARTNERS TO HELP GET THE PROPOSED WORK DONE THE ACTIONS IDENTIFIED MAKE UP SUBSTANCE OF BENEFICIAL REUSE ACTION PLAN THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING DRAFTED WITH AND WILL BE RELEASED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT SOON. THE ACTION PLAN STRUCTURED IN A STRAIGHT FORWARD WAY WE BELIEVE A STATEMENT OF PURPOSE SECTION THAT INTRODUCES ISSUES AND NEEDS TO INCREASE BENEFICIAL REUSE\, BACKGROUND\, GOALS\, PRINCIPLES GOALS ARE PRIMARILY TO HELP ORGANIZE ACTIONS AND PRINCIPLES FIND HOW THE COALITION WILL WORK TOGETHER TO IMPLEMENT ACTION PLAN TASKS.  SEDIMENT WETLAND SECTION COVERS THREE MAIN SOURCES OF SEDIMENT SOIL CONSTRUCTION NAVIGATION FLOOD CONTROL DREDGING SECTION DETAILS ISSUES IN EACH SECTOR TO GET MATERIAL FROM THE SOURCE TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE SITE. LASTLY THE FOCUS WHERE THE MEAT OF THIS DOCUMENT LIES WHERE WE PRESENT THE APPROXIMATELY 80 TASKS TO ALL STAKEHOLDERS IN THE REGION BUT BEFORE I WANT TO PRESENT GOALS AND PRINCIPLES OF THE ACTION PLAN FIRST GOAL IS TO STRENGTHEN THE EXISTING REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP TO SUPPORT INCREASED SOIL REUSE AND EXPAND AND IMPROVE COORDINATION AMONG GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDERS TO FILL COLLABORATION GAPS AMONG SECTORS INVOLVED IN SEDIMENT AND SOIL MANAGEMENT SECOND GOAL IDENTIFY AND PREPARE SITES FOR BENEFICIAL REUSE BY SUPPORTING DEVELOPMENT OF NEW EXISTING RESTORATION SITES TO PREPARE TO RECEIVE SEDIMENT AND THIRD GOAL COORDINATE SEDIMENT AND SOIL SUPPLY RESTORATION NEEDS TO FACILITATE TIMELY DELIVER OF SEDIMENT AND SOIL. FOURTH GOAL IMPROVE POLICIES AND REGULATIONS IDENTIFYING AND SUPPORTING POLICY AND REGULATORY IMPROVEMENTS ACROSS AGENCIES AND ENCOURAGE MORE BENEFICIAL REUSE. FINAL GOAL OF THE ACTION PLAN TO DEVELOP FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES EXPAND AND SECURE FEDERAL\, STATE\, REGIONAL AND PRIVATE FUNDING FOR BENEFICIAL REUSE. PRINCIPLES LISTED IN THE ACTION PLAN HELP DEFINE HOW BCDC AND THE CORE TEAM INTEND TO WORK TOGETHER AND WITH THE COALITION TO IMPLEMENT THIS ACTION PLAN THIS WILL BE DONE WITH FOCUS ON COORDINATION\, COMMUNICATION AND COLLABORATION TO ORGANIZE THE MANY ENTITIES WORKING IN THIS SPACE. AND THROUGH EQUITY TO ENSURE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF SEDIMENT IN THE REGION AND TO PRIORITIZE COMMUNITY INPUTS\, AS WELL AS ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP TO SUPPORT EXISTING WETLANDS AND SEA LEVEL RISE RESILIENCY. AND IT CAN’T BE DONE WITHOUT TRANSPARENCY TO ENSURE THAT ALL ARE ABLE TO TRACK PROGRESS AND GIVE INPUT\, AND SPEED AND AGILITY IS A CRITICAL PRINCIPLE DUE TO LIMITED TIME WE HAVE TO MAKE CHANGES OUTLINED IN THE ACTION PLAN AND TO GET AHEAD OF SEA LEVEL RISE.  WE ACKNOWLEDGE THANKFULLY THERE ARE MANY OTHER GROUPS DOING GREAT WORK IN THE SPACE AND THE COALITION SHOULD BE CAPITALIZING ON EXISTING WORK AND BUILDING OFF OF IT. EIGHT FOCUS AREAS OF BENEFICIAL REUSE ACTION PLAN ARE GOVERNANCE\, REGIONAL COORDINATION\, REGIONAL PLANNING RESEARCH\, FEDERAL AND STATE REGIONAL POLICIES AND COMMUNICATION\, REGULATIONS AND PERMITTING PILOT PROJECTS\, SEDIMENT AND SOIL QUALITY AND TIMING AND AVAILABILITY OF MATERIALS AND PLACEMENT AND COSTS OF FUNDING. WITHIN EACH OF THESE FOCUS AREAS THERE ARE SPECIFIC ACTIONABLE TASKS THAT WILL NEED LEAD ORGANIZATIONS THAT WILL CARRY OUT SOME OF THE WORK PRESCRIBED IN THE TASKS. SPECIFIC TASKS DEVELOPED THROUGH CONVERSATIONS AND INTERVIEWS WITH PARTICIPANTS\, BRAINSTORMING INTERNALLY\, CORRELATED ACTIONS AND TASKS INTO A MATRIX WE HAD 140 POTENTIAL TASKS LISTED IN THE MATRIX\, TWO WORKSHOP DAYS WERE A GREAT WAY TO EXPLORE THEM TASKS FURTHER\, AND PHOTOS FROM THE WORKSHOPS\, WE TOOK COMMENTS GATHERED THROUGH THOSE BREAKOUT SESSIONS AND SIFTED AND SORTED CONSOLIDATED TASKS FURTHER TO GET OUR 80 OR SO TASKS. TO BE IN THE FINAL ACTION PLAN THE TASK HAD TO BE FOCUSED ON INCREASING BENEFICIAL REUSE OF SEDIMENT SOIL\, ACHIEVABLE IN 1 TO 5 YEARS\, HAVE AN IDENTIFIABLE CHAMPION AND HAVE REGIONAL SUPPORT MOST OF THE WINNING PROCESS INVOLVED CONSOLIDATING THESE IDEAS WE CREATED A LOT FOR TASKS AND THINGS THAT CAME UP DURING THE PROCESS WHY THEY DIDN’T MAKE THE CUT. WHAT’S NEXT? WE’RE WORKING TO RELEASE THE BENEFICIAL REUSE ACTION PLAN IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS AND BE POSTED TO THE WEB SITE COLLECTING COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC FOR ABOUT A MONTH LOOK OUT FOR THAT IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN REVIEWING TASKS AND POTENTIALLY COMMENTING ON THE ACTION PLAN AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT WE’LL FINALIZE THE DOCUMENT AND POST TO OUR WEB SITE WE’LL SWITCH GEARS ONCE THAT’S WRAPPED UP AND COME BACK TO THIS COMMISSION WHEN WE ARE READY TO INITIATE THE BAY PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS LATER THIS YEAR TO ADDRESS NECESSARY UPDATES REGARDING SEDIMENT AND BENEFICIAL REUSE RAMPING UP DISCUSSIONS WITH THE FINANCING FUTURE WORKING GROUP DEVELOPING SUPPORT FOR BENEFICIAL REUSE WE’RE EXCITED ABOUT THIS WORK\, SUPPORTING WETLAND AND ENSURING THEY ARE STILL HERE PROVIDING MANY BENEFITS FOR 50 TO 100 YEARS AND BEYOND.  THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROJECT  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU\, MAYA\, DON’T GO AWAY. FIRST WE’LL GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT THEN GET TO COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY SIERRA?  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: WE HAVE NO ONE IN THE ROOM AND NO HANDS RAISED.  \nSPEAKER: I HAVE SOME.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: WE’LL HAVE COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS\, OBVIOUSLY\, BUT NO PUBLIC COMMENT.  \nSPEAKER: I’M SORRY.   \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NO WORRIES.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: SO WE HAVE NO PUBLIC COMMENT\, RIGHT\, SIERRA?  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: RIGHT. NO PUBLIC COMMENT.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: WE’RE READY FOR COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: CORRECT.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: LOOKS LIKE —  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: WE CAN START WITH COMMISSIONER ECKLUND.   \nPAT ECKLUND: START WITH ME?  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: YES.  \nPAT ECKLUND: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I’M VERY HONORED THAT I GET TO GO FIRST HERE. I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN REUSE OF SEDIMENT\, OBVIOUSLY\, FOR WETLAND RESTORATION. ALSO\, IN SOME WETLAND RESTORATION\, I DON’T KNOW IF IT’S STILL BE DONE OR NOT\, SOMETIMES DEMOLITION DEBRIS HAS ALSO BEEN USED. IS THAT STILL HAPPENING?  OR IS IT PRIMARILY JUST SEDIMENT AND SOIL?  \nSPEAKER: FOR THIS ONE WE’RE LOOKING AT EXCAVATED SOILS FROM PROJECTS SUCH AS PARKING\, SUBGRADE PARK LOTS AND WHAT NOT. YEAH. I THINK THAT’S ANOTHER TOPIC OF A POTENTIAL USE.  \nPAT ECKLUND: OH OKAY. REUSE OF DEMOLITION DEBRIS?  \nSPEAKER: YES.  SPECIFICALLY\, I DON’T KNOW EXACTLY HOW THAT IS USED\, OR REGULATED.  \nPAT ECKLUND: OKAY. I KNOW THAT’S BEEN USED IN THE PAST FOR SOME WETLANDS RESTORATION.  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: COMMISSIONER ECKLUND\, THIS IS BRENDA AGAIN. WE’RE NOT SPECIFICALLY TARGETING CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS. WE’RE LOOKING AT UPLAND ACCESS CONSTRUCTION SOILS LIKE WHAT’S BEING DUG UP FOR BASEMENTS. I DON’T BELIEVE THERE IS A PROHIBITION OF USING CLEAN CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS.  I KNOW HAMILTON WAS ONE THAT USED CONCRETE IN THE DEEP PARTS OF THE BAY OR SITES THAT DIDN’T INHIBIT DEVELOPMENT OF WETLAND. WE’RE JUST NOT TRYING RIGHT NOW TO SOURCE THAT MATERIAL. IT WOULD BE\, SORT OF\, A WHOLE OTHER WORLD OF ISSUES THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO ADDRESS. SO IT’S NOT CURRENTLY IN THE PLAN.  \nPAT ECKLUND: YEAH. THAT’S — I WAS VERY INVOLVED WITH THE HAMILTON WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT. NOT ONLY AS AN EPA EMPLOYEE\, BUT ALSO AS A RESIDENT AT THAT TIME.  THE DREDGE MATERIAL THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING DREDGED IN THE BAY BY THE ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS AND OTHER DREDGING OPERATIONS HAVE WE QUANTIFIED WHAT THAT IS AND DO WE NEED MORE THAN WHAT’S CURRENTLY BEING DREDGE IN ORDER TO KEEP OUR SHIPPING INDUSTRY STILL ACTIVE? OR ARE WE GOING TO NEED MORE SOIL ELSEWHERE IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT.  \nSPEAKER: SO ARE YOU ASKING ABOUT IF THERE IS ENOUGH SEDIMENT SUPPLY ON THE NAVIGATION DREDGE.  \nPAT ECKLUND: RIGHT. FROM THE NATURAL — FROM THE DREDGE THAT’S OCCURRING IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA\, TOTAL\, AND IF IT ISN’T SUFFICIENT\, ARE WE LOOKING ALSO FOR REUSE OF SOIL FROM THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT\, AS WELL?  \nSPEAKER: YEAH. SO\, WE ARE — THERE IS THE LTMS MANAGES\, YOU KNOW\, WHAT HAPPENS WITH THAT DREDGE MATERIAL\, AND THERE IS A GOAL TO 40% OF IT BENEFICIALLY.  AND THAT HAS BEEN MET\, I THINK IN THE LAST — I’M LOOKING AT BRENDA ON THE SCREEN\, SHE IS OUR LTMS REP BUT I’LL LET HER JUMP IN.  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: COMMISSIONER ECKLUND\, THE SEDIMENT FOR SURVIVAL REPORT PUT OUT BY SFEI SAYS THAT BETWEEN NOW AND 2100 WE NEED 450 MILLION TO 650 MILLION CUBIC YARDS OF SEDIMENT OR SOIL\, FOR THE WETLANDS\, SPECIFICALLY\, TO HELP RESTORE AND KEEP UP WITH SEA LEVEL RISE. CALCULATION AROUND NAVIGATION DREDGING\, WE DREDGE BETWEEN 2 AND 3 MILLION ‘S ANNUALLY\, ARMY CORP\, PRIVATE PORTS\, MARINAS REFINERIES\, ET CETERA. THAT IS NOT ENOUGH. THEY THINK IT REPRESENTS 50- TO 60% OVER TIME. SO\, WE ARE LOOKING AT THE UPLAND CONSTRUCTION SOILS\, SOUTH BAY SALT PONDS SHORELINE ARE CURRENTLY IMPORTING UPLAND CONSTRUCTION SOILS\, CLEAN SOILS\, TO HELP WITH SOME OF THAT RESTORATION. THERE IS ADDITIONAL MATERIAL\, ALTHOUGH MUCH SMALLER AMOUNT IN THE LOCAL FLOOD PROTECTION AND STREAM BED MAINTENANCE MATERIALS.  BUT THE GENERAL CONSENSUS IS WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH TO DO EVERYTHING THAT WE’RE HOPING TO DO AND KEEP UP WITH SEA LEVEL RISE WHICH IS ONE OF THE REASONS WE’RE PUSHING VERY HARD TO GET AS MUCH OF IT GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AS POSSIBLE. THEN THERE IS A FURTHER FIELD OF SOURCES SUCH AS RESERVOIRS WHICH ARE A DIFFERENT SUPPLY MUCH MORE CHALLENGING TO GET INTO BUT WE’RE STARTING HERE WITH THIS ONE TO A FIVE-YEAR PROJECT TO TRY TO FREE UP AS MUCH OF THE MATERIAL GETTING IT TO THE RIGHT PLACE AS POSSIBLE TO GET RID OF SOME OF THE BARRIERS.  \nPAT ECKLUND: RIGHT. I GUESS THE ISSUE THERE IS THAT SINCE IT ISN’T GOING TO BE ENOUGH\, THEN WE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE’RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO COLLECT SOME OF THE SOIL THAT IS EXCAVATED\, NOT ONLY FOR MAJOR CONSTRUCTION\, BUT\, ALSO\, MAYBE EVEN FOR RESIDENTIAL\, AS WELL. I KNOW THAT THERE’S A LOT OF CHANGING OF THE BUILDINGS\, FOR AN EXAMPLE\, FROM OFFICE TO RESIDENTIAL. AND\, SO\, A LOT OF THAT — SOME OF THE BUILDINGS WILL HAVE TO BE TAKEN DOWN. AND\, SO THAT’S GOING TO BE A LOT OF DEMOLITION DEBRIS THAT MAY BE AVAILABLE IF WE’RE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO COLLECT IT AS A SOCIETY OR HERE IN CALIFORNIA OR EVEN IN THE BAY AREA SAME WITH SOIL FROM RESIDENTIAL AREAS TOO.  JUST HAVING A RECENT EXPERIENCE OF HAVING SOME SOIL WE NEEDED TO GET RID OF\, I WAS SHOCKED THAT THERE WASN’T A PLACE THAT I COULD TAKE IT TO. AND FOR IT TO BE REUSED\, BECAUSE IT WAS CLEAN\, AND SO IT HAD TO BE THROWN AWAY IN THE GARBAGE\, WHICH YOU DO NOT WANT TO FILL UP THE LANDFILL WITH GOOD SOIL OR GOOD DEMOLITION DEBRIS WHEN IT COULD BE USED ELSEWHERE. SO\, THIS IS MAYBE SOMETHING WE MAY WANT TO GET SOME OF THE STATE AGENCIES INVOLVED IN THAT REALLY PROMOTE RECYCLING OF A LOT OF DIFFERENT MATERIALS. ANYWAY\, I JUST REMEMBER FROM MY DAYS WITH THE ARMY CORP AND WITH EPA THAT WE DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH DREDGE MATERIAL. AND I JUST WANT TO SEE IF THAT WAS STILL THE CASE. WHICH IT IS. AND I’M JUST REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF EVEN MAYBE CHANGING HOW WE DEAL WITH CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES\, AS WELL AS INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTS AND HOW WE CAN REUSE THAT MATERIAL THAT’S SO VALUABLE.  THANK YOU.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER SHOWALTER.  \nPATRICIA SHOWALTER: YEAH. I JUST WANTED TO TAKE A MOMENT TO THANK THE STAFF FOR THE WORK THAT THEY HAVE DONE HERE. I\, SORT OF\, VIEWED THIS AS THEM SUPPLYING US WITH A CLASS OF SEDIMENT 101. WE HAVE REALLY HAD AMAZING SPEAKERS COME TALK TO US ABOUT THE SCIENCE AND\, SORT OF\, THE OPERATION OF SEDIMENT REMOVAL IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY. AND IT’S JUST GIVING US\, WE GOT A GREAT FOUNDATION\, AND THEN WE HAD THE WORKSHOPS. SO\, I THINK IT WAS KIND OF THE BEST WAY WE COULD POSSIBLY GET A STAKEHOLDER GROUP TOGETHER\, GET THEM ALL ON THE SAME PAGE\, AND THEN HAVE THEM BRAINSTORM.  SO\, I REALLY ENJOY TAKING PART IN THIS. AND I LOOK FORWARD TO\, YOU KNOW\, THE NEXT FEW STEPS YOU COME UP WITH\, AND I’M REALLY GLAD TO HEAR THAT THE LIST IS NEAR 80 NOW. SO\, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS?  \nSTEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: THANK YOU. I ALSO WANT TO ADD MY THANKS TO THE STAFF AND OUR COMMITTEE FOR THE WORK YOU HAVE DONE. AND JUST TO SAY THAT I’M REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO\, YOU KNOW\, BRINGING ALL THE AGENCIES ON BOARD WITH THIS BENEFICIAL REUSE.  JUST AS AN EXAMPLE\, I HAVE A PROJECT AT McGINNIS MARSH WHERE WE HAVE GALENA’S CREEK RIGHT NEXT DOOR THAT WE ARE GOING TO DREDGE AND WE ARE AWAITING TO GET APPROVAL FROM NUMEROUS AGENCIES TO PUT THEM ON THE MARSH AND IT’S TAKING AN AGONIZING LONG TIME SO I LOOK FORWARD TO THE PROCESS WHEN IT THE RIGHT THING TO DO. THANK YOU.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS?  \nPAT ECKLUND: REBECCA\, I HAD HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE COST. IF THE SEDIMENT ITSELF IS THAT OF THE QUALITY THAT WE NEED FOR PARTICULAR WETLAND\, HAS IT BEEN DISCUSSED ABOUT WHO PAYS FOR THE CLEAN UP OF THAT MATERIAL? OR WHETHER IT’S NOT EVEN JUST USED THEN? THANK YOU.   \nMAYA MCLERNEY: SURE. THAT ONE WE HAVE NOT GONE THROUGH ALL OF THE COSTS AND FUNDING SITUATIONS AND SCENARIOS YET. SO WE’LL PROBABLY SUBJECT KIND OF LEAVING THAT ONE TO TALK ABOUT LATER ON.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: GREAT. THANK YOU MAYA. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. THANK YOU TO ALL THE COMMISSIONERS AND ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO ARE ON THE WORKING GROUP WHO ARE DEALING WITH ALL OF THESE ISSUES ON OUR BEHALF.  I APPRECIATE IT. WE HAVE ONE MORE PRESENTATION ON DELTA ADAPT. THAT IS A CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION STUDY\, WHICH HAS BEEN CREATED AND MANAGED BY THE DELTA STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL. AND IT’S DESIGNED TO IMPROVE THE DELTA’S RESILIENCE TO CLIMATE CHANGE HAZARDS\, INCLUDING\, OF COURSE\, SEA LEVEL RISE. THE BRIEFING WILL BE PROVIDED BY CORY COPELAND WHO IS BCDC’S CHIEF SCIENTIST AND ALSO A FORMER DELTA STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL STAFF MEMBER. SO\, THANK YOU\, CORY FOR THE PRESENTATION YOU’RE ABOUT TO GIVE US.  \nCORY COPELAND: YEAH.  I ACTUALLY WON’T BE GIVING IT. I’LL BE INTRODUCING THE STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL MEMBERS. THANK YOU SO MUCH CHAIR EISEN AND COMMISSIONERS. I’M REALLY PLEASED TO BE INTRODUCING THIS ITEM. AS CHAIR EISEN MENTIONED\, I HAD OPPORTUNITY TO WORK ON THIS DURING MY TIME AT THE DELTA STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL BEFORE JOINING BCDC AS THE ADAPTING TO RISING TIDES IN SCIENCE MANAGER. DELTA ADAPTS IS THE STATE CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTING A PLAN FOR SACRAMENTO SAN JOAQUIN AND UPPER ESTUARY OF SAN FRANCISCO BAY DELTA I HAVE BEEN ON BOTH SIDES OF THE COLLABORATION BCDC AND DELTA STEWARDSHIP WORK AROUND CLIMATE ADAPTATION. FOR CONTEXT THE FUNDING INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK THAT HELPED US IDENTIFY A $110 BILLION NEED FOR INVESTMENT IN SEA LEVEL RISE ADAPTATION IN THE BAY AREA FOR CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ANALYSIS\, USED HYDROLOGIC WORK THAT WAS DONE FOR DELTA ADAPT VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT.  WITH THAT INNER RELATIONSHIP IN MIND\, I’M REALLY GLAD TO HAVE A COUPLE OF FOLKS FROM THE DELTA STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL HERE TO PRESENT ON THEIR ADAPTATION PLAN THAT IS COMING OUT SOON. SO\, HERE TO SPEAK ON THAT ARE JEFF HENDERSON\, THE PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR THE STEWARDSHIP ARE COUNCIL\, AND MORGAN C\, FORMER BCDC EMPLOYEE WHO IS NOW THE MANAGER OF CLIMATE ADAPTATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AT THE DELTA STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL WHO WILL GIVING A PRESENTATION THAT I WILL BE SHARING.  \nJEFF HENDERSON: THANK YOU CORY. LET’S GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.  \nSPEAKER: DOES THAT LOOK CORRECT?  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: IT LOOKS GOOD IN THE BOARDROOM.  \nSPEAKER: THAT LOOKS GOOD CORY.   \nSPEAKER: IT LOOKS GOOD ONLINE.  \nJEFF HENDERSON: ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. IT’S A PLEASURE TO BE HERE ON BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL TO PRESENT ON OUR DELTA ADAPT CLIMATE CHANGE INITIATIVE. THIS INITIATIVE IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE BEEN LEADING SINCE 2018\, WITH A GOAL TO BETTER UNDERSTAND SPECIFIC RISKS FACED BY THE DELTA AND PROPOSED STRATEGIES TO PREPARE ACCORDINGLY. TO OUR KNOWLEDGE\, IT’S THE FIRST OF ITS KIND FOR THE ENTIRE DELTA REGION THAT CUTS ACROSS MULTIPLE TOPICS. THERE HAVE BEEN ADAPTATION PLANS PREPARED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL\, OR ADAPTATION PLANS PREPARED TO ADDRESS A SINGLE TOPIC SUCH AS WATER SUPPLY OR ECOSYSTEM OR FLOODING OR AGRICULTURE.  TO OUR KNOWLEDGE\, THIS IS THE FIRST AT SCALE THAT ADDRESSES MULTIPLE SECTORS AND TOPICS ACROSS THE FULL REGION OF THE DELTA ITSELF. WE’RE ABOUT TO RELEASE OUR ADAPTATION PLAN\, JUST PUTTING FINAL TOUCHES ON IT AND COMPLETING SOME FINAL REVIEWS AND WE’RE EXCITED TO RELEASE THAT. BECAUSE IT SHOWS HOW FAR WE HAVE COME THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT’S PROCESS. HOW MUCH WE HAVE LEARNED\, AND IT SETS A FRAMEWORK FOR MAKING A LOT OF MUCH NEEDED ADAPTATION ACTIONS HAPPEN WITHIN THE REGION. IT’S THE RESULT OF MANY YEARS OF CONVERSATIONS ACROSS PROBABLY THE MOST DIVERSE GROUP OF INTERESTS AND EXPERTISE THAT THE COUNCIL HAS ENGAGED TO DATE. THE WORK RECOGNIZES A LOT OF GREAT PROGRESS IN PROTECTING THE DELTA THUS FAR. BUT\, ALSO\, POINTS OUT ALL THE AREAS WE STILL NEED TO AMPLIFY OUR WORK TO BE MORE INNOVATIVE\, TO PROVIDE AND PRIORITIZE ADAPTATION STRATEGIES TO KEEP UP WITH THE IMPACTS THAT WE’RE ALREADY SEEING.  THE WORK IS BEING LED BY THE COUNCIL WHICH WAS CREATED TO HELP SAFEGUARD DELTA ASSETS. AND CRITICAL CONSIDERATIONS TO ACHIEVING OUR MISSION\, WE HAVE IDENTIFIED NEEDS RESOURCES PARTNERSHIPS AND IMPORTANTLY LEADERS THAT ARE NEEDED AS MUCH OF THE PLAN RELIES ON A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT AMONG A NUMBER OF AGENCIES. OUR PRESENTATION TODAY MORGAN IS GOING TO PROVIDE A PREVIEW OF SOME OF OUR APPLICATION STRATEGIES. WE’RE INTERESTED TO HEAR YOUR FEEDBACK AROUND CLARITY OF STRATEGIES AND ANY PRIORITIES OR APPLICATIONS OUTLINED FOR BCDC TO HELP INFORM THE FINAL DRAFT OF THE PLAN. NEXT SLIDE. AGAIN JUST TO ORIENT THIS IS A MATCH DELTA WHICH IS ON THE RIGHT WITH THE SAN WAN KEEN RIVER DARK BLUE AND WHAT’S BEEN MARKED IN THE CENTER\, IDENTIFIED AS OUR OVERLAPPING JURISDICTIONS BCDC THAT’S THE MIDDLE AND SAN FRANCISCO BAY ON THE LEFT THIS IS IN THE SPIRIT OF MANAGING THE ONE BAY DELTA ESTUARY WHERE ACTIVITIES TAKE PLACE IN THE BAY AFFECT THE DELTA AND THOSE THAT TAKE PLACE IN THE DELTA AFFECT THE BAY. NEXT SLIDE\, CORY.  THE FIRST PHASE OF OUR PROJECT BEGAN IN 2018\, IT WAS A VULNERABLE ASSESSMENT IN WHICH WE IDENTIFIED AT RISK SYSTEMS FROM CLIMATE CHANGE HEAVILY RELY ON NATURAL AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES AND PRIMARY AND SECONDARY RESEARCH. WE FOUND THE FOLLOWING\, FLOOD RISK IS ONE OF THE MOST PRESSING THREATS TO THE DELTA AND IT’S GOING TO CONTINUE TO WORSEN IN THE FUTURE WITH CHANGES IN SEA LEVEL\, PRECIPITATION\, HYDROLOGY AND TEMPERATURE THESE ARE NOT ALL GOING TO IMPACT THE DELTA RESIDENTS IN THE SAME WAY OR IN AN EQUITABLE WAY AND WILL AFFECT THE CENTRAL SOUTHERN DELTA MOST\, CONCENTRATION IN THE STOCKTON AREA THIS MEANS MANY OF THE RESIDENTS EXPOSED TO FLOODING MAY HAVE HIGHER SENSITIVITY TO FLOOD IMPACTS AND LOWER CAPACITY TO ADAPT. WE’LL TALK MORE ABOUT HOW FLOOD RISK IS DIFFERENT IN THE DELTA THAN IN THE BAY WHEN WE COVER OUR STRATEGIES. PARTICULARLY THOSE RELATED TO FLOOD RISK REDUCTION. TWO\, DELTA WATER EXPORTS WILL BE LESS RELIABLE IN THE FUTURE DUE TO CLIMATE CHANGE. DELTA’S EXISTING WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM DOES NOT PROVIDE ENOUGH STORAGE TO CAPTURE ANTICIPATED INCREASES IN RUNOFF DUE TO MORE VARIABLE PRECIPITATION. IT’S WORTH PAUSING TO NOTE THAT IN THE DELTA\, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE FOUND OUT FROM THE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT IS THAT THE DELTA SYSTEM IS MUCH MORE AFFECTED BY ANTICIPATED CHANGES IN RIVERING FLOWS\, FROM THE SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN\, BASED ON ADJUSTED\, OR — THE SITUATION OF MORE PRECIPITATION AND FALLING AS RAIN AND LESS AS SNOW\, THEN THE REGION IS AFFECTED BY SEA LEVEL RISE.  SO\, SEA LEVEL RISE AND RIVERING INFLOW ARE BOTH COMPONENTS OF THE VULNERABILITY\, THE RIVERING AND THE FLOW ASPECT SEEMS TO BE MUCH MORE DIRECTING THE OUTCOMES IN THE DELTA. IN TERMS OF WATER QUALITY\, IN DELTA WATER USERS MAY BE THREATENED BY WATER QUALITY DECLINES\, FUTURE DROUGHTS\, AND ALL OF THAT EXPOSING MORE ACRES OF DELTA AGRICULTURE\, TO MORE SALINE WATER THAN HAS HISTORICALLY OCCURRED. DELTA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION TRENDS WILL SHIFT DUE TO CLIMATE CHANGE\, INCREASING TEMPERATURES AND THE NUMBER OF EXTREME HEAT DAYS\, ARE BOTH PROJECTED TO REDUCE YIELDS FOR MANY DELTA CROPS. AND THE NUMBER OF EXTREME HEAT DAYS WILL INCREASE THROUGHOUT THE DELTA AND COMMUNITIES IDENTIFIED AS MOST VULNERABLE TO THAT EXTREME HEAT ARE LOCATED PREDOMINANTLY IN THE CITIES OF STOCKTON AND TRACY. AND I’LL ASK MORGAN TO JUMP IN AND GIVE THE PRESENTATION ON OUR UPCOMING ADAPTATION PLAN. THANK YOU.  \nMORGAN CHAU: THANKS\, JEFF.  AND GOOD AFTERNOON\, CHAIR EISEN AND COMMISSIONERS. I’M HAPPY TO BE HERE PRESENTING TO YOU. AS CORY MENTIONED\, I USED TO WORK AT BCDC\, I WAS IN PERMITS\, ANALYST IN SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT UNIT. SO IT’S NICE TO BE BACK. NEXT SLIDE. SO\, PHASE TWO IS REALLY THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ADAPTATION PLAN THAT WE’RE SPEAKING ABOUT TODAY\, WHICH IT INCLUDES A RANGE OF ACTIONS TO IMPROVE REGIONAL RESILIENCE TO CLIMATE CHANGE FOR THE DELTA. SO\, THIS GRAPHIC REALLY JUST SHOWS OUR PROCESS AND HOW WE LEANED ON\, REALLY\, AS JEFF MENTIONED\, PROBABLY THE MOST DIVERSE SET OF INTERESTS THAT WE HAVE ENGAGED WITH AT THE COUNCIL\, AS WELL AS OUR VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT FINDINGS TO EXPLORE ADAPTATION NEEDS AND PRIORITIES AND DEVELOP STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS THOSE.  WE WORKED ACROSS FOUR FOCUS AREAS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAN. AGRICULTURE\, FLOOD RISK REDUCTION\, ECOSYSTEM\, AND WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY OVER THE LAST TWO AND A HALF YEARS\, WORKING TO INTEGRATE EQUITY THROUGHOUT. WE ALSO WORKED ACROSS INTERDISCIPLINARY GROUP WHERE WE BROUGHT TOGETHER THOSE FOCUS GROUPS SEVERAL TIMES. OUR ENGAGEMENT FOR SCOPING THE PLAN REALLY BEGAN IN 2021\, AND WE COHOSTED A WORKSHOP SERIES WITH SEVERAL COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS IN STOCKTON\, WHICH IS A HIGHLY SOCIALLY VULNERABLE CITY IN THE DELTA\, AND THIS ENGAGEMENT WITH THIS GROUP OF COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS CONTINUED. AND THEY HAVE SEVERAL OF THOSE HAVE INFORMED OTHER COMPONENTS OF OUR WORK INCLUDING OUR TRIBAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE WORK. WE HAVE ALSO INCORPORATED SEVERAL TRIBAL CONSULTATIONS INTO THE PLAN AT INFORMAL MEETINGS WITH OTHER AGENCIES AT THE STATE\, LOCAL\, AND FLOOD AND WATER AGENCIES. THE COUNCIL HOLDS MANY COLLABORATIVE FORUMS THAT HAVE BEEN TOPICALLY RELEVANT FOR ADAPTATION THAT HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE PLAN.  AND ANOTHER CRITICAL COMPONENT IS FOR THE FIRST TIME\, FOR THE COUNCIL\, REALLY REACHING AND HEARING DIRECTLY FROM DELTA FARMERS AND GROWERS. SO\, WE’RE HEARING FIRSTHAND ABOUT CHALLENGES THEY’RE CURRENTLY GRAPPLING WITH\, HOW THEY’RE ADAPTING AND WHAT THEY NEED TO FURTHER ADAPT. LASTLY\, WE HEARD A LOT FROM INTERVIEWS\, BOTH THROUGH OUR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE WORK AND ALSO RESULTS FROM THE REGION’S FIRST REPRESENTATIVE SURVEY OF DELTA RESIDENTS THAT HAS INFORMED OUR WORK. AS WE APPROACH HAVING PUBLIC DRAFT OF THE PLAN\, WE HAVE BEEN SPENDING A LOT OF CONCERTED EFFORT IN THREE CITIES IN THE DELTA THAT HAVE SCORED PARTICULARLY HIGH IN TERMS OF SOCIAL VULNERABLE CLIMATE IMPACTS FROM INDEX DEVELOPED IN PHASE ONE\, THOSE ARE FRO ANTIOCH\, PITTSBURG\, AND STOCKTON\, ANTIOCH AND PITTSBURG HAVE OVERLAPPING JURISDICTION REALLY OVER THE EDGE OF BCDC’S JURISDICTION AND OURS. NEXT SLIDE. SO\, WE’RE NOW AT THE POINT WHERE WE ARE PROPOSING OUR SET OF STRATEGIES IN OUR PLAN\, THEY’RE BOTH PHYSICAL AND MANAGEMENT LEVEL STRATEGIES THAT WILL REALLY BE REALIZED DIFFERENTLY ACCORDING TO THE SPECIFIC LOCATION IN THE DELTA. AND OUR FOCUS REALLY WITH THE STRATEGIES\, IS TO MAINTAIN FLEXIBILITY AND TO BE ABLE TO INCORPORATE NEW CLIMATE DATA AS IT BECOMES AVAILABLE\, REALLY PRIORITIZING PROJECTS THAT OFFER MULTIPLE BENEFITS IN AN EQUITABLE MANNER.  SO\, JEFF TOUCHED ON THIS\, BUT EACH STRATEGY BEFORE I GET INTO THEM\, HAS A RECOMMENDED LEAD ACCORDING TO THE AGENCY THAT MAKES THE MOST SENSE TO LEAD\, NOT NECESSARILY ONLY BY REGULATORY AUTHORITY\, AND SEVERAL PROPOSED PARTNERS. WE ALSO WORKED TO HIGHLIGHT STRATEGIES THAT WE FEEL\, ACCORDING TO COST AND ORDER OF OPERATIONS\, THAT REALLY SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED FIRST OR NEAR-TERM. WE HAVE DONE\, AS COREY MENTIONED SOME OF OUR ANALYSIS PREVIOUSLY\, BUT WE HAVE WORKED TO DEVELOP ADAPTATION COSTS FOR THESE BIG PROJECTS COMPARE THOSE TO VALUE OF ASSETS AT RISK WHICH WAS PART OF OUR PHASE ONE. WE’RE CAREFUL TO NOTE THE STRATEGIES AND RELATIONSHIP TO OUR EXISTING DELTA PLAN\, WHICH IS OUR LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR DELTA RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER STATE REGIONAL RESOURCE SPECIFIC PLANS AS WELL AS CASE STUDIES THAT EXEMPLIFY TYPES OF STRATEGIES WE WANT TO SEE MOVING FORWARD. OKAY. NEXT SLIDE. TOUCH BRIEFLY ON HOW WE ARE INCLUDING EQUITY THROUGH THE ALL OF OUR STRATEGIES.  IT REALLY\, EQUITY IS A COMPONENT IN\, I THINK\, THREE MAIN WAYS. FIRST IN TERMS OF REPRESENTATIONAL JUSTICE. SO\, IN A LOT OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS IN OUR PLAN\, WE ARE REALLY WORKING AND RECOGNIZE IT’S INCREASINGLY IMPORTANT TO HAVE DECISIONS AND THE DECISION-MAKING BODIES THAT REPRESENT COMMUNITIES THAT ARE SERVED SO THAT COMMUNITIES ARE BOTH INFORMED REPRESENTED AND INVOLVED IN THESE PLANNING PROCESSES. ANOTHER IS THROUGH PRIORITIZATION OF INVESTMENTS THAT’S CONTINUING TO WORK TO UNDERSTAND WHO FACES MOST RISK AND WHO NEEDS INVESTMENT FOR ADAPTATION THE MOST. LASTLY HEARD ACROSS THE BOARD IN OUR DISCUSSIONS WAS NEED TO CONTINUE TO IMPROVE AND AMPLIFY RISK COMMUNICATION AND EDUCATION\, AND REALLY PRESENT WHAT WERE OUR FINDINGS FROM PHASE 1 AND 2\, TO THE MOST SOCIALLY VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES IN OUR REGION. NEXT SLIDE. SO\, NOW TO THE STRATEGIES.  THIS IS OUR FIRST OF OUR FOUR FOCUS AREAS IS FLOOD RISK REDUCTION\, WHICH HAS A LOT OF INTEREST IN THE DELTA\, AS JEFF MENTIONED. WE HAVE SEEN SUBSTANTIAL PROGRESS\, BUT A LOT MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE TO ADAPT TO CLIMATE CHANGE. THESE GRAPHICS WE’LL HAVE FOR EACH FOCUS AREA FROM LEFT TO RIGHT SHOWS SUMMARY OF VULNERABILITIES\, AN ILLUSTRATIVE SUMMARY OF OUR TYPES OF STRATEGIES WE’RE PROPOSING\, AND EXAMPLE ACTIONS. SO\, ON THE LEFT\, IN TERMS OF WHAT WE FOUND RELATED TO FLOOD VULNERABLE\, WE KNOW THAT CLIMATE CHANGE REALLY — WILL REALLY AFFECT THE ENTIRE SYSTEM FROM ALL DIRECTIONS IN THE DELTA. SO THAT’S RIVERING INFLOWS\, FLOOD CONTROL WATER SUPPLY OPERATIONS. AS JEFF MENTIONED\, BRIEFLY DISTINCTION FROM HOW BCDC APPROACHES FLOOD RISK WHICH IS MORE FOCUSED ON SEA LEVEL RISE\, WE’RE LOOKING AT FLOOD RISK AND RIVERING\, AND LEVEES OVERTOPPING. WHILE THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT IN OUR LEVEES IN PAST DECADES THERE IS STILL A LOT OF WORK TO DO IN OUR STRATEGY OUTLINING WHAT’S NEEDED THROUGH A WELL ROUNDED APPROACH TO ADDRESSING BOTH HYDROLOGICAL VARIABILITY\, AND CHALLENGES POSED BY CLIMATE OUR DELTA PLAN DOES LAY FOUNDATION FOR ADDRESSING A LOT OF THESE STRATEGIES FOR FLOOD RISK WE HAVE POLICIES RELATED TO HOW WE INVEST IN LEVEES AND SUPPORT FLOOD MANAGEMENT AND PLANNED USE DECISIONS.  THE STRATEGIES GO BEYOND AND WE HAVE A FEW EXAMPLES\, STRATEGIES THAT TOUCHES ON SPECIFIC FLOOD MODELING NEEDS AND COLLABORATION AND COMMUNICATION ON THAT TOPIC. AND\, REALLY\, CONTINUING TO WORK ON OUR DELTA LEVEE INVESTMENT STRATEGY. ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A MORE NON-STRUCTURAL MEASURE IS TO RAISE AWARENESS ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF FLOOD INSURANCE\, IN THE DELTA REGION THERE\, IS A VERY LOW\, DESPITE THE FLOOD RISK\, THERE IS A VERY LOW PERCENTAGE OF FOLKS THAT ACTUALLY HAVE FLOOD INSURANCE. NEXT SLIDE. THE SECOND FOCUS AREA IS ECOSYSTEM. SO\, THE DELTA ECOSYSTEM REALLY PROVIDES HABITAT FOR [INDISCERNIBLE] MIGRATORY PATHWAYS\, WE ALSO KNOW THE VALUE OF ECOSYSTEM AS A BUFFER FROM IMPACTS FROM CLIMATE CHANGE WE KNOW FROM VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT THAT THE ECOSYSTEMS AND DELTA WILL CONTINUE TO BE STRESSED AND HAVE LIMITED ROOM TO MIGRATE. AGAIN THE DELTA PLAN WE HAVE POLICIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO PROTECTING THE DELTA ECOSYSTEM WE HAVE ACTUAL SPECIFIC TARGETS FOR THE AMOUNT OF ACREAGE WE WANT TO RESTORE AND OUR STRATEGIES HERE ALIGN WITH AND GO BEYOND WHAT IS IN OUR DELTA PLAN.  IN A FEW THINGS WE CALL OUT CO-BENEFITS RELATED TO RESTORATION\, THAT’S RECOGNIZING REDUCED FLOOD RISK THAT CAN BE BROUGHT FROM PROJECTS\, AND THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPROVING ACCESS TO GREEN SPACE AND OPEN SPACES\, AND THE CULTURAL VALUE AND THE NEED TO WORK ALONGSIDE TRIBES IN THESE RESTORATION PROJECTS. ANOTHER EXAMPLE FROM OUR STRATEGIES IS THE IMPORTANCE OF HALTING AND REVERSING SUBSIDENCE THAT THE DELTA EXPERIENCES. THAT CAN BE DONE IN SEVERAL WAYS DEPENDING ON THE LAND OWNERSHIP AND FEASIBILITY SO IT COULD BE THROUGH DIFFERENT TYPES OF RESTORATION BUT ALSO THROUGH PLANTING CROPS SUCH AS RICE. NEXT SLIDE. NEXT IS OUR AGRICULTURE FOCUS AREA AND\, REALLY\, AGRICULTURE IN THE DELTA IS A FUNDAMENTAL PART OF THE DELTA’S CULTURE\, HISTORY\, AND ECONOMY\, IT’S REALLY THE ECONOMIC ENGINE OF THE REGION IT PROVIDES JOBS AND SIGNIFICANT ANNUAL ECONOMIC OUTPUT HOWEVER AGRICULTURE WE KNOW FROM OUR PHASE ONE REALLY FACES A LOT OF CHALLENGES WITH CLIMATE\, INCLUDING VARIABLE PRECIPITATION\, SALT WATER INTRUSION\, WATER QUALITY DECLINE\, FLOODING\, EXTREME HEAT\, AND REDUCED CHILL HOURS WHICH ALL COMPOUND TO IMPACT BOTH CROP YIELD AND QUALITY. SO\, AGAIN OUR DELTA PLAN DOES LAY FOUNDATION FOR ADDRESSING AGRICULTURE AND NEEDS FOR ADAPTATION. WE HAVE SEVERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STATE AGENCIES TO REALLY ADAPTIVELY MANAGE AGRICULTURE LANDS AND ALSO TO PROVIDE HABITAT CONDITIONS FOR FEASIBLE NATIVE SPECIES.  OUR STRATEGIES ARE DIVERSE HERE. WE HAVE STRATEGIES RELATED TO ACKNOWLEDGING THE NEED FOR AN EQUITABLE REGIONAL FOOD SYSTEM. SO THIS INCLUDES THINGS LIKE LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FOR FARMS. WE HAVE QUITE A FEW ACTIONS THAT SUPPORT CLIMATE SMART FARMING PRACTICES. SO\, THESE ARE ACTIONS SUCH AS IRRIGATION\, EFFICIENCY\, BUILDING SOIL HEALTH\, PEST MANAGEMENT\, OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT\, RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF DIVERSIFYING INCOME AND REVENUE FOR FARMS. SO\, SUPPORT FOR AGRO TOURISM\, CULTURAL OPPORTUNITIES\, FUNDING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CREDITS\, LIKE CARBON CREDITS AND THEN WILDLIFE FRIENDLY FARMING. AND THEN WHERE FEASIBLE IDENTIFY WHERE LAND MIGHT NEED TO BE RETIRED OF THERE ARE OTHER USES THAT WOULD BE OF HIGH VALUE.  NEXT SLIDE. SO\, THIS IS OUR LAST. FOCUS AREA\, WATER SUPPLY\, RELIABILITY. THE DELTA WATERSHED PROVIDES A PORTION OF WATER SUPPLY FOR APPROXIMATELY 27 MILLION CALIFORNIANS. AND WE KNOW FROM CLIMATE CHANGE FROM OUR PHASE ONE THAT OUR WATER SUPPLY WILL LIKELY DECREASE WITH DEMAND AND INCREASED — SORRY — WITH\, AS DEMAND INCREASES\, AND WE EXPERIENCE MORE VARIABLE PRECIPITATION AND DECREASED SNOWPACK AS JEFF ALREADY MENTIONED\, OUR INFRASTRUCTURE WILL ALSO BE AT RISK TO SEVERAL CLIMATE IMPACTS. SO\, AGAIN\, THE STRATEGIES HERE REALLY GO BEYOND THE FOUNDATIONAL POLICIES IN THE DELTA PLAN WHICH DOES REQUIRE SUPPLIERS TO REDUCE RELIANCE ON THE DELTA. AND OUR STRATEGIES\, WE HAVE FIVE STRATEGIES.  AND THE FIRST IS REDUCING RELIANCE ON THE DELTA. SO THERE ARE SEVERAL ACTIONS HERE\, SUCH AS FUNDING PROJECTS THAT REALLY PROMOTE URBAN AND AGRICULTURAL WATER CONSERVATION\, OR RECYCLED WATER. WE HAVE A STRATEGY RELATED TO INCREASING LOCAL STORAGE OF SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES\, BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE DELTA. A STRATEGY RELATED TO MODIFYING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS TO BE ADAPTABLE TO CHANGING CLIMATE CONTINUES. AND THEN\, LASTLY\, A STRATEGY TO REVIEW AND CONSIDER MODIFYING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS SO THAT THERE ARE OBJECTIVES THAT PROVIDE FOR SEVERAL BENEFICIAL USES OF WATER\, SUCH AS AGRICULTURAL\, FISHING\, RECREATIONAL TRIBAL AND OTHER HUMAN BENEFICIAL USES OF WATER. SORRY. OUR LAST ONE IS TO REALLY IMPROVE OR MODIFY INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE DELTA TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS OF THROUGH DELTA CONVEYANCE.  NEXT SLIDE. OUR PLAN HAS A GOVERNANCE CHAPTER THAT REALLY ADDRESSES THE UNIQUE HISTORY\, CHALLENGES\, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADAPTATION GOVERNANCE IN THE DELTA. AS REALLY GOVERNANCE DOES DETERMINE THE PROCESS FOR FUNDING\, PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING ALL OF THESE ACTIVITIES THAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT THIS GRAPHIC THAT IS ON THIS SLIDE WAS DEVELOPED BY A DELTA SCIENCE FELLOW\, TARA POSEY\, AND UC DAVIS PH.D. CANDIDATE WHO IS DOING NETWORK MAPPING TO UNDERSTAND HOW CLIMATE COLLABORATIVES ARE CONNECTED AND JUST TO SHOW OUR PROJECT CONNECT MAPS AND UNDERSTANDING HOW CLIMATE COLLABORATIVE ARE CONNECTED AND SHOWS IN OUR PROJECT COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS IN THE REGION. THIS IS JUST AS IMPORTANT WORKING TO HAVE PROCEDURAL JUSTICE\, ACROSS DECISIONS TO PRESENT COMMUNITIES THAT WE SERVE WE INCLUDE PRACTICES PARTICIPATORY GOVERNANCE ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT WE HAVE WORKING DOUBLE ON CONDITIONAL KNOWLEDGE THAT CAN HAVE A BETTER ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING. JUST TO WRAP UP\, WE WANTED TO SHARE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT OUR ROLE MOVING FORWARD ALREADY TOUCHED ON THESE COMPONENTS WHAT’S IMPORTANT FOR US IS CONTINUE TO ADVANCE REPRESENTATIONAL JUSTICE ADAPTATION DECISIONS THROUGH INCREASED COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS AND RELATIONSHIPS\, TO CONTINUE TO USE RESOURCES WITH OUR PARTNERS TO AMPLIFY BETTER COMMUNICATIONS. WE HAVE A SCIENCE PROGRAM THAT FUND A LOT OF RESEARCH IN THE REGION WORKING CLOSELY WITH THEM TO ADDRESS A LOT OF THE RESEARCH GAPS THAT CAME OUT OF THESE CONVERSATIONS. I TOUCHED ON THE TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE WORK AND THEN REALLY THINKING ABOUT HOW TO FUND ALL OF THIS.  IF THIS IS AN AREA WHERE WE REALLY LEARN AND TO COLLABORATE WITH THE PLANNING STAFF IS JUST THINKING ABOUT REGIONAL FUNDING FOR ADAPTING A AND LASTLY WORKING THROUGH EXISTING REGULATORY AUTHORITY FOR OUR COVERED ACTION AUTHORITY\, JUST CONTINUING TO PROMOTE LAND USES THAT ENHANCE DELTA RESILIENCE HALTING REVERSE SUBSIDENCE AND REDUCE RISK OVERALL. NEXT SLIDE. THAT’S ALL FOR ME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HAVING US HERE. AS WE’RE GETTING VERY CLOSE TO HAVING A DRAFT OUT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW. WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME FOR LETTING US PRESENT TODAY.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU\, MORGAN.  BEFORE WE GET TO QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING THIS AGENDA ITEM?  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NONE IN-PERSON. AND NO HANDS RAISED.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: OKAY. SO\, THANK YOU\, CORY\, JEFF\, AND MORGAN FOR THAT VERY IN-DEPTH PRESENTATION. AND I’M GOING TO LOOK — OR SIERRA IS GOING LOOK FOR ME TO TELL ME IF THERE ARE ANY COMMISSIONERS THAT WANT TO ASK QUESTIONS OR COMMENT ON YOUR PRESENTATION.   \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NO HANDS RAISED VIRTUALLY. BUT YOU DO HAVE COMMISSIONER ECKLUND HERE IN-PERSON.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: OKAY.  \nPAT ECKLUND: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALLOWING HE TO ASK AND QUESTIONS. YOU HAVE COME A LONG WAYS\, OBVIOUSLY\, IN ADDRESSING A LOT OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE CONFRONTING THE DELTA. A COUPLE OF TECHNICAL QUESTIONS. HAS THE RATE OF SUBSIDENCE INCREASED OVER TIME?  OR DO WE KNOW?  \nMORGAN CHAU: I DON’T ACTUALLY KNOW THE DETAILS OF THE RATE OF SUBSIDENCE. I THINK IT MIGHT — YEAH IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE WHOLE DELTA\, IT MIGHT INTERESTING\, IS A LOT ACTIVE WORK TO ADDRESS THOSE EXPOSED PEAT SOILS. WE CAN GET BACK TO YOU.  \nSPEAKER: YEAH.  \nPAT ECKLUND: GO AHEAD.  \nSPEAKER: I WAS GOING TO SAY FOR MOST OF THE DELTA\, THE PEAT SOIL IS SO DEEP SO THAT ANYWHERE THERE IS TRADITIONAL LAND MANAGEMENT IT’S KIND OF SUBSIDING AT A FAIRLY CONSISTENT RATE THROUGH THE TIME THERE ARE CERTAIN LOCATIONS TO DO SUBSIDENCE HALTING OR EVEN SUBSIDENCE REVERSE ACTIVITIES I KNOW THOSE ARE ENCOURAGED IN THE DELTA\, AN EXAMPLE\, WETLANDS\, AND CARBON SEQUESTRATION AT THOSE SITES\, THEY HAVE USED ICE TO MANAGE SUBSIDENCE.  IT’S A MAJOR TOPIC BUT IT HASN’T BEEN VERY — AT THIS POINT IT’S ALL UNIVERSALLY TAKEN AS LAND MANAGEMENT IN THE REGION BUT I KNOW THERE IS A LOT OF EFFORT TO PROMOTE IT MORE.  \nPAT ECKLUND: SO THE RATE MAY HAVE SLOWED DOWN IN SOME AREAS BECAUSE OF THE REVERSAL THAT PEOPLE ARE WORKING SO HARD TO TRY TO EMBRACE\, CORRECT?  \nCORY COPELAND: YEAH\, THOUGH\, I WILL SAY THOSE ARE RELATIVELY LIMITED.  \nPAT ECKLUND: LIMITED?  \nCORY COPELAND: — PROJECTS.  \nPAT ECKLUND: YEAH. I THINK THE RATE OF SUBSIDENCE\, FROM WHAT I KNEW YEARS AGO\, WAS INCREASING QUITE A BIT.  AND THERE WAS A LOT OF EFFORT TO TRY TO REDUCE IT. BUT I KNOW THAT THAT’S STILL A MAJOR ISSUE. THE COMMENT WAS MADE ABOUT FLOOD INSURANCE. FLOOD INSURANCE\, I KNOW\, IS REALLY SUPER EXPENSIVE\, A LOT OF FOLKS THAT I KNOW IN THE DELTA THAT MANAGE A LOT OF THOSE ISLANDS\, OR WHATEVER\, THEY MAY NOT NECESSARILY HAVE THE FUNDS. IS THERE ANY FINANCIAL SUPPORT FROM THE FEDERAL OR STATE GOVERNMENT TO HELP SUBSIDIZE THE COST OF THAT INSURANCE FOR THEM? ESPECIALLY IF THEY’RE DOING MORE PUBLIC WORK OR WHATEVER ON THEIR LAND MANAGEMENT. ANY OPPORTUNITY FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE ON THAT?  IT’S A POOR REGION.  \nMORGAN CHAU: YEAH. THAT’S A REALLY GOOD QUESTION AND POINT. AND I WILL — SO\, WE KNOW — I THINK IT’S A LITTLE BIT AROUND 20% OF RESIDENTS HAVE FLOOD INSURANCE. SO IT IS REALLY LOW. AND IT’S EXPENSIVE. WE TRACK FEMA’S PROGRAMS.  I KNOW FEMA DOES HAVE THE COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM. SO THAT’S AT A COMMUNITY SCALE. YOU CAN UNDERGO A LOT OF DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES TO GET LOWER RATES. I DON’T KNOW ABOUT A LOT OF OTHER PROGRAMS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. BUT WE ARE ALSO — WE ARE ALSO TRACKING SOME OTHER SMALLER SCALE EFFORTS TO GET COMMUNITIES MORE PROTECTED. KATHY SHAFER\, WHO I THINK SHE IS A POST DOC\, MAY BE A PH.D. AT UC DAVIS\, DOES A LOT OF RESEARCH RELATED TO FLOOD INSURANCE AND\, LIKE\, FLOOD PREPAREDNESS IN THE DELTA\, AND SHE HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE COMMUNITY ISLETON THEY CREATED A GEOLOGIC HAZARD ABATEMENT DISTRICT WHICH IS A WAY YOU CAN ACCESS MORE FUNDS TO HELP WITH PREPAREDNESS SO IT’S NOT JUST INSURANCE BUT INSURANCE COULD BE A COMPONENT OF THAT.  \nPAT ECKLUND: ARE THERE RESTORATION OF THE LEVEES ACTIVE EFFORTS TO HELP STRENGTHEN AND RESTORE THOSE LEVEES AS THERE WAS IN THE PAST?  OR HAS IT DIMINISHED?  \nMORGAN CHAU: I’LL LET JEFF TAKE THAT ONE.  \nJEFF HENDERSON: THERE ARE ONGOING EFFORTS THAT CONTINUE\, THE STATE IS CONTINUING TO FUND WHAT’S KNOWN AS THIS SUBVENTIONS PROGRAM THAT PROVIDES MECHANISM FOR MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION OF THE LEVEES.  \nPAT ECKLUND: THAT’S GREAT. I’M GLAD TO HEAR THAT. THE CANAL\, IS THERE AN EFFORT TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT GOES DOWN THE CANCEL TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA? SORE IS THAT SOMETHING THAT’S PRETTY MUCH SET IN STONE?  OR DO YOU KNOW?  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: WHO WANTS TO TAKE THAT QUESTION?  \nCORY COPELAND: WELL\, DO YOU WANT ME TO HOP IN? I SUSPECT THEY DON’T WANT TO COMMENT ON IT BECAUSE IT’S LIKELY TO COME THROUGH THERE OFFICE AS A COVERED ACTION.  \nJEFF HENDERSON: CORY\, GO AHEAD.  \nPAT ECKLUND: I IMAGINE IT’S A CONFLICTING QUESTION.  \nCORY COPELAND: THE CANAL IS NOW THE DELTA BAY PROJECT BEING PROPOSED BY DWR AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT IS AROUND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RIGHT NOW.  I SUSPECT AT SOME POINT THAT WILL GO BEFORE THE STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL TO BE REVIEWED. AT THIS POINT IT’S TO BE REVIEWED PHASE. SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE OPERATIONS ARE\, LIKE\, HOW MUCH WATER WOULD BE YIELD — I DON’T IT’S FULLY RESOLVED\, BUT PROBABLY OF INTEREST.  \nPAT ECKLUND: PROBABLY SHOWS MY AGE. THANK YOU FOR ADDRESSING THAT. MY LAST QUESTION YOU TALK ABOUT THE CHANGE OF LAND USE\, I KNOW THAT GIVEN MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE IN THE DELTA IS THAT THERE IS A LOT OF FAMILIES THAT\, YOU KNOW\, SORT OF\, PASS ON THE PROPERTY DOWN THROUGH THE DIFFERENT GENERATIONS. HOW IS THAT BEING ENCOURAGED?  IS INCENTIVES OF BUYING THEIR PROPERTY ONE OF THE ISSUES? OR YOU HAVE REALLY IDENTIFIED OTHER MECHANISMS WHERE YOU CAN REALLY ENCOURAGE THE — CHANGING THE USE WHICH IS GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR A LOT OF HOMEOWNER — LANDOWNERS?  \nMORGAN CHAU: YEAH I CAN START MAYBE JEFF AND CORY CAN ADD. THE DELTA’S AN INTERESTING PLACE ESPECIALLY COMPARED TO THE BAY\, WHICH IS URBAN. PRIMARILY THE DELTA HAS A LOT OF STRONG DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS A LOT OF THE LAND USE CHANGES THAT WE EXPLORE FOR DELTA ADAPTS IS LOOKING AT WHERE THERE IS POTENTIALLY FARMLAND OR ABANDONED FARMLAND THAT IS NOT ACTIVE ANYMORE. LIKE YEAH IS THERE LAND USE INCENTIVES FOR IT TO BECOME SOMETHING ELSE. SO LIKE PEAT SOILS THAT ARE EXPOSED AND OXIDIZING\, SUBSIDING\, LIKE IS IT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE AN OPTION TO WET THAT LAND\, CAN IT BE MANAGED\, LIKE\, COULD YOU GROW RICE THERE.  I THINK THOSE ARE SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN EXPLORED FROM THE CONVERSATIONS WE HAD WITH FARMERS THROUGHOUT THE DELTA EVEN YOU KNOW DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE DELTA HAVE THEIR DIFFERENT CHALLENGES\, SPECIFICALLY WITH FARMING\, FARMERS — SOME FARMERS ARE OPEN TO\, YOU KNOW\, EXPLORING DIFFERENT LAND USES. IT REALLY IS A QUESTION OF FINANCIAL FEASIBLE AND SOMETIMES WANTING MORE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. WE PARTNERED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE IN THE INTERVIEWS THAT WE CONDUCTED BECAUSE THEY HAVE A LOT OF THESE INCENTIVE PROGRAMS THEY PROVIDE TO GROWERS\, TO HELP THEM BE MORE FINANCIALLY PROFITABLE. YEAH THAT’S SOME OF THE TOPICS WE HAVE EXPLORED.  \nPAT ECKLUND: GREAT. THANKS. I REALLY APPRECIATE THE PRESENTATION\, AND REALLY APPRECIATE WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO IN THE DELTA.  THE DELTA\, FOR PEOPLE WHO DO NOT KNOW\, THE DELTA IS A VERY SPECIAL PLACE. AND\, REALLY ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO GET TO KNOW IT. BECAUSE IT DOES DEFINITELY HAS A TREMENDOUS IMPACT ON THE WHOLE SAN FRANCISCO BAY. AND\, SO\, JUST REALLY WANT TO COMPLIMENT EVERYBODY WHO HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS. AND MY HAT’S OFF TO ACCOMPLISHMENTS THAT YOU HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MAKE. THANK YOU.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU.   \nLARRY GOLDZBAND: CHAIR EISEN\, CAN I ASK A QUESTION? THIS IS LARRY.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: OF COURSE.  \nLARRY GOLDZBAND: MORGAN AND JEFF GREAT TO SEE YOU\, OF COURSE. THE PROGRESS YOU ALL HAVE MADE ON DELTA ADAPT IS MARVELOUS. WE ALL LOOK AT IT FROM THE WEST SIDE AND YOU’RE FROM THE EAST SIDE\, AND THANKFULLY BETWEEN\, WE HAVE GRAPPLED WITH OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS HOW YOU TAKE THE STRATEGY AND START GETTING TRACTION ON THE GROUND. WE HAVE BAY ADAPT AND WE NOW HAVE THIS THING CALLED SB272 WHICH REALLY GIVES US A REAL PUSH TO ENSURE WHAT BAY ADAPT DOES REALLY HAS SOME REAL MAJOR IMPACT AND CAN GET TRACTION.  HOW HAVE YOU ALL STARTED LOOKING AT IMPLEMENTING THIS AND WORKING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF HAVING TO WORK WITH THE HEAVY WEIGHTS LIKE DWR AND FOOD AND AG\, AS WELL AS THE INCREDIBLY WELL ENTRENCHED AND WELL MEANING FOLKS WHO HAVE OWNED LAND IN THE DELTA SINCE\, YOU KNOW\, THE MID-1800’S\, FOR HEAVEN’S SAKE\, AND THE LIKE. I MEAN\, THE NUMBER OF INTERESTS THAT YOU ALL HAVE TO DEAL WITH IS CERTAINLY AT LEAST AS LONG AS OURS.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THAT’S A BIG QUESTION\, LARRY.  \nJEFF HENDERSON: YEAH. I’M STILL THINKING. NO. THANK YOU\, LARRY.  WE’RE JUST AT THE INITIAL STAGES OF BEGINNING TO THINK ABOUT IMPLEMENTATION\, AND ARE ACTUALLY LOOKING TO LEARN AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE FROM THE PATHWAYS THAT YOU ALL HAVE CHARTED. I THINK ONE OF THE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED IS REALLY ENLISTING THE DELTA PLAN INTER-AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE OR DPIIC WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY A COMMITTEE FORMED AND LARRY SITS ON THIS COMMITTEE\, ON BEHALF OF BCDC\, AS WELL. IT’S A COMMITTEE FORMED AT THE AGENCIES THAT ARE CHARGED IN THE DELTA PLAN WITH VARIOUS DIFFERENT RESPONSIBILITIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION. AND WE’RE REALLY LOOKING TO USE THE DPIIC AS A PLACE TO BRING AND OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS AND START UNPACKING THEM. AND LOOKING TO WORK WITH ALL THE INDIVIDUAL AGENCIES TO IDENTIFY WHAT RESOURCES THEY MAY BE ABLE TO BRING TO THE TABLE\, WHAT LESSONS LEARNED THAT THEY HAVE FROM VARIOUS DIFFERENT EXPERIENCES\, AND REALLY TO USE THAT AS A PLACE TO CONSOLIDATE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DELTA ADAPT. THAT’S SOME OF OUR EARLY THINKING\, IN COMBINATION WITH\, THEN\, MOVING TOWARD A BIT MORE OF A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING STRUCTURE THAT REALLY HELPS TO SOLIDIFY THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE VARIOUS AGENCIES\, AS THEY RELATE TO THE SPECIFIC STRATEGIES. MORGAN\, IS THERE MORE YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THAT?   \nMORGAN CHAU: NO. YEAH. I THINK OUR REGULAR CHECK-INS WITH BCDC\, SINCE WE’RE DOING SIMILAR IN A LOT OF WAYS\, ADAPTING A WORK WE’RE OPERATING WITH DIFFERENT ACTORS AND DIFFERENT SETTINGS BUT WE CAN LEARN A LOT FROM EACH OTHER\, JUST I THINK THE OTHER THING ABOUT THE DELTA WE HAVE IDEAS FOR THE MOU STRUCTURE AT THE DPIIC LEVEL BUT ALSO THERE ARE THINGS LIKE ISLETON MODEL FOR FLOOD RISK AND PREPAREDNESS THAT CANNOT BE DONE YOU KNOW AROUND ISLETON IDEAS THAT CORE MENTIONED SHERMAN ISLAND EXPERIMENTS AND EXPERIENCE AROUND SOMETHING LIKE THAT WE REPLICATE THINGS THAT ARE ALREADY HAPPENING IN OTHER PLACES WHILE TRYING TO GET ALIGNMENT\, AS YOU KNOW\, AT THE HIGHER LEVEL.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER NELSON?  \nBARRY NELSON: WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON A COMMENT THAT I APPRECIATED I ONE OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE BAY COMPARED TO THE DELTA. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF WAYS THAT ARE CLEAR TO ME WHERE DELTA ADAPTATION IS DIFFERENT ADAPTATION IN THE BAY PLAN\, MORE COMPLICATED AND CHALLENGING. URBANIZATION WITH HUGE IMPLICATIONS WITH FINANCING.  THE TWO MORE THAT ARE VERY DIFFERENT FIRST IS THE DELTA IS A IMPORTANT WATER SUPPLY SOURCE FOR OTHER PARTS OF THE STATE. THAT MEANS THAT WATER CONSERVATION IN SAN DIEGO CAN BE CONSIDERED PART OF A DELTA ADAPTATION STRATEGY. THAT’S NOT EASY. IT’S ALSO TRUE THAT THE FLOOD RISK IN THE DELTA IS DRIVEN TO A SUBSTANTIAL PART BY FLOOD COMING IN FROM\, AND WATER MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES\, UPSTREAM FROM THE DELTA. SO FLOOD MANAGEMENT UPSTREAM FROM THE DELTA IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF PROTECTING COMMUNITIES LIKE STOCKTON. I WANT TO ASK HOW YOU’RE THINKING ABOUT THOSE BOUNDARY CHALLENGES. ON THE ONE HAND ARE YOU INCLUDING UPSTREAM FLOOD MANAGEMENT\, MULTI-BENEFIT PROJECTS UPSTREAM AS A FLOOD ADAPTATION STRATEGY?  IN THE DELTA AND TO WHAT EXTENT ARE YOU GOING TO BE FOCUSING ON THE PHYSICAL SAFETY OF THE DELTA\, DELTA AGRICULTURE AND SO FORTH\, COMPARED TO WATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS WHERE THE DELTA COUNCIL MAY HAVE A HARD TIME MOVING THE NEEDLE? IT’S A DIFFERENT PICTURE AND MORE COMPLICATED IN SOME WAYS THAN THE WORK WE’RE DOING IN THE BAY.  \nSPEAKER: GOOD POINT ESPECIALLY FOR FLOOD RISK REDUCTION PROPOSED STRATEGIES AND AROUND WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY A LOT OF WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IN THE DELTA TOUCH ON YOU KNOW UPSTREAM DON STREAM ACTIVITIES IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY HEALTH SAFETY AND WELL-BEING THAT’S A LITTLE BIT FOCUSED TO COMMUNITIES THAT LIVE WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO OUR DELTA BOUNDARIES YOU MAKE A GOOD POINT AND IT’S INCLUDED IN OUR STRATEGIES. RIGHT NOW THE DRAFT PLAN IT DOES IN SOME WAYS LOOK LIKE IT MASSIVE MENU OF STRATEGIES. WE HAVE DONE SOME — INITIAL PRIORITIZATION IN TERMS OF\, LIKE I SAID\, LIKE WHAT WE REALLY FEEL NEEDS TO HAPPEN FIRST\, WHAT COULD HAPPEN WITH EXISTING FUNDS THEN THERE IS ALSO THAT FILTER WHERE IT COMES IN AND GOES WELL WHEN’S FEASIBLE WITHIN OUR CONTROL WHAT CAN WE LEAD WHAT ARE OUR PARTNERS WILLING TO LEAD\, WHAT ARE WE TRACKING THAT IS ALREADY KIND OF HAPPENING BUT WE WANT TO HAPPEN MORE. SO\, I THINK THERE IS A LOT OF DIFFERENT LEVELS AT WHICH WE CAN ENGAGE ESPECIALLY WHEN WE TALKING ABOUT STRATEGIES OUTSIDE OF THE DELTA. BUT\, YEAH\, SO IT’S CHALLENGING IT MAKE GOOD POINT AND WE’RE TRYING TO THINK ABOUT IT TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITIES.  JEFF DID YOU WANT TO ADD?  \nJEFF HENDERSON: COMMISSIONER NELSON\, YOUR QUESTION ABOUT BOUNDARY ISSUES MADE ME — AS DO A NUMBER OF THINGS\, REMINDED ME THAT THE DELTA STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL IS ACTUALLY A STATEWIDE AGENCY THAT REPRESENTS STATEWIDE INTERESTS AS THEY PERTAIN TO THE DELTA. SO\, YES\, WE DO NEED TO BE CONSIDERING THINGS LIKE WATER CONSERVATION IN SAN DIEGO\, AND HOW THAT AFFECTS\, IN TURN\, THE AMOUNT OF WATER PUMPED THROUGH THE DELTA\, AND IN TURN\, THE AMOUNT OF WATER STORED IN A RESERVOIR UPSTREAM. SO\, THESE ARE THINGS THAT WE ARE VERY AWARE OF. I THINK\, DELTA ADAPT ITSELF DOES PAY A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF ATTENTION TO THE DELTA ITSELF\, AND IF WE HAD ONE OF OUR OWN SELF-CRITIQUES OF THE WEEK IS PROBABLY THAT IT DOESN’T DO AS MUCH AS IT COULD TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE HAPPENING OUTSIDE OF DELTA TO AFFECT THE HEALTH IN THE DELTA. I DO\, THOUGH\, UNDERSTAND THAT THE STRATEGIES\, AS MORGAN MENTIONED\, THE STRATEGIES\, WHERE POSSIBLE\, DO RECOMMEND ACTIVITIES THAT OCCUR UPSTREAM OR DOWNSTREAM FROM THE DELTA\, THAT ARE NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE CLIMATE BENEFITS THAT WE’RE SEEKING IN THE DELTA.  \nSPEAKER: JUST ONE LAST THOUGHT TO FOLLOW UP ON LARRY’S COMMENT.  GIVEN THE BREADTH OF ADAPTATION ACTIONS THAT ARE RELEVANT TO THE DELTA\, IT’S GOING TO BE IMPORTANT FOR THE COUNCIL TO THINK THROUGH THE AREAS WHERE YOU FOLKS REALLY ARE GOING TO DRIVE THE DEBATE FORWARD AND REALLY MOVE THE NEEDLE THAT YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE A REALLY BIG BROAD ADAPTATION LIST. OR QUESTIONS REGARDING THE DELTA ADAPT PRESENTATION? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO HELPED ME GET THROUGH THIS ALMOST ENTIRELY VIRTUAL PRESENTATION.  \nSPEAKER: WE LOVE A GOOD CHALLENGE.  \nSPEAKER: GOOD LUCK.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: AND COMMISSION MEETING.  WE ONE OTHER ITEM. AND THAT IS ADJOURNMENT. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? BARRY\, THANK YOU. SECOND? ALL IN FAVOR? SEE YOU ON JULY 18TH. \nADJOURNED \n\n\n \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs 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. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant 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. \nIf 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. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf 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. \nCampaign Contributions\nState 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. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings 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.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/june-6-2024-commission-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240516T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240516T170000
DTSTAMP:20250321T215637Z
CREATED:20240118T081327Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250321T215637Z
UID:10000097-1715864400-1715878800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:May 16\, 2024 Commission Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Commissioners are located at the primary physical location and may be located at the teleconference locations specified below\, all of which are publicly accessible. The Zoom video-conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually is also specified below. \nPrimary Physical Meeting Location \nMetro Center375 Beale St.\, Temazcal Conference RoomSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/88105137697?pwd=vbbiJ6slOT960Wiv4z9juBdKuZbMvZ.1 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID872 1472 7080 \nPasscode506054 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic 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]\nApproval of Minutes for May 2\, 2024 Meeting(Sierra Peterson) [415/352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing and Possible Vote on PG and E Programmatic Operations and Maintenance Permit 2023.002.00 The Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote on an application by Pacific Gas and Electric Company for a five-year operations and maintenance program for existing gas and electrical transmission structures throughout the Commission’s jurisdiction\, excluding the Suisun MarshApplication Summary Staff PresentationApplicant Presentation  (Rowan Yelton) [415/352-3613; rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing and Possible Vote on PG and E Programmatic Operations and Maintenance Permit 2023.003.00mdThe Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote on an application by Pacific Gas and Electric Company for a five-year operations and maintenance program of existing gas and electrical transmission structures in the Suisun Marsh.Application Summary (Rowan Yelton) [415/352-3613; rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing and Possible Vote on 505 East Bayshore Road Permit Application The Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote on an application by Regis Homes Bay Area\, LLC\, to redevelop an approximately 2.54-acre industrial parcel with a new residential project consisting of 56 for-sale townhouses\, as well as shoreline public access and open space areas\, within the Bay and 100-foot shoreline band at 505 East Bayshore Road in the City of Redwood City\, San Mateo County.Application SummaryLetter of Support Letter of SupportStaff PresentationApplicant Presentation (Katharine Pan) [415/352-3650; katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov]\nCommission Authorization of an Interagency Flooding and Sea Level Rise Memorandum of Understanding The Commission will receive a briefing and consider authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between BCDC and the member agencies of the Bay Area Regional Collaborative (BARC). The purpose of the MOU is to coordinate efforts to address the threats of flooding and sea level rise the San Francisco Bay Area. Attachment APresentation (Jessica Fain) [415/352-3642; jessica.fain@bcdc.ca.gov]\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				\nThis report lists the administrative permit applications that have been filed and are pending with the Commission. The Executive Director will take the action indicated on the matters unless the Commission determines that it is necessary to hold a public hearing. The staff members to whom the matters have been assigned are indicated at the end of the project descriptions. Inquiries should be directed to the assigned staff member prior to the Commission meeting. \nAdministrative Permit Applications \n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nJ&M Paradise Properties LLCP.O. Box 2099Mill Valley\, CA 94941 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.029.0\n \n\n\nFiled\nApril 25\, 2024\n\n\n90th Day\nJuly 24\, 2024\n\n\nLocation\nWithin the Commission’s Shoreline Band jurisdiction\, at 2088 Paradise Dr.\, Tiburon\, in Marin County.\n\n\nDescription\n\nRenovate and remodel a single-family home through the following activities: \n\nInstall a new 600-square-foot parking deck and driveway;\nConstruct a new\, approximately 1\,000 square-foot ADU residence with an approximately 410-square-foot deck;\nExpand the second-floor residence from 650 square feet to approximately 1\,047 square feet\, and replace a 162 square-foot deck in-kind;\nExpand the first-floor residence from 639 square feet to approximately 786 square feet\, and replace a 162 square-foot deck in-kind;\nReduce the size of the crawl space area from 584 square feet to 575 square feet;\nExpand the basement floor patio from 145 square feet to 220 square feet; and\nReplacing the existing outdoor staircases and landings\, reducing the footprint from 512 square feet to 305 square feet. The project will take place entirely within the Shoreline Band and will not result in any Bay fill. The applicant will submit an amendment request at a later date for a proposed overwater deck and boat dock. There are no existing public access requirements in the vicinity\, and no new improvements are proposed as part of this project.\n\n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Sam Fielding; 415/352-3665 or sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nCity of Sausalito420 Litho StreetSausalito CA 94965 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2024.004.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\nApril 4\, 2024\n\n\n90th Day\nJuly 3\, 2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Commission’s Bay jurisdictions\, at 466 Bridgeway\, in the City of Sausalito\, Marin County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nReinstall a historic sea lion sculpture\, which was originally installed in 1958\, and damaged by a storm in 2023. This project would reinstall the statue on a new concrete pedestal. The project will result in approximately 1.2 cubic yards of new fill over an approximately25-square-foot area of the Bay. Construction of the project will require a temporary detour of a sidewalk for fewer than five days. \n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Rowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nNational Park ServiceLower Fort Mason Center – Building ESan Francisco\, CA 94123 \n\n\nBCDC Consistency Determination No. C2024.003.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\nApril 23\, 2024\n\n\n90th Day\nJun3 22\, 2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Bay and the Commission’s Coastal Zone\, at the Sea Scout Base of San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park in the City and County of San Francisco. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nRepair the existing deteriorated system of walkways\, docks\, and piers at the Sea Scout base\, through the following activities. Remove the existing: \n\n20-foot-long walkway between the concrete platform and elevated wooden pier;\n12-foot-long by 8-foot-wide portion of the existing elevated wooden pier;\n21-foot-long by 8-foot-wide metal gangway; and\nfloating 40-foot-long by 8.75-foot-wide dock. Install a new 40-foot-long by 10-foot-wide floating dock\, consisting of wood planking on floats; and a new 42-foot-long by 4-foot-wide metal gangway with metal guardrail.\n\nNo existing pilings will be removed\, and new pilings will not be installed. The project will be conditioned to minimize impacts to Bay Resources and public access in the vicinity during construction. The project will result in no solid fill in the Bay. \n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Sam Fielding; 415/352-3665 or sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\nThe Commission has received the following minor amendment to the Suisun Marsh Local Protection Program for certification since the last listing. \n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nSuisun Resource Conservation District2516 Grizzly Island RoadSuisun City\, CA 94585 \n\n\nMinor Amendment to the Suisun Marsh Local Protection Program (BPA 1-23) \n\n\n\nDescription\nOn March 11\, 2022\, the Commission certified a major amendment to the Suisun Resource Conservation District (SRCD) Component of the Suisun Marsh Local Protection Program (LPP). The amendment included 121 updated Individual Ownership Adaptive Habitat Management Plans (IOAHMPs) for each privately-owned managed wetland within the Primary Management Area of the Suisun Marsh. To ensure these plans remain current\, SRCD tracks modifications to operations and updates plans on an ongoing basis. Annually\, SRCD will submit these minor amendments to the LPP for Commission certification. This listing is to notify the Commission that the Executive Director intends to certify a minor amendment to the SRCD component to the LPP\, submitted on April 19\, 2024. The amendment submitted by SRCD includes updates to facilities and operations on 10 privately-owned managed wetlands. Examples of activities described in the minor amendment include\, but are not limited to\, repairs\, replacements\, or upgrades to water control structures\, such as flaps and pipes. The activities described in the minor amendment consist of minor repairs and improvements to privately-owned managed wetland facilities and meet the requirements of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Sections 11210-11215.\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\nRecommend Certification. Erik Buehmann; erik.buehmannbcdc.ca.gov\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nPort of San FranciscoPier 1\, The EmbarcaderoSan Francisco\, CA 94111 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.019.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\nApril 5\, 2024\n\n\n90th Day\nJuly 5\, 2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Commission’s Bay jurisdictions\, at Wharf J9\, Pier 47\, in the City and County of San Francisco. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nRemove and replace the existing dilapidated Wharf J9 mooring piles and construct a temporary floating dock\, through the following actions: \n\nRemove fifteen existing timber piles;\nInstall twelve steel piles;\nInstall a 12-foot by 270-foot floating dock;\nInstall an 8-foot by 16-foot aluminum access platform; and\nInstall an 8-foot by 12-foot steel platform with a 4-foot by 80-foot aluminum gangway connecting to the floating dock.\n\nThe dock will accommodate up to six vessels\, and allow public access to off-boat fish and crab sales. The Project is an interim action\, and is part of the Port’s longer-term Waterfront Resiliency Program redevelopment project of Wharf J9. The new floating dock would remain in place for approximately two to five years until the Wharf J9 Redevelopment project is permitted and implemented. The project will result in a net total of 3\,479 square feet of overwater fill and 5.22 cubic yards of solid fill. The project will be conditioned to minimize impacts to Bay resources and to public access in the area during construction. \n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Sam Fielding; 415/352-3665 or sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \nChina Basin revealed: How a ‘complicated land-use deal’ yielded a new gem by the bay \n Will Travis Obituary \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				\nAudio recording \n \n\nTranscript\n\nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nLET’S CALL THE ROLL. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: CHAIR \nWASSERMAN? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nHERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nADDIEGO? \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER AHN? AHN HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER BEACH? \n>>SPEAKER: PRESENT. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nECKLUND? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nGILLMOR? \n>>SPEAKER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nGUNTHER? \nGUN HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: HASZ? \n>>V. CHAIR\, KARL HASZ: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: KIM \nBAIL? \n>>SPEAKER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nKISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nMOULTON-PETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nHERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nPEMBERTON? \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: PINE? \n>>DAVE PINE: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER RANDOLPH? RAN. \n>>SPEAKER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: HAVE WE \nMISSED ANYONE? \n>>SPEAKER: COMMISSIONER \nJOHN-BAPTISTE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: THANK \nYOU. CHAIR WASSERMAN\, YOU HAVE \nA QUORUM. THANK YOU FOR THOSE \nOF YOU WHO ARE HERE VIRTUALLY \nWHO ARE MEETING OUR STATUTORY \nREQUIREMENT TO HAVE SOMEBODY IN \nTHE BUILDING. WE ARE NOW AT \nITEM THREE PUBLIC COMMENT SIERRA \nDO WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO HAVE \nSIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT \nTHIS IS TO ADDRESS MATTERS THAT \nARE NOT ON OUR AGENDA TODAY FOR \nWHICH WE DO NOT HAVE A HEARING. \nYOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: THERE ARE \nNO COMMENTS IN-PERSON AND NO \nHANDS RAISED. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. THAT BRINGS US TO MY \n— OH I’M SORRY. THAT BRINGS US \nTO APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF \nMAY 2ND\, 2024. WE HAVE BEEN ED \nDRAFTS OF THOSE MINUTES DO I \nHAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO \nAPPROVE? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: I MOVE \nAPPROVAL\, PAT EKLUND. \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: I’LL \nSECOND. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nMOVED BY COMMISSIONER ECKLUND\, \nSECOND BY COMMISSIONER \nKISHIMOTO. ARE THERE ANY \nOBJECTIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE \nMINUTES? \n>>MARIE GILMORE: ONE \nABSTENTION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER GILLMOR ABSTAINS. \n>>SPEAKER: I WILL WILL BE AB \nSTAINING. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: TWO \nABSTENTIONS. THE MINUTES ARE \nAPPROVED. THAT BRINGS US TO MY \nREPORT I WANT TO START BY \nTHANKING THE GOVERNOR\, LARRY \nWILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DETAILIS \nWANT TO RECOGNIZE ON BEHALF OF \nTHE COMMISSION THAT THE \nGOVERNOR’S MAY BUDGET DOES \nINCLUDE FUNDING TO START \nIMPLEMENTING SB272. AND IN THIS \nVERY DIMPLE BUDGET YEAR\, WE NEED \nTO THANK HIM FOR DOING THAT AND \nHIS COMMITMENT TO SHORELINE \nRESILIENCE AND OUR — AND THIS \nIS A VERY BROAD OUR\, \nA VERY BIG TENT — ABILITY TO \nSTART DISSEMINATING THESE \nGUIDELINES AND START \nIMPLEMENTING CONSISTENCY WE THEM \nAND PROJECTS TO SAVE US ALL FROM \nTHE INUNDATION THAT IS COMING. \nI WAS PLEASED IN A NUMBER OF \nWAYS ON TUESDAY BAY \nPLANNING COALITION HOSTED THEIR \nSPRING SUMMIT FOCUSED ON \nFINANCING ADAPTATION TO RISING \nSEA LEVEL. \nTHEY HAD A FULL ARRAY OF \nSPEAKERS AND PANELISTS TALKING \nABOUT HOW THIS IS GOING HAPPEN \nAND THE NECESSARY ELEMENTS. WE \nWERE KICKED OFF WITH A KEYNOTE \nBY FORMER MAYOR LIBBY SCHAAF OF \nOAKLAND\, WHOSE THEME WAS HOPE\, \nCHANGE\, ACTION. AND SOME OF THE \nTHEMES THAT WE’RE STATED \nTHROUGHOUT THE VARIOUS SPEAKERS \nWERE\, WE DO NEED TO WORK \nTOGETHER. WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE \nTHAT WE CAN ONLY ADDRESS THIS AS \nA REGION\, THAT IT’S GOING TAKE\, \nAS WE WELL KNOW\, SOURCES\, FUNDS \nFROM MANY DIFFERENT SOURCES TO \nMEET THE COST\, THE ESTIMATED \n$110 BILLION COST\, AND WE ALL \nTHAN’S A LOW FIGURE\, A SCARY \nFIGURE\, BUT LOW FIGURE. THERE \nWAS ALSO SOME EMPHASIS ON THE \nIMPORTANCE OF STORY TELLING\, \nBOTH FOR OURSELVES AND AS WE \nCOMMUNICATE OUR ISSUES TO \nELECTED LEADERS AT ALL LEVELS \nAND TO THE PUBLIC THAT\, WE NEED \nTO KEEP IN MIND STORY THAT \nCONVEY BOTH WHAT MAY HAPPEN\, AND \nTHE WAY IN WHICH WE CAN\, IN \nFACT\, ADAPT AND FUND \nADAPTATION. \nI HAD THE CHALLENGE OF \nSUMMARIZING SOME FIVE HOURS OF \nPRESENTATIONS IN TEN MINUTES. \nAND I THINK I ROSE TO THE \nCHALLENGE. BUT IT WAS A VERY \nGOOD CONFERENCE. I WANT TO \nTHANK EVERYBODY WHO WAS AT THE \nMETRO CENTER TWO WEEKS AGO. OUR \nABILITY TO MEET TOGETHER\, I \nTHINK\, DOES ENHANCE OUR ACTIONS \nAS A COMMISSION. RECOGNIZING \nTHAT FOR MANY\, THE CONVENIENCE \nOF BEING ABLE TO ATTEND BY ZOOM \nIS IMPORTANT\, AND \nENVIRONMENTALLY BENEFICIAL. \nNONETHELESS N DOING THIS WORK\, \nWHICH IS NOT EASY\, HAVING PEOPLE \nMEET TOGETHER AND BE ABLE TO SEE \nEACH OTHER AND TALK OFFLINE A \nBIT\, IS ALWAYS VERY HELPFUL. \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER HAS ASKED \nFOR A COUPLE OF MINUTES TO \nCOMMENT ON THE SEA LEVEL RISE \nPRESENTATION THAT WE HEARD AND \nHE NOW HAS THE FLOOR. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: THANK YOU MR. \nCHAIRMAN. JUST VERY BRIEFLY\, I \nWANT TO SHARE WITH EVERYBODY \nTHAT IN THINKING ABOUT BEN \nHAMILTON’S PRESENTATION\, AND THE \nFACT THAT THE HIGH SCENARIO FOR \nSEA LEVEL RISE IS NOW LOWER\, AND \nTHAT WE WON’T SEE — WE REALLY \nDON’T HAVE A CHANCE\, ACCORDING \nTO THEIR NEW PROJECTIONS OF \nSEEING THREE METERS OF SEA LEVEL \nRISE UNTIL THE MIDDLE OF THE \n22nd CENTURY\, THAT MEANS \nEVERYTHING THAT WE’RE DOING NOW\, \nPARTICULARLY THE WETLANDS \nRESTORATION IS GOING TO RESULT \nIN ANOTHER HALF OR MAYBE A FULL \nCENTURY OF BENEFITS TO THE \nREGION BEFORE THEY’RE FINALLY \nINUNDATED. AND THE SAME THING \nGOES THROUGH FOR ANY HARD \nSTRUCTURES WE PUT IN THERE. SO\, \nI THINK IT AD ADDS TREMENDOUS \nFRAME OF THE VALUE OF WHAT WE DO \nIN THE PRESENT DAY. THAT BEING \nSAID\, I ALSO WANT TO SHARE THAT \nTHE WHOLE PROCESS OF ICE SHEET \nCOLLAPSE\, WHICH IS THE MECHANISM \nTHAT’S DRIVING THAT HIGH \nSCENARIO\, IS STILL VERY\, VERY \nUNCERTAIN. AND I HAVE A \nCOLLEAGUE LOOKING AT THESE \nISSUES FROM A CONCERNED \nSCIENTIST BOARD AND SHE SHARED \nWITH ME THAT HE THINKS IT’S A \nLITTLE TOO EARLY TO PUT THE IDEA \nIN OUR POCKET THAT WE’RE NOT \nGOING TO SEE ONE OF THESE REALLY \nEXTREME SCENARIOS. SO\, WITH \nTHAT PROVISO\, I THINK THE \nINFORMATION THAT WE GOT INFORMS \nTHE PURPOSE OF WHAT WE’RE DOING \nTODAY PARTICULARLY TO \nRESTORATION BECAUSE IT’S GOING \nTO PAY OFF FOR THE FUTURE OF THE \nREGION THAN WE THOUGHT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. IT’S AN IMPORTANT \nREMINDER THAT AS WE FOCUS OUR \nEFFORTS ON THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE \nIN ORDER TO PREPARE FOR A FUTURE \nTHAT IS MODERATELY FAR OFF\, THE \nTHINGS WE DO WILL BENEFIT US IN \nBETWEEN\, AS WELL. OUR NEXT \nMEETING WILL OCCUR IN TWO WEEKS\, \nON JUNE 6TH\, THE MEETING WILL BE \nHELD IN THE METRO CENTER\, AND \n— \nSORRY\, I’M PAUSING BECAUSE I \nNEED TO SWITCH BETWEEN \nDOCUMENTS. WE EXPECT THAT WE \nWILL HAVE PRESENTATIONS ON — \nSORRY. THE AGENDA WILL INCLUDE \nA PRESENTATION BY THE DEPARTMENT \nOF FINANCE DESCRIBING THE \nMISSION BASED REVIEW OF BCDC’S \nPERMITTING PROCESS AND SYSTEMS \nCONTRACT TO DEVELOPMENT REGIONAL \nSHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN \nTECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND \nTHIRD UPDATE ON PROGRESS ON THE \nCOMMISSION’S STRATEGIC PLAN. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. THAT BRINGS US TO EX \nPARTE MATTERS. IF THERE IS ANY \nCOMMISSIONER WHO WISHES TO \nREPORT ON A COMMUNICATION \nCONCERNING A COMMISSION MATTER\, \nTHAT THEY HAVE NOT ALREADY PUT \nON THE RECORD\, NOW IS THE TIME \nTO SHARE THAT.   THIS IS ON \nADJUDICATORY MATTERS\, NOT \nMISCELLANEOUSLY MATTERS OF \nPOLICY\, AND YOU DO NEED TO FILE \nSOMETHING IN WRITING. BUT NOW \nIS THE TIME TO SPEAK\, AND I SEE \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND HAS HER \nHAND UP. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: NOT EX \nPARTE I WANTED TO QUESTION YOU \nSAID IT WAS AT THE METRO CENTER \nWE CAN COME INTO THE OFFICE OR \nINTO THE MEETING ROOMS THAT WAS \nYOUR POINT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU FOR HELPING ME \nEMPHASIZE PARTICULARLY AS WE \nTALK ABOUT THE STRATEGIC PLAN I \nTHINK HAVING AS MANY THERE AS \nPOSSIBLE MAKES IT A PRODUCTIVE \nMEETING. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: THANKS \nFOR CLARIFYING THAT. WASN’T \nQUITE SURE WHAT THAT MEANT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. THAT BRINGS US TO \nTHE REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE \nDIRECTOR. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: THANK YOU \nCHAIR WASSERMAN\, JUST TO LET \nPEOPLE KNOW THAT COMMISSIONER \nGILMORE IS HAVING SOME TECHNICAL \nISSUES SO SHE’LL BE TRYING TO \nGET BACK IN IF SHE’S NOT HERE \nNOW. FIRST I WANT TO APOLOGIZE \nTO THE COMMISSION\, AND AGAIN TO \nSTEVE GOLDBECK FOR HAVING TO \nVACATE THIS BUILDING TWO WEEKS \nAGO 15 MINUTES PRIOR TO THE \nCOMMISSION MEETING\, WHICH MEANS \nTHAT STEVE HAD TO SIT IN MY \nCHAIR UNEXPECTEDLY AND I MISSED \nHIS ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS \nRETIREMENT. I HAD ALREADY JUST \nA FEW MINUTES EARLIER THAT MY \nWIFE HAD TESTED FOR COVID SO I \nFIGURED YOU ALL WOULD BE MUCH \nHAPPIER IF I LEFT THE OFFICE AND \nBEGAN TO ISOLATE. THAT I DID\, \nALTHOUGH I HAD TO TAKE BART TO \nGET HOME SO I WE’RE A MASK. \nWHILE LOOKING OUT THE WINDOW AT \nBART I SMILED AT HOW FAST I \nCOULD GET TO OUR HOME OVER 20 \nMILES AWAY. NOT ALWAYS THE CASE \nOF COURSE LINOLEATE HAS IT ON \nTHIS DAY MAY 18th FIRST \nREGULARLY SCHEDULED MISSISSIPPI \nSTEAMBOAT HEADED SOUTH LIKELY AT \nFOUR MILES PER HOUR. A GREAT \nCOINCIDENCE 134 YEARS LATER ON \nTHIS DATE THE FIRST REGULARLY \nSCHEDULED AIRPLANE SERVICE \nBETWEEN NEW YORK AND LONDON \nBEGAN JUST AS TRAVEL TIMES \nCONTINUE TO GET SHORT YOU CAN \nGET STUCK IN A 90 MINUTE TRAFFIC \nJAM JUST TO GET TO THE BAY \nBRIDGE AS WE DID ON SUNDAY AFTER \nTHE GIANTS GAME. WITH REGARD TO \nBUDGET AND STAFFING BCDC HAS \nSELECTED ALYSSA PLEASE TO JOIN \nKATHARINE PAN SHORELINE \nDEVELOPMENT PERMITTING TEAM AS A \nCOASTAL PROGRAM ANALYST ALYSSA \nIS A GOLDEN BEAR HAVING EARNED \nHER UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE FROM \nCAL LANDSCAPE TECHNICAL \nENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING JOINS \nENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS AND \nGENERAL PLAN POLICY DEVELOPMENT \nRELATED TO COASTAL PLANNING \nCLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY. \nGREATER NEWS CHAIR WASSERMAN \nGOVERNOR NEWSOME’S MAY REVISE \nBUDGET PLAN INCLUDES FULL \nFUNDING FOR BCDC AND THE COASTAL \nCOMMISSION TO HIRE STAFF TO \nIMPLEMENT SB272 LEGISLATION \nAUTHORED BY SENATOR JOHN LAIRD \nREQUIRING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO \nCREATE RISING SEA LEVEL \nADAPTATION PLANS THAT EITHER WE \nOR THE COASTAL COMMISSION WILL \nNEED TO APPROVE. YESTERDAY I \nSPENT THE DAY IN SACRAMENTO \nWATCHING ASSEMBLY AND SENATE \nBUDGET HEARINGS\, AND I THINK \nTHAT I’M HAPPY TO REPORT THAT \nNONE OF THE QUESTIONS FROM THE \nMEMBERS DEALT AT ALL WITH RISING \nSEA LEVEL FUNDING\, LEADING US\, \nPERHAPS TO HOPE THAT NOBODY WILL \nQUESTION ITS IMPORTANCE. \nLEADERSHIP OF THE RESOURCES \nAGENCY RECOGNIZES THE IMPORTANCE \nOF THE SMALL AMOUNT OF FUNDING \nIN THE GOVERNOR’S PLAN AND I \nKNOW THEY WILL BE WORKING ON OUR \nBEHALF. MORE INFORMATION TO \nCOME WHEN WE RECEIVE IT. \nNOW FOR SOME NOT SO GREAT BUDGET \nNEWS\, AS PART OF THE BUDGET PLAN \nBCDC AND ALL OTHER STATE \nORGANIZATIONS WILL FAIRS FACE A \nGENERAL FUND CUT OF SOMETHING \nLIKE 8% NEXT YEAR WE HAVE \nSTARTED TO PLAN FOR IT AND WILL \nKEEP YOU UPDATED ON \nRAMIFICATIONS. GOOD NEWS\, MANY \nOF OUR STAFF ALONG WITH \nCOMMISSIONER AHN TO MY RIGHT \nPARTICIPATED IN A WORKSHOP WITH \nOUR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE \nADVISERS LAST WEEK AS PART OF \nTHE ORGANIZATIONALITY \nDEVELOPMENT CONSULTING CONTRACT \nTHAT AIMS TO INCREASE \nCOMMUNICATION AND ALIGNMENT \nBETWEEN BCDC AND OUR ADVISERS. \nEACH OF US WHO ATTENDED HAVE \nREALTY POSITIVE THOUGHTS ABOUT \nTIME SPENT TOGETHER AND WE HAVE \nTALKED AT LENGTH HOW TO BEST \nWORK AS COLLAB RURALITYS I AM \nSURE WE’LL HAVE MORE TO REPORT \nIN THE FUTURE. I’M RELATIONSHIP \nTO REPORT THAT THE SEAPORT PLAN \nYOU APPROVED LAST NOVEMBER HAS \nBEEN APPROVED BY CALIFORNIA’S \nOFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW \nTHIS PAST TUESDAY THEREFORE THE \nNEW SEAPORT PLAN IS NOW IN \nEFFECT. GREAT NEWS GOVERN ALL \nTHE WORK THAT CORY AND THE TEAM \nPUT INTO IT STARTING\, REMEMBER\, \nWITH THE HOWARD TERMINAL ISSUE. \nFULL OF GOOD NEWS TODAY \nESPECIALLY TO MY LEFT AS \nCOMMISSIONER BEACH WATCHES. \nTHIS WEEK THE U.S. ARMY CORP OF \nENGINEERS 2024 WORKPLAN WAS \nRELEASED AND WE’RE EXCITED TO \nNOTE THAT THE CORP HAS RECEIVED \nFUNDING TO INCLUDE THE BEL MARIN \nKEYS UNIT INTO THE HAMILTON \nWETLANDS PROJECT WHICH WILL \nBRING THE TOTAL HABITAT \nRESTORATION TO 26\,000 ACRES AS A \nRESULT OF OUR 2016 COALITION \nTHAT SPURRED CHANGES TO THE \nAUTHORIZING LEGISLATION THE CORP \nWILL SPEND ANOTHER $7 MILLION TO \nINCREASE BENEFICIAL REUSE OF \nSEDIMENT IN THE BAY DURING THE \nNEXT YEAR. TWO FINAL NOTES\, \nFIRST PERHAPS SOMETHING OF AN \nANTIDOTE TO THE GIANT’S \nDISAPPOINTING FIRST QUARTER OF \nBASEBALL\, I URGE TO YOU STRONGLY \nVISIT — I URGE TO YOU STRONGLY \nVISIT THE NEW CHINA BASIN PARK \nACROSS McCOVEY COVE FROM THE \nBALLPARK I WAS POSITIVELY \nTHRILLED TO ASK TO SPEAK AT THE \nGRAND OPENING LATE LAST MONTH \nAND IT’S TREMENDOUS. AT THE \nBCDC PERMIT THERE IS AN AUDIO \nTOUR OF THE SHORELINE FROM THE \nFERRY BUILDING DOWN TO MISSION \nROCK NOW KNOWN AS CHINA BASIN \nPARK THAT IS NOW LIVE IT’S A FEW \nYEARS LATE\, A DIFFERENT FORM OF \nPUBLIC ACCESS THAN WHAT BCDC \nNORMALLY REQUIRES FOR SURE AND \nWE’RE WORKING WITH GIANTS TO \nMAKE SURE IT’S PUBLICIZED WELL. \nFINALLY ANOTHER NOTICE FOR THE \nBCDC BOOK CLUB. COMMISSIONER \nAHN’S NEW BOOK ENTITLED \nADVOCATE\, A GRAPHIC MEME WHAT OF \nFAMILY\, COMMUNITY\, AND THE FIGHT \nFOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IS NOW \nAVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE. IT’S \nABSOLUTELY SUPERB AND IF YOU \nFOLLOW COMMISSIONER AHN ON \nSOCIAL MEDIA\, YOU WILL KNOW WHY\, \nAND WE ALL RECOMMEND IT HIGHLY. \nIN ADDITION THE COMMISSIONER HAS \nASSURED US THAT HE IS MORE THAN \nHAPPY TO SIGN ALL AVAILABLE \nCOPIES AT A SMALL PRICE. WITH \nTHAT\, CHAIR WASSERMAN\, I’M HAPPY \nTO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. \n[LAUGHTER] \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY \nQUESTIONS FOR LARRY? \n>>EDDIE AHN: A QUICK COMMENT \nFROM COMMISSIONER AHN. THERE IS \nNO PRICE. IT WILL BE DONE \nABSOLUTELY FREE OF CHARGE \n[LAUGHTER] \nTHANK YOU\, THOUGH. VERY MUCH \nAPPRECIATE YOUR PRAISE FOR THE \nBOOK. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nWELL\, THERE IS A PRICE\, YOU NEED \nTO BUY THE BOOK\, AND YOU \nSHOULD. \nBUT NO PRICE FOR THE SIGNATURE. \nI WAS ACTUALLY DISAPPOINTED THAT \nWE ARE NOT ALL TOGETHER\, BECAUSE \nI HAVE MY BOOK AND HOPE TO GET \nHIM TO SIGN T BUT I WILL \nHOPEFULLY DO THAT AT OUR NEXT \nMEETING. \nONE OF THE THINGS SAID REMINDS \nME OF ONE THING I WANT TO NOTE\, \nTHERE WAS A REPORT IN THE SAN \nJOSE MERCURY LAST WEEK ABOUT THE \nHOWARD TERMINAL SETTLEMENT\, THE \nSETTLEMENT OF THE CLAIM BY \nPACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION AND \nOTHERS AGAINST BCDC REGARDING \nOUR ACTIONS\, AND THERE WAS A \nSTATEMENT IN THAT ARTICLE THAT \nWE HAD IN THAT SETTLEMENT\, MADE \nA DEAL AND CHANGED THE TERMS OF \nWHAT WAS GOING ON TO PUT THE \nHOWARD TERMINAL BACK INTO THE \nSEAPORT PLAN. THAT IS NOT \nACCURATE. WE MADE NO CHANGE IN \nTHE DEAL. WE SIMPLY DISMISSED \n— AGREED TO DISMISS THE \nLAWSUIT. STATE LAW WHICH \nAUTHORIZED THE USE BY THE AS OF \nHOWARD TERMINAL\, HAD AN \nEXPIRATION DATE IN IT WHEREBY IF \nTHE PORT AND THE A DESERT NOT \nREACH A BINDING AGREEMENT\, BY A \nDATE\, WHICH I THINK WAS SOMETIME \nTHIS YEAR\, SOMEBODY MAY CORRECT \nME ON THAT — IT — THE \nEXCLUSION OF THE PROJECT\, FROM \nTHE TIDE LANDS TRUST\, OR THE \nDETERMINATION THAT THAT USE WAS \nCONSISTENT WITH THE TIDE LANDS \nTRUST WOULD EXPIRE\, WE DID NOT \nMAKE ANY CHANGE IN IT WE WILL \nCONVEY THIS TO THE MERCURY. I \nKNOW THE PORT OF OAKLAND KNOWS \nTHAT\, BUT WE WILL MAKE THAT \nCLEAR\, AS WELL. \nTHAT BRINGS US TO ITEM SEVEN\, \nCONSIDERATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE \nMATTERS. WE HAVE RECEIVED THE \nADMINISTRATIVE — THE DRAFT OF \nADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS. \nARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS \nON THE ADMINISTRATIVE LIST? \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: NO HANDS \nRAISED. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. I SEE \nNOTHING FROM COMMISSIONERS. SO\, \nONCE AGAIN\, DIRECTOR ROSS GETS \nOFF WITHOUT BEING GRILLED. \nONE OF THESE DAYS\, YOU MAY FIND \nYOU’RE GETTING GRILLED. THAT \nBRINGS US TO ITEMS 8 AND 9\, \nWHICH WE ARE GOING TO COMBINE \nAND HEAR AS ONE ITEM. THEY ARE \nVERY SIMILAR. THEY INVOLVE TWO \nDIFFERENT GEOGRAPHIC AREAS\, BUT \nTHE ISSUES ARE ESSENTIALLY \nSUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME. THESE \nARE HEARINGS AND POSSIBLE VOTES \nON PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC \nAPPLICATION FOR NEW FIVE-YEAR \nPROGRAMMATIC OPERATIONS \nMAINTENANCE PERMIT EXISTING \nELECTRIC TRANSMISSION STRUCTURES \nTHROUGHOUT THE COMMISSION’S \nJURISDICTION OUTSIDE SUISUN \nMARSH AND INSIDE SUISUN MARSH \nWHERE WE DO HAVE SOME \nJURISDICTION. THE PRESENTATION \nWILL BE — SO\, WE’RE HAVING ONE \nPUBLIC HEARING TO COVER BOTH OF \nTHESE ISSUES. ROWAN YELTON OF \nOUR STAFF WILL MAKE THE STAFF’S \nINTRODUCTION AND THEN INTRODUCE \nSPEAKERS FROM PG&E. \n>>ROWAN YELTON: THANK YOU CHAIR \nWASSERMAN. IS THAT SHOWING UP? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nIT’S SHOWING UP WITH YOUR NOTES \nWHICH YOU MAY OR MAY NOT WANT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: GOT \nIT. \n>>ROWAN YELTON: MY NAME IS \nROWAN YELTON\, I AM A COASTAL \nPROGRAM ANALYST ON THE BAY \nRESOURCES TEAM. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: FOR YOU ALL \nWHO ARE ONLINE THERE IS \nCONSTRUCTION OUTSIDE METRO \nCENTER THAT’S MAKING IT HARD FOR \nUS TO HEAR. I’M LOOKING AT YOU \nALL SO I WANT TO KNOW IF YOU CAN \nHEAR\, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS. \nIF YOU CAN’T HEAR — ALL RIGHT\, \nROWAN\, YOU’RE GOING TO NEED TO \nYELL INTO THAT MICROPHONE. USE \nYOUR OUTSIDE VOICE. \n>>ROWAN YELTON: OKAY I’LL USE \nMY OUTSIDE VOICE. I’M \nPRESENTING TWO PERMIT \nAPPLICATIONS FOR OPERATIONS AND \nMAINTENANCE PROGRAM PROPOSED BY \nTHE PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC \nCOMPANY. APPLICATIONS ARE FOR \nFIVE YEARS PROGRAMS OF \nMAINTENANCE REPAIR REPLACEMENT \nREMOVAL RETIREMENT AND \nMODIFICATION OF PG&E FACILITIES \nACTIVITIES WOULD BE LIMITED TO \nEXISTING FACILITIES AND \nSTRUCTURES AND WOULD NOT RESULT \nIN PERMANENT NET BAY FILL THOUGH \nSOME TEMPORARY FILL WOULD BE \nINSTALLED FOR SITE ACCESS. \nTHERE WOULD NOT BE PERMANENT \nADVERSE IMPACTS TO PUBLIC \nACCESS. \nBASED ON THE APPLICATION\, WE \nEXPECT THAT HUNDREDS OF PROJECTS \nWILL BE CONDUCTED UNDER THIS \nPERMIT EACH YEAR. MOST PROJECTS \nINVOLVE REPAIRS TO ELECTRICAL \nTOWERS AND POLES SUCH AS \nREPAIRING CRACKS AND TOWER \nFOUNDATIONS TRIMMING VEGETATION \nNEAR TOWERS AND LINES AND \nREPLACING DAMAGED HARDWARE \nINSTIGATEULARITIES AND \nSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS OF TOWERS \nAND POLES. LESS FREQUENT \nACTIVITIES INCLUDE REPLACEMENT \nOF ENTIRE STRUCTURES SUCH AS \nTOWERS AND PIPELINES. THE \nPROGRAM WOULD INCLUDE ACTIVITIES \nIN ALL NINE COUNTY BAY AREAS\, \nBCDC’S BAY SHORELINE BAND\, WATER \nWAYS SALT PONDS AND MANAGED \nWETLANDS JURISDICTIONS THE \nPROGRAM SPLIT INTO TWO \nAPPLICATIONS ONE FOR ACTIVITIES \nPRIMARY MANAGEMENT AREA OF THE \nSUISUN MARSH AND FOR ALL OTHER \nLOCATIONS THE TWO PERMITS WOULD \nHAVE IDENTICAL AUTHORIZATIONS \nAND SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND ONLY \nDIFFER IN FINDINGS. BCDC \nPREVIOUSLY ISSUED TWO PERMITS \nFOR SIMILAR OPERATION AND \nMAINTENANCE PROGRAMS IN 1987 AND \n1989. THESE PERMITS WERE \nREPEATEDLY AMENDED AND EXTENDED \nAND WILL BOTH EXPIRE ON MAY \n30TH\, 2024. IN 2021\, PG&E \nAPPLIED FOR FIVE-YEAR EXTENSIONS \nTO BOTH PERMITS. WHEN \nAPPLICATIONS WERE RECEIVED BCDC \nSTAFF REVIEWED THE EXISTING \nPERMITS AND DETERMINED THAT THEY \nWERE OUTDATED FOR THE FOLLOWING \nREASONS: AUTHORIZATIONS WERE NO \nLONGER SUFFICIENT TO COVER ALL \nOF PG&E’S ACTIVITIES AND SPECIAL \nCONDITIONS NEEDED SIGNIFICANT \nCHANGES TO BRING THEM UP-TO-DATE \nWITH CURRENT BCDC LAWS AND \nPOLICIES\, ENGINEERING CODES AND \nSTANDARDS\, CURRENT STATE OF THE \nBAY ENVIRONMENT\, AND OUR \nSCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE \nBAY ENVIRONMENT. \nSO\, THE PREVIOUS PERMITS WERE \nPERMITTED ADMINISTRATIVELY\, BUT \nAT THIS TIME WE ARE LOOKING TO \nISSUE MAJOR PERMITS \nFOR THEM BECAUSE ALTHOUGH EACH \nINDIVIDUAL ACTIVITY QUALIFIES AS \nMINOR REPAIRS OR IMPROVEMENTS \nTHE PERMITS WOULD COVER A LARGE \nNUMBER OF PROJECTS OVER THE \nENTIRE BAY AREA OVER FIVE YEARS \nTHEY CANNOT BE REASONABLY \nCONSTRUED AS A SINGLE ACTIVITY \nAND SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED \nADMINISTRATIVELY. WHEN WRITING \nTHE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OUR \nCONCERN WAS ENSURING THAT THE \nPROJECTS WOULD NOT HAVE \nSIGNIFICANT PERMIT IMPACTS OR \nENVIRONMENT OR PUBLIC ACCESS \nIMPACTS ADDRESSING CONCERNS TO \nSPECIAL CONDITIONS INCLUDED \nREQUIRE PERMITTEE TO RESTORE \nCONSTRUCTION SITES TO ORIGINAL \nCONDITION OR BETTER WHERE \nAPPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL WORK \nAVOID MINIMIZE PUBLIC ACCESS \nIMPACTS BEST MANAGEMENT OF \nPRACTICES IN MARSHES IN THE BAY \nAND SENSITIVE HABITATS COMPLY \nWITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVALS BY \nTHE RESOURCE AGENCIES SPECIAL \nCONDITION LIMIT TO ALLOW \nACTIVITIES THAT DO NOT RESULT IN \nINCREASE TO BAY FILL DURATION OF \nTEMPORARY FILL LESS THAN 180 \nDAYS PER PROJECT LIMIT \nRELOCATION AND REDECISION OF \nSTRUCTURES AND DISALLOW \nPERMANENT ADVERSE IMPACTS TO \nPUBLIC ACCESS. PROPOSAL REVIEW \nPROCESS ALL ACTIVITIES REQUIRE \nBCDC STAFF APPROVAL BEFORE THEY \nCAN BE CONDUCTED EXCEPT FOR \nLIMITED CATEGORY ACTIVITIES THAT \nWOULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO RESULT \nIN ADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE \nENVIRONMENT OR PUBLIC ACCESS AND \nDO NOT INVOLVE ANY WATERWORKS. \nSOME EXAMPLES OF ACTIVITIES \nINCLUDE REPLACING MINOR \nSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS AND \nEQUIPMENT\, PAINTING AND \nVEGETATION TRIMMING. FOR ALL \nACTIVITY WHICH IS COULD RESULT \nIN ADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE BAY OR \nENVIRONMENT OR PUBLIC ACCESS OR \nWOULD INVOLVE WATERWORKS THE \nPERMIT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO \nSUBMIT ACTIVITY PROPOSAL BASED \nON FORM INCLUDED AS EXHIBIT TO \nTHE PERMIT BCDC STAFF WOULD THEN \nREVIEW ACTIVITY FOR CONSISTENCY \nWITH THE PERMIT YOU \nAUTHORIZATION AND CONDITIONS IF \nSTAFF FIND THE PROJECT IS NOT \nCONSISTENT WITH PERMITS AND PG&E \nWILL HAVE TO SUBMIT AN \nINDIVIDUAL PERMIT APPLICATION \nSPECIAL CONDITIONS ALSO INCLUDED \nTO REQUIRE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT \nANNUAL REPORTS ON THE ACTIVITIES \nCONDUCTED OVER THE PAST YEAR \nCUMULATIVELY SINCE PERMIT WAS \nISSUED AND IF THE ACTIVITY IS \nPROJECTED FOR UPCOMING YEAR \nFIVE-YEAR PROJECTED WORKPLAN FOR \nREPAIR AND REPLACEMENT OF \nELECTRICAL TOWERS IN BCDC \nJURISDICTION. AS YOU LEARN MORE \nABOUT THIS PROGRAM FROM THE PG&E \nSTAFF PRESENTATION\, \nTO KEEP IN MIND TIDAL \nFLATS\, FISH\, AQUATIC ORGANISMS\, \nWILDLIFE MITIGATION PUBLIC \nACCESS AND SHORELINE BAND \nAND MARSH PLANS LAND USE AND \nMARSH MANAGEMENT POLICY THE \nCOMMISSION SHOULD CONSIDER \nWHETHER THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS \nCONSISTENT WITH THE \nMCATEER-PETRIS ACT APPLICABLE TO \nSAN FRANCISCO BAY PLAN POLICIES \nSPECIFICALLY WHETHER THE FILL \nRESULTS IN RESULTING PROJECTS \nUPON CONSISTENT WITH REGULATIONS \nSECTION 66605 AND THAT FILL IS \nMINIMUM NECESSARY AND DESIGNED \nTO MINIMIZE HARM RECALL EFFECTS \nOF THE FILL. AND WHETHER \nSPECIAL CONDITIONS OF PERMIT ARE \nAPPROPRIATE TO AVOID MINIMIZE \nADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE PUBLIC \nACCESS AND BAY ENVIRONMENT. \nTHAT CONCLUDES THE STAFF \nPRESENTATION AND I’LL NOW \nINTRODUCE KYLE STAPLE MAN\, TIM \nANDREWS\, JOHN WILCOX FROM PG&E F \nTHEIR PRESENTATION OF THE \nPROGRAM. \n>>SPEAKER: THANKS ROWAN. \n>>SPEAKER: GO AHEAD JOHN. \n>>JON WILCOX: ARE YOU ABLE TO \nRUN THE PRESENTATION? WE DIDN’T \nWORK OUT THE LOGISTICS WITH \nBCDC. \n>>SPEAKER: I’M PULLING UP THE \nPRESENTATION NOW\, IF YOU CAN \nCONFIRM YOU SEE IT? \n>>JOHN WILCOX: I SEE T I’LL \nKICK US OFF. THANK YOU\, FIRST \nOF ALL\, CHAIR WASSERMAN AND THE \nCOMMISSIONERS\, TO LOOK AT OUR \nPERMIT APPLICATION. AS ROWAN \nSAID\, AND THIS IS SOMETHING WE \nHAVE BEEN WORKING ON FROM THE \n’80s OFF A PREVIOUS PERMIT THIS\, \nIS SOLELY FOR OUR OWN ACTIVITIES \nIN AND AROUND THE BAY SO WE LOOK \nFORWARD TO GETTING THIS NEW \nPERMIT PUT IN PLACE\, GETTING \nPROCESSES IN PLACE AND WORKING \nTO\, YOU KNOW\, A GOOD FUTURE WITH \nUS\, WITH BCDC AS WE HAVE THIS \nPERMIT ACTIVE IN THE FUTURE. \nWITH THAT\, I’LL INTRODUCE TIM \nANDREWS WHO IS THE MANAGER OF \nOUR WATER PROGRAM. TIM\, ARE YOU \nABLE TO PRESENT? SORRY. WE \nHAVE A LITTLE BIT OF ISSUE ON \nOUR SIDE. PG&E DOESN’T \nNECESSARY HE ALLOW US TO USE \nZOOM SO WE’RE TRYING TO DO IT \nVIA PHONES FOR SOME FOLKS. \n>>SPEAKER: TIM SAID SAID HE MAY \nNOT — HE’S RUNNING INTO \nTECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES. I CAN \nTAKE IT OVER FOR HIM. GOOD \nAFTERNOON COMMISSION STAFF AND \nCOMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS TYLER \nSTAPLE MAN. \n>>JON WILCOX: TYLER YOU’RE A \nLITTLE QUIET. CUYLER YOU’RE A \nLITTLE QUIET. CUYLER \n. \n>> CUYLER: CAN YOU HEAR ME? MY \nNAME IS CUYLER STAPLE MAN\, \nPLANNER AT PG&E I HAVE BEEN \nWORKING WITH BCDC STAFF AND PG&E \nSTAKE R STAKEHOLDERS ON THE \nDEVELOPMENT OF THIS PERMIT FOR \nTHE PAST COUPLE OF YEAR OR SO \nTODAY IS THE BIDAY AND LOOKING \nFORWARD TO THE DISCUSSION AFTER \nTHE PRESENTATION. I WANT TO DO \nA QUICK OVERVIEW OF OUR AGENDA \nTOPICS HERE IN THIS \nPRESENTATION. I’M GOING TO GO \nOVER PROGRAM NEED AND PURPOSE \nBACKGROUND OF OUR WORK\, \nACTIVITIES WE’RE SEEKING TO GET \nAUTHORIZED BY THESE PERMITS\, \nEXAMPLES OF WHAT THOSE \nACTIVITIES ARE\, AND THE ACTIVITY \nCLASSES THAT HAVE BEEN \nINCORPORATED INTO THIS PERMIT\, \nAND OVERVIEW OF THE POTENTIAL \nIMPACTS AND THE SPECIAL \nCONDITIONS THAT WE WILL BE \nIMPLEMENTING DURING OUR \nOPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE \nPROGRAM. I REALIZE SOME OF THIS \nIS — MAY BE REPETITIVE FROM THE \nINFORMATION THAT WAS JUST \nPRESENTED\, SO\, I’LL TRY TO \nSTREAMLINE WHERE POSSIBLE. \nPG&E’S MISSION IS TO DELIVER \nCLEAN SAFE RELIABLE AFFORDABLE \nENERGY TO OUR CUSTOMERS\, THIS \nMEANS WE MUST ROUTINELY INSPECT \nMAINTAIN AND OPERATE OUR \nFACILITIES TO ACHIEVE THAT \nGOAL. \nWE FEEL THAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS \nO&M PLAN IS TO MAINTAIN THE \nENERGY TRANSMISSION AND \nDISTRIBUTION FACILITIES TO \nDELIVER THAT ENERGY TO OUR \nCUSTOMERS. AND IN DOING SO\, AND \nMAINTAINING SAFE AND RELIABLE \nFACILITIES\, WE’LL BE DOING OUR \nPART IN BEING GOOD STEWARDS TO \nTHE BAY ENVIRONMENT AND THE \nRESOURCES UNDER BCDC’S \nJURISDICTION. \nPG&E HAS BEEN CONDUCTING ROUTINE \nOPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE WORK \nWITHIN BCDC’S JURISDICTION UNDER \nPERMITS THAT WERE INITIALLY \nEFFECTIVE IN 1987. THEY HAVE \nBEEN EXTENDED NUMEROUS TIMES IN \nTHE CURRENT EXTENSIONS EXPIRE \nMAY 31ST OF THIS YEAR. UNDER \nTHESE NEW PERMITS WE PROPOSE TO \nCONTINUE THAT OPERATIONS AND \nMAINTENANCE PLAN WITH NEW \nSPECIAL CONDITIONS AND \nNOTIFICATION AND REPORTING \nPROCEDURES WITH BCDC. \nSO\, AGAIN THIS\, PERMIT WOULD \nAUTHORIZE PG&E TO PERFORM THIS \nROUTINE WORK FOR A PERIOD OF \nFIVE YEARS WITH AN OPTION TO \nRENEW AT THE END OF THE TERM. \nAND THIS O&M WORK WILL BE \nCONDUCT THE UNDER TWO SEPARATE \nPERMITS\, ONE FOR SUISUN MARSH \nPRIMARY MANAGEMENT AREA\, AND THE \nOTHER PERMIT FOR ALL OTHER \nPORTIONS OF BCDC’S JURISDICTION\, \nALONG THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY. \nAGAIN\, THE ACTIVITIES WE’LL BE \nPERFORMING WILL BE SIMILAR TO \nACTIVITIES WE HAVE BEEN \nPERFORMING UNDER EXISTING \nPERMITS WITH NEW SPECIAL \nCONDITIONS. \nSO\, THE FOLLOWING MAPS SHOW THE \nLOCATIONS OF PG&E WORK THAT WE \nCONDUCTED UNDER THE EXISTING \nPERMITS IN 2022 AND 2023\, AS \nWELL AS WORK WE’RE PLANNING FOR \n2024 AND 2025. I WANT TO \nBRIEFLY POINT OUT SOME ITEMS ON \nTHIS LEGEND IN THE FOLLOWING \nMAPS BCDC’S JURISDICTION IS \nSHADED IN A PURPLE COLOR\, AND \nTHE PROJECTS FROM 2022 TO 2025 \nARE SHOWN AS POINTS. ONE THING \nTO KEEP IN MIND IS THAT THE \nDISTINCTION BETWEEN TRANSMISSION \nAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES. \nSO\, WHEN PG&E TALKS ABOUT OUR \nFACILITIES THERE\, IS TWO MAJOR \nCATEGORIES THAT THINK WE OF\, \nTRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION. \nAND TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE \nIT’S REALLY IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN \nMIND THAT ENERGY ISN’T ALWAYS \nCONSUMED WHERE IT’S PRODUCED. \nSO\, WHEN WE THINK ABOUT \nTRANSMISSION FACILITIES\, THESE \nFACILITIES TRANSMIT ENERGY \nRESOURCES OVER LONG DISTANCES\, \nBETWEEN THE LOCATIONS ITS \nPRODUCED AND WHERE IT’S \nCONSUMED. ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION \nSYSTEM MAY BE HIGHER VOLTAGE \nWITH LARGER POLES\, AND A GAS \nTRANSMISSION SYSTEM HAS A LARGER \nDIAMETER PIPELINE. FOR \nDISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS\, THESE \nSYSTEMS DELIVER ENERGY DIRECTLY \nTO THE END USER\, OUR \nCUSTOMERS. \nDISTRIBUTION POLE\, ELECTRIC \nDISTRIBUTION POLE ARE THOSE \nYOU’RE LIKELY TO SEE IN YOUR \nCOMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD\, AND A \nGAS DISTRIBUTION PIPELINE IS \nGENERALLY SMALLER. \nTO GIVE PG&E STAFF AND \nCOMMISSIONERS A SENSE OF THE \nAMOUNT OF INFRASTRUCTURE WE HAVE \nIN THE JURISDICTION\, I \nRAN SOME NUMBERS WITH OUR GIS \nDEPARTMENT AND WANT TO SHARE \nTHOSE WITH YOU TODAY. WE HAVE \nOVER 520 MILES OF ENERGIZED \nELECTRICAL CONDUCTOR WITHIN YOUR \nJURISDICTION AND THOSE \nCONDUCTORS ARE SUPPORTED BY 829 \nTOWERS\, AND OVER 4\,900 POLES AND \nSIMILAR SUPPORT STRUCTURES. \nTHOSE 829 TOWERS MAY BE ACCESSED \nBY OVER 180 MILES OF BOARDWALK \nIN THE BAY AND WE ALSO HAVE OVER \n65 MILES OF NATURAL BAS \nPIPELINE. ALL OF THESE ASSETS \nMUST BE INSPECTED\, MAINTAINS AND \nOPERATED TO ENSURE FAY OUR \nFACILITIES PROVIDE SAFE RELIABLE \nENERGY TO OUR CUSTOMERS. \nTHE ACTIVITIES AUTHORIZED BY \nTHESE PERMITS ARE THOSE THAT WE \nROUTINELY PERFORM TO MEET OUR \nGOALS. UNDER THIS PERMIT\, THESE \nACTIVITIES WILL BE LIMITED TO \nTHE MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING \nFACILITIES RATHER THAN THE \nCONSTRUCTION OF NEW FACILITIES. \nTHE PERMIT WILL CATEGORIZE OUR \nOPERATION AND MAINTENANCE \nACTIVITIES INTO FOUR CLASSES\, \nWHICH WE’LL DISCUSS IN A FEW \nMORE SLIDES. BUT I WANTED TO \nNOTE THAT THE PERMIT WAS WRITTEN \nWITH BROAD LANGUAGE INTENDED TO \nCOVER MOST OF OUR ROUTINE \nOPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE \nWORK. \nHOWEVER ANY ACTIVITY THAT \nDOESN’T FALL WITHIN THESE \nACTIVITY CLASSES OR WITHIN THE \nAUTHORIZED ACTIVITY DEFINITIONS\, \nPG&E WILL SEEK SEPARATE \nAUTHORIZATION FROM BCDC. EXCUSE \nME\, SO\, THE MAJORITY OF \nACTIVITIES WE EXPECT TO PERFORM \nUNDER THIS PERMIT ARE WHAT WE \nREFER TO AS OVERHEAD ACTIVITIES \nWHICH CONSIST OF REPLACING \nOR REPAIRING OR REPLACING OF \nEQUIPMENT AT TOP OF UTILITY \nPOLES AND TOWERS ACTIVITIES \nDON’T REQUIRE ANY GROUND \nDISTURBANCE OR EXCAVATION ON THE \nGROUND\, ACTIVITIES OVERHEAD MAY \nINCLUDE REPLACING \nINSTIGATEULARITIES AND HANGING \nPLATES THAT SUSPEND ELECTRIFIED \nCONDUCTORS FROM TOWERS AND POLES \nAS WELL AS REPAIRING HIGH WIRES\, \nVOLTAGE SIGNS AND REPLACING \nBOLTS THESE ARE DEMON MOUSE \nCLASS ACTIVITIES MENTIONED ON \nTHE SLIDE EXPECTING TO PERFORM \n500 OVERHEAD ACTIVITIES DURING \nTHE FIVE-YEAR PERMIT TERM. IN \nADDITION TO OVERHEAD ACTIVITIES \nWE’RE EXPECTING TO REPLACE 25 \nMILES OF BOARDWALK REPLACE 50 \nPOLES\, TOWERS\, AND TOWER \nFOUNDATIONS AND REPLACE SECTIONS \nOF FIVE GAS PIPELINES OVER THE \nNEXT FIVE YEARS. \nSO PERMITS INCLUDE FOUR ACTIVITY \nCLASSES WITHIN WHICH PG&E WILL \nHAVE SPECIFIC REVIEW\, \nNOTIFICATION\, AND REPORTING \nREQUIREMENTS TO FOLLOW. IN \nGENERAL\, ACTIVITIES WITH LESS \nENVIRONMENTAL RISK WILL BE \nREVIEWED AND AUTHORIZED MORE \nQUICKLY THAN ACTIVITIES THAT \nHAVE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT PUBLIC \nACCESS OF BAY RESOURCES. CLASS \nONE ACTIVITIES DO NOT INVOLVE \nANY IMPACTS TO PUBLIC ACCESS OR \nTHE BAY\, AND DO NOT INVOLVE ANY \nIN WATERWORKS. THESE ARE THOSE \nOVERHEAD ACTIVITIES I PREVIOUSLY \nREFERRED TO. \nPG&E WILL BE PROCEEDING WITH \nTHIS WORK AT OUR DISCRETIONARY \nDURING — UNDER — DURING THIS \nPERMIT\, HOWEVER WE’LL BE \nREPORTING TO BCDC ANNUALLY\, A \nSUMMARY OF CLASS ONE ACTIVITIES \nPERFORMED. \nTHE SECOND ACTIVITY CLASS IS \nCLASS TWO AND WITHIN CLASS TWO\, \nTHERE ARE TWO SUBTYPES. CLASS \nTWO. A AND 2B. CLASS TWO \nACTIVITIES WILL OCCUR IN THE \nSHORELINE BAND\, THEY MAY INVOLVE \nSMALL AMOUNTS OF FILL AND \nEXTRACTION. THEY DO NOT INVOLVE \nANY WATERWORKS. NOW\, THE \nDIFFERENCE BETWEEN 2A AND 2B IS \nCLASS 2A IS LIMITED TO WORK THAT \nDOES NOT IMPACT PUBLIC ACCESS\, \nWHEREAS CLASS 2B MAY INCLUDE \nTEMPORARY PUBLIC ACCESS \nIMPACTS. \nCLASS THREE ACTIVITIES ARE THE \nROUTINE OPERATIONS AND \nMAINTENANCE ACTIONS THAT HAVE \nPOTENTIAL TO RESULT IN IMPACTS \nTO BAY RESOURCES INCLUDING FISH \nAND WILDLIFE AND TIDAL MARSHES \nHOWEVER THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS \nREQUIRED BY THIS PERMIT AND PG&E \nPROGRAMMATIC MAINTENANCE PERMITS \nWITH RESOURCES AGENCIES \nSIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS TO \nRESOURCES WILL NOT OCCUR FROM \nIMPLEMENTATION OF CLASS THREE \nACTIVITIES. CLASS THREE \nACTIVITY MAY INCLUDE REPLACING \nOF CONCRETE FOOTING OF AN \nEXISTING STEEL TRANSMISSION \nTOWER IN THE TIDAL MARSH THAT \nMAY INVOLVE EXCAVATION OR GROUND \nDISTURBANCE WITHIN THE TIDAL \nMARSH. \nTHIS SLIDE IS BRIEFLY \nSUMMARIZING THE IMPACTS THAT MAY \nRESULT FROM PG&E’S OPERATIONS \nAND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES UNDER \nTHIS PERMIT. AS ROWAN \nPREVIOUSLY MENTIONED\, WE DO NOT \nEXPECT ANY SIGNIFICANT NET \nINCREASE IN BAY FILL. WHILE \nPG&E EXPECTS TO REPLACE OVER 100 \nCUBIC YARDS PLACE OVER \n140 CUBIC QUARTERS OF FILL \nWITHIN BCDC’S JURISDICTION THIS \nFILL WILL BE OFFSET BY REMOVAL \nOF EXISTING FILL OF ROUGHLY \nEQUAL AMOUNTS\, FOR EXAMPLE\, IF \nWE REPLACE A POLE WE’LL INSTALL \nAND REPLACE POLE NEW POLE AND \nBASE STAYS AT ROUGHLY ZERO. \nPERMIT ALSO LIMITS PUBLIC ACCESS \nSCENIC VIEW IMPACTS FROM PG&E \nFACILITIES PROJECTS WITH \nPERMANENT ADVERSE IMPACTS TO BAY \nRESOURCES  PUBLIC ACCESS WILL \nNOT BE AUTHORIZED BY THIS \nPERMIT. \nTO BRIEFLY MENTION PREVIOUSLY\, \nTHESE PERMITS WILL REQUIRE PG&E \nTO EMPLOY A STANDARD OF BEST \nMANAGEMENT PRACTICES WHILE \nPERFORMING ALL AUTHORIZED \nACTIVITIES. ADDITIONALLY THE \nPERMIT HAS A NUMBER OF \nCONDITIONS THAT PG&E MUST FOLLOW \nTO AVOID OR MINIMIZE IMPACTS TO \nRESOURCES REGULATED BY BCDC. \nSUCH AS FISH\, WILDLIFE\, AND \nTIDAL MARSH. \nFURTHERMORE\, PG&E’S BIOLOGISTS \nWILL BE REVIEWING MAINTENANCE \nWORK WITH POTENTIAL TO IMPACT \nBIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TO IDENTIFY \nSPECIFIC RESOURCES PROTECTION \nMEASURES NEEDED TO AVOID IMPACTS \nTO RESOURCES DURING WORK \nEXECUTION THESE PROJECTS \nSPECIFIC MEASURES WILL BE \nDOCUMENTED IN A BIOLOGICAL \nREPORT SENT TO BCDC’S WITH THE \nWORK NOTIFICATION PACKAGE. \nTHE LAST ITEM I WANTED TO POINT \nOUT IS THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS \nREQUIRED BY THIS PERMIT ARE \nCONSISTENT WITH THE RESOURCE \nAGENCY PERMITS PG&E HAS FOR \nOPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE \nPLANNING INCLUDING THE BAY AREA \nHABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN \nAUTHORIZED BY THE OFFICIAL \nWILDLIFE SERVICE\, THE BAY AREA \nINCIDENTAL PERMIT BY DEPARTMENT \nOF FISH AND WILDLIFE AS WELL AS \nOUR OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE \nPERMIT PERFORM FROM REGIONAL \nWATER QUALITY BOARD AND U.S. \nARMY CORP. WITH THAT SAID \nTHAT’S THE END OF THE \nPRESENTATION. I’LL TURN IT BACK \nTO BCDC F QUESTIONS AND \nDISCUSSION. THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: DO \nWE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE \nPUBLIC OR COMMENTS FROM THE \nPUBLIC. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: NO HANDS \nRAISED IN-PERSON OR ON ZOOM. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \nWILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND \nJUST TO BE VERY CLEAR\, BECAUSE I \nSHOULD HAVE DONE IS THAT BEFORE\, \nWHAT I JUST DID\, WE STILL HAVE \nNOBODY FROM THE PUBLIC WISHING \nTO COMMENT\, IS THAT CORRECT \nSIERRA? \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: THAT’S \nCORRECT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE \nDO HAVE TWO COMMISSIONER HANDS \nRAISED\, COMMISSIONER ECKLUND. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: THANK YOU \nVERY MUCH\, CHAIR. \nMY QUESTION IS THAT YOU \nINDICATED THAT THERE WOULDN’T BE \nANY ADVERSE IMPACTS ON PUBLIC \nVIEWS OR WHATEVER. BUT IS THERE \nANY OPPORTUNITIES WHERE WE CAN \nIMPROVE THE PUBLIC ACCESS AND \nVIEWS BY MAKING SOME CHANGES? \nTHAT’S MY FIRST QUESTION. MY \nSECOND QUESTION IS — \n>>SPEAKER: [INDISCERNIBLE]\n \nTHAT’S WHY I GOT FEEDBACK. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: PARDON \nME? OVERDOES AND THE \n— THE SECOND QUESTION I HAVE \nIS YOU SHOWED THE BIG TOWERS ARE \nTHERE ANY TOWERS THAT ARE GOING \nTO BE REPLACED? IF YOU COULD \nCLARIFY THAT? \n>>JON WILCOX: YES WE ARE GOING \nTO REPLACE TOWERS AND WILL \nPROVIDE A PLAN OVER THE NEXT \nFIVE YEARS TO BCDC OF THOSE \nTOWERS THAT WILL BE REPLACED \nWE’RE GOING THROUGH THAT\, THAT’S \nTHE BIG DRIVER FOR RENEWING THIS \nPERMIT. BECAUSE THOSE TOWERS \nARE SITTING IN SALT WATER\, THEY \nGET BEAT UP PRETTY BAD\, AND THEY \nNEED TO BE REPLACED EVERY NOW \nAND THEN. WITH REGARDS TO THE \nOTHER ONE ABOUT IMPROVEMENT\, SO\, \nWE ARE DOING THINGS OF APPROVING \nOR LINING SOME BOARDWALKS TO \nBETTER LOCATIONS THAT MAKE LESS \nIMPACTS THAT’S OUT THERE\, THIS \nIS REALLY AT THE HEART OF \nO&M TO HANDLE THE EQUIPMENT AND \nFACILITIES THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN \nPLACE THAT WOULD TRIGGER OTHER \nTHINGS LIKE RIGHT OF WAY\, \nACCESS\, AND OTHER PERMITS THAT \nWOULD BE NEEDED ABOVE AND BEYOND \nOF JUST FIXING THE ASSETS THAT \nARE CURRENTLY IN THAT LOCATION. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: OKAY. \nAND THEN\, I GUESS THAT \nCLARIFICATION ON THOSE METAL \nTOWERS\, YOU SAID THAT THEY WOULD \nBE REPLACED\, BUT ARE — YOU SAID \nTHAT THAT WAS GOING TO BE A \nSEPARATE PERMIT APPLICATION TO \nBCDC? WAS THAT CORRECT? \n>>JON WILCOX: NOT A SEPARATE \nPERMIT IT WOULD BE PROVIDED IN \nTHE REPORT WE’RE PROVIDING TO \nBCDC THAT’S WHAT’S CREATED UNDER \nTHIS NEW PERMIT. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: SO ARE \nYOU GOING TO BE COORDINATING \nWITH CITIES AND COUNTIES ON \nGETTING A PERMIT? BECAUSE I \nJUST HAD AN SPECIALTY RECENTLY \nTHAT PG&E WAS GOING TO BE \nWORKING ON A PARTICULAR \nTELECONFERENCE POLE. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: APPARENTLY THEY \nFORGOT TO GET A PERMIT. DO YOU \nHAVE A DOUBLE CHECK TO MAKE SURE \nTHAT PERMITS ARE APPLIED FOR AND \nRECEIVED BEFORE WORK IS ACTUALLY \nIN THE SHADED\, OR LETTERS GO OUT \nTO FOLKS? \n>>JON WILCOX: YES THAT’S ALL OF \nOUR PERMIT PLANNING PROCESS IT’S \nNOT JUST CITIES AND COUNTIES WE \nHAVE STATE AGENCIES AND THERE IS \nOVERLAY. WE HAVE A PROCESS\, \nPRESIDENT MATTICS\, WITH THE FEDS \nAND STATE THAT REQUIRE \nREPORTING\, BEST MANAGEMENT \nPRACTICES\, OR AVOIDANCE MEASURES \nTHAT WE PUT IN PLACE\, AS WELL. \nSO\, THAT’S IN THERE AND THERE IS \nA CHECK PROCESS THAT GOES \nTHROUGH OUR ENVIRONMENTAL \nPLANNING GROUP TO TAKE CARE OF \nTHINGS AS FAR AS CITIES AND \nCOUNTIES THAT’S A DIFFERENT \nGROUP CALLED EPWC BUT THEY \nHANDLE THE — IN THIS CASE\, IF \nYOU HAVE TO GET A PERMIT TO SHUT \nDOWN A ROADWAY FROM THE CITY AND \nCOUNTY ENCROACHMENT TYPE PERMITS \nTHEY WORK ON THAT AS WELL. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: I UNDERSTAND I \nWORKED FOR THE ARM I CORP OF \nENGINEERS AND U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL \nPROTECTION AGENCY FOR 43 YEARS \nSO I UNDERSTANDS ALL OF THAT. \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR \nANSWERING MY QUESTION. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. \n>>SPEAKER: TO ANSWER THE \nQUESTIONS ABOUT THE ELECTRICAL \nTOWERS\, THE PERMIT IS — \nRESTRICTS THE ACTIVITIES TO \nPROJECTS THAT WOULDN’T REQUIRE \nANY ADDITIONAL COMPENSATORY \nMITIGATION. SO\, WHEN PG&E WOULD \nPROPOSE SOMETHING LARGE AND \nIMPACTFUL LIKE A TOWER \nREPLACEMENT\, OUR STAFF WOULD USE \nTHE ACTIVITY REVIEW PROCESS\, \nWHICH IS SPECIAL CONDITION OF \nTHE PERMIT TO ASSESS WHETHER \nTHAT ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH \nTHE PERMIT AUTHORIZATION \nAND SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND \nWHETHER THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS \nARE SUFFICIENT TO PREVENT \nPERMANENT ADVERSE IMPACTS THAT \nWOULD REQUIRE COMP PENS TORE \nMITIGATION. SO THERE MIGHT BE \nSOME CASE WHERE IS A SPECIFIC \nTOWER REPLACEMENT PROJECT WOULD \nREQUIRE AN INDIVIDUAL PERMIT. \nHOWEVER\, THERE ARE SOME CASES \nWHERE PG&E\, I BELIEVE\, IS \nPLANNING ON REPLACING TOWERS IN \nDIFFERENT LOCATIONS\, AND THIS \nWOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER THIS \nPERMIT WHEN THE RELOCATION OF \nTHE TOWER WOULD MOVE THE TOWER \nOUT OF BCDC JURISDICTION\, \nENTIRELY\, WILL MOVE THE TOWER \nFROM THE BAY JURISDICTION INTO \nTHE SHORELINE BAND\, OR THE \nMOVEMENT WOULD RESULT IN \nSIGNIFICANTLY LESS BAY FILL OR \nSIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVED PUBLIC \nACCESS OR VIEWS. AND THE \nRELOCATION WOULD NOT HAVE \nSIGNIFICANTLY GREATER ADVERSE \nENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS COMPARED \nTO REPLACING THE TOWER IN THE \nSAME PLACE. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: THANK YOU VERY \nMUCH FOR CLARIFYING THAT. THAT \nWAS ONE OF MY CONCERNS THAT I \nHAD. SO\, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON? YOU’RE \nMUTED\, BARRY. \n>>BARRY NELSON: I’M GETTING AN \nECHO\, I’M NOT SURE WHY. \nCAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: TWO \nQUESTIONS. THE FIRST IS\, IT \nSOUNDS AS THOUGH THERE ARE A \nCOUPLE OF WAYS IN WHICH THIS \nPERMIT COULD PRODUCE PUBLIC OR \nENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS \nRELOCATING THE TOWERS AS ROWAN \nJUST MENTIONED\, POTENTIALLY\, \nOUTSIDE OF OUR BAY JURISDICTION\, \nAND EVEN TO OUR SHORELINE BANNER \nUPLAND JURISDICTIONS\, AND \nREDUCTION IN BAY FILL FROM \nCONSOLIDATED OR REMOVING BOARD \nWALKS\, GIVEN THERE ARE 25 MILES \nOF BOARD WALKS TO REPLACE\, \nTHAT’S A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT \nNUMBER. SO I’M ASKING IF THE \nREPORTING PROCESS IN THIS PERMIT \nWILL HELP US UNDERSTAND THOSE \nBENEFITS OVER TIME\, IF THERE ARE \nINDEED THOSE KINDS OF \nSIGNIFICANT BENEFITS GIVEN THE \nSCALE OF OPERATIONS OVER THE \nLENGTH OF THIS PERMIT\, IS THE \nREPORTING GOING TO ALLOW US TO \nDETECT THOSE BENEFITS? \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH. FOR ALL OF \nTHE LARGER PROJECTS THAT ARE \nREQUIRED\, THE REVIEWS IN THE \nCLASS TWO OR CLASS THREE\, SUCH \nAS THE REPLACEMENT OF \nSTRUCTURES\, REMOVAL\, REPLACEMENT \nOF BOARD WALKS\, THAT KIND OF \nTHING\, THE ANNUAL REPORTS WOULD \nBE REQUIRED TO REPORT ON THOSE \nPROJECTS BOTH THAT ARETIVELY\, \nAND WITH THE RAW DATA OF THINGS \nLIKE\, HOW — WHAT THE NET FILL \nDIFFERENCE WAS. SO THAT OUR \nSTAFF CAN REVIEW HOW THIS \nPROGRAM IS GOING AND SEE IF \nTHERE ARE UNEXPECTED BENEFITS OR \nTHINGS THAT WE WOULD WANT TO \nCHANGE THE NEXT TIME THE PERMIT \nCOMES UP FOR RENEWAL. \n>>BARRY NELSON: SECOND \nQUESTION. GIVEN — IF THIS WAS \nA LAND PERMIT F THIS WERE A \nCAPITAL PERMIT OF THIS SIZE AND \nSCALE AND SCOPE\, I AM CERTAIN \nTHAT WE WOULD BE REQUIRING \nSIGNIFICANT PUBLIC ACCESS GIVEN \nOUR REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE \nMAXIMUM PUBLIC ACCESS CONSISTENT \nWITH A PROJECT. BUT THIS IS AN \nO&M PERMIT\, NOT A CAPITAL \nPERMIT. SO\, CAN YOU HELP US \nUNDERSTAND\, GIVEN THE SIZE OF \nTHIS PERMIT\, HOW STAFF HAS \nTHOUGHT ABOUT PUBLIC ACCESS\, \nJUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE’RE — \nWE DON’T WANT TO DOUBLE DIP\, IF \nTHERE WERE CAPITAL — IF THERE \nWERE REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC \nACCESS REGARDING FOR SOME OF \nTHESE PROJECTS WHEN THEY WERE \nORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED WE DON’T \nWANT TO DOUBLE DIP BUT AT THE \nSAME TIME WE WANT TO MAKE SURE \nWE’RE APPROPRIATELY THINKING \nABOUT PUBLIC ACCESS REQUIREMENTS \nFOR BIG LONG-TERM O&M PROJECTS. \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH. SO\, AS WE \nWERE GOING THROUGH THE \nAPPLICATION PROCESS\, WE \nSERIOUSLY CONSIDERED WHETHER WE \nWOULD BE — WHATEVER THIS \nPROGRAM WOULD REQUIRE PUBLIC \nACCESS IMPROVEMENTS. AND THE \nFACT IS THAT THE PROGRAM WOULD \nONLY INVOLVE ACTIVITIES ON \nEXISTING STRUCTURES. IT \nWOULDN’T INVOLVE ANY INCREASES \nIN USE OR SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN \nUSES. AND THERE WOULDN’T BE ANY \nPERMIT PUBLIC ACCESS IMPACTS. \nSO STAFF DETERMINED THAT THERE \nWASN’T AN APPROPRIATE NEXUS TO \nREQUIRE PUBLIC ACCESS \nIMPROVEMENTS. \n>>BARRY NELSON: ARE THERE OTHER \nEXAMPLES OF LONG-TERM \nPERMITS LIKE THIS THAT DON’T \nHAVE PUBLIC ACCESS REQUIREMENTS? \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH. WE HAVE \nSEVERAL LONG-TERM O&M PERMITS \nWITH  DIFFERENT PUBLIC \nAGENCIES\, CALTRANS\, SANTA CLARA \nVALLEY WATER\, EAST BAY \nPARK DISTRICT\, CARGILL. THERE \nARE A LOT OF THEM. AND I DON’T \nBELIEVE THAT ANY OF THEM HAVE \nPUBLIC ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS \nREQUIRED. \n>>BARRY NELSON: THAT’S ALL. IF \nI COULD — \n>>SPEAKER: — [INDISCERNIBLE]\n \n>>SPEAKER: APP UP AGAIN. \n>>BARRY NELSON: CAN YOU HEAR \nME? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. \n>>SPEAKER: THE PERM FOCUS IN \nPUBLIC ACCESS A LOT OF FOCUS IS \nACTUALLY AVOIDING IMPACTS TO \nPUBLIC ACCESS DURING THESE KINDS \nOF WORK THAT PG&E NEEDS TO KEEP \nELECTRICITY AND THE GAS \nFLOWING. \nTHAT’S REALLY WHAT THE PERMIT \nPROVIDES FOR IS MAKING SURE \nTHERE AREN’T SIGNIFICANT \nLONG-TERM IMPACTS TO THE \nEXISTING PUBLIC ACCESS WITH THE \nPROJECT WE ARE THINKING ABOUT \nPUBLIC ACCESS BUT IT WAS MORE IN \nTHAT LIGHT\, WE REALIZE THE \n99\, I DON’T KNOW THE NUMBER BUT \nMOST OF THESE THINGS ARE VERY \nSMALL LIKE REPLACING RESISTORS \nOR THINGS LIKE THAT\, THAT AREN’T \nPHENOMENAL. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: MY QUESTION \nIS ABOUT MAYBE THE LARGER \nPROBLEMS. YOU CAN TALK A LITTLE \nBIT ABOUT THE STAGING AREAS THAT \nMIGHT BE REQUIRED? I GUESS \nTHERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT \nTHAT THERE. BUT YOU TALK ABOUT \nBOARDWALKS\, BUT — WHAT KIND OF \nHEAVY EQUIPMENT DO YOU \nPOTENTIALLY NEED FOR\, LIKE\, THE \nWORK ON THE LARGER TOWERS? AND \nHOW MANY LARGE STAGING AREAS DO \nYOU ANTICIPATE HAVING TO BUILD \nAND POTENTIALLY MITIGATE FOR? \n>>CUYLER STAPLEMANN: THANK YOU \nFOR YOUR QUESTION. I CAN JUMP IN \nHERE. A LOT OF OUR ELECTRIC \nTRANSMISSION TOWERS ARE IN THE \nBAY. THEY DO HAVE BOARDWALK \nACCESS. BUT WE PERFORM A LOT OF \nWORK ON THOSE TOWERS\, ESPECIALLY \nAT THE TOPS OF THOSE TOWERS\, BY \nHELICOPTER. SO IMPORTANT — \nTHERE IS LOTS OF RESTRICTION \nWHERE IS WE CAN SAFELY FLY \nSPECIFIC DISTANCES WE CAN’T \nCROSS PUBLIC ROADS WITHOUT \nTRAFFIC CONTROL WE TRY TO \nLOCATION THOSE HELICOPTER \nLANDING ZONES AS CLOSE TO THE \nWORK LOCATIONS AS POSSIBLE IT’S \nA SAFETY ISSUE FOR OUR WORKERS \nAS WELL AS THE PUBLIC I CAN’T \nREALLY SPEAK TO THE VOLUME OF \nLANDING ZONES\, ZONES MAY BE \nREQUIRED PER YEAR BUT GENERALLY \nTHEY ARE LOCATED ON EXISTING \nPAVED SURFACES \nLOTS\, DISTURBED AREAS THEY’RE \nSTAGE A COUPLE OF POLES AND \nINSTIGATEULARITIES AND SLIDE \nTHEM OUT TO THE WORK LOCATIONS\, \nIN THE CASE OF LARGER TOWER \nPROJECT THERE WOULD BE \nADDITIONAL TEMPORARY \nCONSTRUCTION EASTMENT OR WORK \nAREAS OUTSIDE OF OUR RIGHT OF \nWAY THAT WOULD NEED\, SORT OF\, A \nTEMPORARY RIGHT FROM THE \nPROPERTY OWNER\, AND THOSE WOULD \nGENERALLY BE LOCATED IMMEDIATELY \nIN THE VICINITY OF THE TOWER DUE \nTO A TOWER IN THE TIDAL MARSH\, \nTHOSE WORK AREAS YOU WOULD\, \nAS SMALL AS POSSIBLE TO REDUCE \nIMPACTS AND WE CAN’T ACCESS BY \nBARGE OFTENTIMES WE’LL HAVE \nEQUIPMENT ON BARGES AND THROW \nTHEM RIGHT UP TO THE TOWERS. \nBUT IN RARE OCCASIONS WE WILL \nNEED TO PLACE MATTING SOME REVE \nEQUIPMENT. \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: YEAH THAT \nHELPS EITHER HELICOPTER OR BARGE \nBECAUSE YOU COULDN’T BRING HEAVY \nEQUIPMENT ALONG THE BOARDWALK. \nTHAT’S IT. \n>>SPEAKER: THE PERMITS WOULD \nALSO INCLUDE SPECIAL CONDITION \nREQUIRING RESTORATION OF \nTEMPORARY IMPACTS TO TIDAL MARSH \nIF THEY’RE EXPECTED IN A \nPROJECT. AND THESE ACTIVITIES \nTHAT ARE AUTHORIZED BY THIS \nPERMIT WOULD BE LIMITED TO THOSE \nTHAT PG&E EXPECTS TO BE ABLE TO \nBE PASSIVELY RESTORED WITHIN TWO \nYEARS. SO\, SOME OF THE LARGER \nTOWER REPLACEMENTS THAT WOULD \nREQUIRE MORE VEGETATION \nCLEARING\, MORE MATTING\, THOSE \nMIGHT BE KICKED OUT OF THIS \nPERMIT AND REQUIRE AN INDIVIDUAL \nPERMIT IF THE RESTORATION WOULD \nBE EXPECTED TO TAKE LONGER\, OR \nTHERE WOULD BE PERMIT IMPACTS. \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER? \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: YOU CAN GUYS \nHEAR ME? \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH. \n>>SPEAKER: SPEAK UP A LITTLE \nBIT. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: CAN YOU HEAR \nME NOW? \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: IT’S THE \nSETTINGS. CAN YOU HEAR ME? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: WE’RE GETTING \nSOME FEEDBACK HERE. QUICK \nQUESTION. THANK YOU FOR ALL OF \nTHE DETAIL IN YOUR \nPRESENTATION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE \nCAN BARELY HEAR YOU ANDY. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: YOU CAN \nDESCRIBE HOW YOU ARE \nCONSIDERING\, AS YOU PREPARE AND \nUPGRADE FACILITIES\, I ASSUME YOU \nARE THINKING ALSO ABOUT THE \nFUTURE CLIMATE IN WHICH THESE \nFACILITIES WILL NEED TO BE \nOPERATED. CAN YOU SAY A LITTLE \nBIT ABOUT THAT? AND WHETHER AS \nWE’RE WORKING TO IN THE AREA \nAROUND THE BAY WHETHER THERE ARE \nPOSSIBILITIES OF\, SORT OF\, \nMULTI-BENEFIT KIND OF WORK THAT \nYOU CAN DO — BECAUSE I KNOW YOU \nDON’T GO OUT TO THESE SITES \nREALLY THAT OFTEN. \n>>JON WILCOX: WE HAVE TEAMS \nLOOKING AT SEA LEVEL RISE AND \nIMPACT. WE HAVE SUBSTATIONS \nTHAT ARE CLOSE\, RAVENSWOOD IN \nPARTICULAR\, THINGS THAT ARE \nTRIGGERED FOR SEA LEVEL RISE WE \nSPEND A LOT OF TIME IF TOWERS \nNEED TO BE RAISED\, TO ADDRESS \nTHAT\, AND THOSE ISSUES OCCUR. \nWE HAVE A BIG TEAM AND THEY’RE \nDEFINITELY SPENDING TIME \nREVIEWING THAT. AND SOME OF THE \nPROJECT WORK YOU’RE GOING TO SEE \nIS PROTECTING SEA LEVEL RISE \nTHOSE ARE PROJECTS COMING \nTHROUGH RIGHT NOW\, TO YOUR \nQUESTION ABOUT MULTI-BENEFIT\, I \nTHINK THAT’S GOING TO GO TO EACH \nPROJECT WHAT WE CAN DO. WE WORK \nCLOSELY WITH THE JOINT VENTURE \nAND A LOT OF GROUPS SEEING WHAT \nWE CAN DO TO WORK TOGETHER. WE \nDIDN’T — WE HAVE THESE OTHER \nPROGRAMMATICS AS I MENTIONED \nBEFORE AND THOSE TRIGGER A LOT \nOF MITIGATION OUT THERE\, LIKE \nFISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND \nCFW AND WE’RE WORKING WITH THEM \nTO CREATE LARGE-SCALE MITIGATION \nPROJECTS AS OPPOSED TO POSTAGE \nSTAMP STUFF DONE BEFORE \nHISTORICALLY THOSE ARE THINGS WE \nCAN DO TO WORK WITH JOINT \nVENTURE AND BOTH FEDS AND STATE \nAGENCIES AND LAND AGENCIESES TO \nCREATE BENEFITS RESTORATION \nOPPORTUNITIES. THERE ARE AREAS\, \nWE’RE WORKING WITH A MITIGATION \nBANK DEVELOPER WHERE WE’RE \nSWITCHING AN EASEMENT TO AN \nARIEL EASEMENT THAT WOULD NEVER \nPUT ANYTHING DOWN\, DON EDWARDS \nREFUGE RIGHT NOW THOSE ARE THE \nTHINGS COMING UP\, BUT BENEFICIAL \nASPECTS SEA LEVEL RISE ARE HIGH \nIN OUR MIND WE HAVE ASSETS THAT \nARE IN THE MIDST OF BEING \nIMPACTED. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: THAT’S KIND \nOF WHAT I FIGURED AND I WANT TO \nMAKE SURE ONCE YOU’RE OUT THERE \nTOUCHING THESE FACILITIES THAT \nEVERYTHING — ALL THE CAPITAL WE \nINVEST IN THIS COMMUNITY NOW \nNEEDS TO BE DONE IN THAT \nMANNER. \nTHAT’S GREAT. THANK YOU VERY \nMUCH. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nTHANK YOU. I HAD A QUICK \nFOLLOW-UP QUESTION FOR JON\, YOU \nREFERRED TO SOMETHING CALLED A \nJOINT VENTURE\, JON\, AND I WAS \nCURIOUS WHAT THAT WAS WITH \nREGARD TO THE MITIGATION \nPROJECTS THAT YOU DO. \n>>JON WILCOX: IT’S THE SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY JOINT VENTURE\, WE \nSIT ON THAT BOARD AS WELL — I’M \nSORRY\, THE BAY AREA JOINT \nVENTURE PROGRAM\, THAT WE SIT ON\, \nWE’RE EXPLORING WITH THEM \nOPPORTUNITIES FOR RESTORATION \nTHAT EXIST OUT THERE CURRENTLY \nRIGHT. WE CAN LEVERAGE\, FOR \nEXAMPLE\, WE HAVE PROPERTY CALLED \nANTIOCH DUNES THAT WAS PART OF \nTHE REFUGE\, WE DONATED THAT BACK \nTO THE REFUGE TWO YEARS AGO IT’S \nA BIG EXPANSION. WEIGH DO WHAT \nWE CAN AS FAR AS WORKING \nTOGETHER\, THE BENEFITS ON \nMITIGATION SIDE\, BUT ALSO \nBENEFITS WHAT WE’RE CAN DO AND \nPUT INTO A REFUGE TYPE SITUATION \nOR RESTORATION\, RIGHT THOSE ARE \nTHE THINGS WE’RE LOOKING AT. \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nGREAT. THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \nDON’T SEE ANY OTHER HANDS \nRAISED. I WOULD ENTERTAIN A \nMOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC \nHEARING. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: I’LL MOVE TO \nAPPROVE TO CLOSE — \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCLOSE THE HEARING. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: PARDON ME. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: RIGHT. I MOVE \nTO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. AND I HAVE A SECOND \nFROM COMMISSIONER \nMOULTON-PETERS. THANK YOU. IS \nTHERE ANY OPPOSITION TO CLOSING \nTHE PUBLIC HEARING? SEEING \nNONE. IT IS CLOSED. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: SO TO BEGIN THE \nDISCUSSION\, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE \nSTAFF RECOMMENDATION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHAT’S WHAT’S COMING UP \nNEXT. \nGO AHEAD\, RON. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: SO\, I MOVED IT. \nIS THERE A SECOND? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nNO. \nWE NEED TO HAVE IT BEFORE \nYOU GO AHEAD \nROWAN. \n>>ROWAN YELTON: STAFF \nRECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF \nCONDITIONS OF PROPOSED PERMANENT \nAPPLICATION NUMBER 202300200 FOR \nFIVE-YEAR PROGRAM FOR OPERATIONS \nAND MAINTENANCE OF ELECTRICAL \nGAS TRANSMISSION AND \nDISTRIBUTION FACILITIES \nTHROUGHOUT THE BAY AREA \nINCLUDING SPECIAL CONDITIONS \nREQUIRING ACTIVITY PROPOSAL FOR \nSTAFF REVIEW INCLUDING ANNUAL \nREPORTING SPECIES PROTECTION \nINCLUDING RESTORATION TEMPORARY \nDISTURBANCES COMPLIANCE WITH \nAPPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL WORK \nWINDOWS AND COMPLIANCE WITH \nAGENCY PROGRAMMATIC PERMITS AND \nINDIVIDUAL PERMITS CONDITIONS \nREGARDING AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION \nMITIGATION TEMPORARY IMPACTS TO \nPUBLIC ACCESS. THE STAFF \nBELIEVE THAT THE PROJECT IS \nCONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS \nOF THE MCATEER-PETRIS AND THE \nSAN FRANCISCO BAY PLAN. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: MAY I ADD \nSOMETHING ROWAN\, WHICH IS THIS \nRECOMMENDATION IS FOR ITEM \nEIGHT\, NOT ITEM NINE. SIMPLY \nFOR ITEM EIGHT\, WHICH IS — IS \nTHAT CORRECT? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: RIGHT. NUMBER \nNINE IS DIFFERENT. I WOULD LIKE \nTO MOVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION \nFOR THIS PERMIT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: IS \nTHERE A SECOND? \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER SECONDS. \nAND I ASSUME THE APPLICANT \nACCEPTS THE CONDITIONS. BUT I \nWOULD LIKE TO HEAR AFFIRMATION. \n>>ION WILCOX: WE DO. THANK \nYOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: AND\, ZACK\, I \nWOULD LIKE TO THANK FOR THEIR \nTHOROUGHNESS\, IN DEVELOPING \nTHOSE CONDITIONS\, AS SOMEONE WHO \nWAS IN CHARGE OF THE NPDS \nPERMITTING PROGRAM FOR EPA MANY \nYEARS AGO\, I KNOW WRITING THESE \nPERMITS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT’S \nEASY\, AND I ALSO WANTED TO THANK \nPG&E FOR AGREEING TO NOT ONLY \nMAINTAIN WHAT YOU HAVE GOT BUT \nTRY TO IMPROVE THE CURRENT \nPUBLIC ACCESS AND VISUAL ASPECT \nOF IT\, AS WELL. THIS IS THE \nTIME WHEN WE SHOULD BE DOING \nTHAT. SO I WANTED TO MAKE THOSE \nTWO COMMENTS VERY MUCH. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: YOU \nCAN TAKE THE SLIDE DOWN SO THAT \nI CAN SEE THE \nPLEASE? THANK YOU. I WOULD \nASK FOR A MOTION ON THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: I MOVED IT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. TECHNICALLY WE NEED \nTO MAKE THE MOTION AFTER IT \nCOMES IN. IS THERE A SECOND FOR \nTHE MOTION? COMMISSIONER GORIN \nSECONDS. ALL RIGHT. IF THERE \nIS NO FURTHER COMMENTS\, SIERRA\, \nPLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON THIS \nQUESTION ON ITEM EIGHT. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER AHN? \n>>EDDIE AHN: AYE. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: AYE. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER GILMORE? \n>>MARIE GILMORE: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER GORIN? \n>>SUSAN GORIN: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER? \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSION PER HASZ? \nCOMMISSIONER LESKOVITZ? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nKISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nMOULTON-PETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nYES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER PEMBERTON? \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: ABSTAIN. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER PINE? \n>>DAVE PINE: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER RANDOLPH? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER ZAPATA? CHAIR \nWASSERMAN? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: TOTAL OF \n14 YESES. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THE \nMOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. I \nWOULD NOW ASK \nFOR THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON \nITEM NINE. \n>>SPEAKER: THE STAFF RECOMMENDS \nAPPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS OF THE \nPROPOSED PERMIT APPLICATION \nNUMBER 202300300MD FOR THE \nFIVE-YEAR PROGRAM OF OPERATION \nAND MAINTENANCE ELECTRICAL AND \nGAS TRANSMISSION DISTRIBUTION \nFACILITIES THROUGHOUT THE \nPRIMARY MANAGEMENT AREA OF \nSUISUN MARSH THE PERMIT WOULD \nINCLUDE THE SAME SPECIAL \nCONDITIONS AS 2023002. THE \nSTAFF BELIEVES THAT THE PROJECT \nIS CONSISTENT WITH THE \nREQUIREMENTS OF THE \nMCATEER-PETRIS ACT. SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY PLAN\, SUISUN MARSH \nPROTECTION ACT\, AND SUISUN MARSH \nPRESERVATION ACT\, AND THE SUISUN \nMARSH PROTECTION PLAN. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. \nTHEN WILL YOU TAKE DOWN THE \nSLIDE\, PLEASE? IS THERE A \nMOTION TO APPROVE THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION ON ITEM NINE? \nCOMMISSIONER PINE\, I BELIEVE \nYOUR HAND IS US. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: AND I’LL SECOND \nTHE MOTION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: AND \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND SECONDS. \nIF THERE ARE NO FURTHER \nCOMMENTS\, SIERRA\, PLEASE CALL \nTHE ROLL. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSION ADDIEGO? \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER AHN? \n>>EDDIE AHN: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: ECKLUND? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: AYE. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: GILMORE? \n>>MARIE GILMORE: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: GUNTHER? \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: HASZ? \nCOMMISSIONER LESKOVITZ? \n>>SPEAKER: AYE. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER KIMBALL? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nKISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: MOULTON \nPETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nYES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nPEMBERTON? \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: ABSTAIN. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER. \n>>DAVE PINE: PINE YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER RANDOLPH? \n>>SEAN RANDOLPH: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: ZAPATA? \nWASSERMAN. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: TOTAL OF \n15 YESES ZERO NOS AND ONE \nABSTENTION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU ALL AS FOR ALL YOUR \nWORK. WE LOOK FORWARD TO THIS \nGOING FORWARD. ITEM TEN PUBLIC \nHEARING AND POSSIBLE VOTE ON \nAPPLICATION FROM REGIS HOMES \nBAY AREA LLC TO REDEVELOP \nAPPROXIMATELY 2.54 ACRE NEW \nRESIDENTIAL PROJECT CONSISTING \nOF 56 FOR SALE TOWNHOUSES AS \nWELL AS SHORELINE PUBLIC ACCESS \nOPEN SPACE AREAS WITHIN THE BAY \nAND 100 FEET OF SHORELINE BAND \nAT 505 EAST BAY SHORELINE ROAD \nREDWOOD CITY\, BCDC SHORELINE \nDEVELOPMENT PERMITS MANAGER WILL \nMAKE THE PRESENTATION AND \nINTRODUCE THE APPLICANT \nSPEAKERS. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: BE RIGHT \nTHERE WE’RE DOING A \nTECHNOLOGICAL FIX. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: WE’RE \nWORKING ON SOME SOUND IN THE \nROOM. GIVE US ONE MINUTE. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU CHAIR \nWASSERMAN. GOOD AFTERNOON \nCOMMISSIONERS I’M KATHARINE PAN \nSHORELINE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM \nMANAGER AT BEA R BCDC I’LL BE \nPROVIDING A BRIEF SUMMARY OF \nTHIS NEXT APPLICATION NUMBER \n2023005 FOR RESIDENTIAL \nDEVELOPMENT AT 505 EAST BAY \nSHORE ROAD IN REDWOOD CITY SAN \nMATEO COUNTY I’LL INTRODUCE \nREGIS HOMES WHO WILL SHARE THE \nDETAILS. \n>>SPEAKER: THEIR PROJECT WITH \nYOU. SUMMARY FOR THIS PROJECT \nWAS MAILED ON APRIL 5TH\, 2024 \nAND STAFF RECOMMENDATION \nFOLLOWED ON MAY 10TH\, 2024. \nALL RIGHT.   TO ORIENT YOU\, \nTHE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN \nREDWOOD CITY IN SAN MATEO COUNTY \nNEARBY LANDMARKS INCLUDE BEAR \nISLAND ECOLOGICAL RESERVE AND \nSMITH SLEW TO THE NORTH AND PORT \nOF REDWOOD CITY CARGILLS REDWOOD \nCITY SALT PLANT NEAR THE EAST \nBEAR ISLAND ECOLOGICAL RESERVE \nPART OF SAN FRANCISCO BAY PLAN \nDESIGNATED WILDLIFE PRIORITY \nUSED R USE AREA BUT ITSELF IS \nNOT PART OF PRIORITY AREAS. THE \nHALF ACRE SITUATED JUST OFF \nWHIPPLE AVENUE OVERPASS \nOFF-HIGHWAY 101 PREVIOUS USE OF \nTHE SITE WAS FOR METAL RECYCLING \nSUPPLY OPERATION DATING BACK TO \n1963 THERE ARE NO EXISTING BCDC \nPERMITS ON THE SITE. TO THE \nSOUTH IS FORMER TOYOTA 101 \nDEARLISHIP AND EAST 557 EAST \nBAY SHORE ROAD CURRENTLY VACANT \nMOVIE THEATRE COMPLEX IN THE \nPROCESS OF REDEVELOPMENT. THE \nPROJECT FOR THE NEIGHBORING \nDEVELOPMENT WAS APPROVED BY THE \nCOMMISSION IN JUNE OF LAST \nYEAR. \nNOTABLE FEATURES TO THE NORTH OF \nTHE SITE WE FREQUENTLY REFERENCE \nIN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION \nIMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH IS A \nTIDALING INFLUENCE DITCH WITH \nMUTED TIDAL MARSH HABITAT PART \nOF THE JURISDICTION’S NORTHED \nOF THAT IS PAVED TRAIL THE LEVY \nTRAIL RECOMMENDATION AND NORTHS \nOF THAT IS WHAT WE REFER TO AS \nTHE UNNAMED SLEW WHICH IS A \nTRANSCRIBETARY OF SMITH SLEW AND \nNORTH OF THAT IS THE BAY AREA \nISLANDS TRAIL SEGMENT THE TIDAL \nDITCH IS CHARACTERIZED AS HAVING \nMUTED TIDESAL MARSH HABITAT \nLIMITED DUE TO SIZE AND \nISOLATION PROVIDING SUITABLE \nHABITAT FOR MARSH HARVEST MOUSE \nAND SHOE\, BEAR \nISLANDS ECOLOGICAL RESERVE \nNORTH ARE BOTH BIOLOGICAL \nHABITAT FOR A VARIETY OF SPECIAL \nSTATUS SPECIES\, IMAGINES OF THE \nSITE TAKEN AT HIGH AND LOW TIDE. \nREGIS HOMES BAY AREA LLC IS \nPROPOSING TO REMEDIATE AND \nREDEVELOP THE PROPERTY AT 505 \nEAST BAY SHORE ROAD WITH \nRESIDENTIAL TOWNHOME PROJECT \nCONSISTING OF 56 TOTAL UNITS \nINCLUDING EIGHT AFFORDABLE UNITS \nAS WELL AS SHORELINE PUBLIC \nACCESS OPEN SPACE AREAS 1.39 \nACRES OF THE PROJECT WOULD BE \nWITHIN THE COMMISSION’S BAY \nSHORELINE BAN JURISDICTION \nINCLUDING THREE TOWNHOME \nBUILDINGS IN A PUBLIC ACCESS \nAREA IN SHORELINE TRAIL. DUE TO \nTHE PRESENCE OF TIDAL MARSH IN A \nDITCH THE BAY SHORELINE IN THIS \nAREA IS CONSIDERED THE UPLAND \nEDGE OF MARSH VEGETATION UP TO \nFIVE FEET ABOVE MEANS SEA LEVEL \nTHE DIAGRAM YOU CAN SEE IT IN \nRED. THE PROJECT WILL INVOLVE \n600 FRIEFR FEET OF NEW BAY FILL \nCAN I HAVING OF SMALL PORTIONS \nOF NEW SHORELINE TRAIL OVERLOOKS \nCAN’T LEVERED OVER THE DITCH \nFROM A RETAINING WALL SITUATED \nIN THE SHORELINE BAND MAYBE HARD \nTO SEE HERE THE PARTS CAN’T \nLEVERING CROSS OVER THE BAY \nJURISDICTION. DEDICATED OPEN \nSPACE TO MAINTAIN A VISUAL \nCONNECTION TO BEAR ISLANDS \nWITHIN THE SHORELINE BAND THE \nSITE WILL INCLUDE SITE \nPREPARATION REMOVING ALL \nEXISTING SITE FEATURES \nREMEDIATING PCB CONTAMINATED \nSOILS RAISING ELEVATIONS \nAPPROXIMATELY 5 TO 7 FEET THE \nPROJECT WILL INCLUDE A FEW 550 \nFOOT RETAINING WALL ALONG THE \nDITCH 3\, 3 STORY RESIDENTIAL \nBUILDINGS WITH 20 TOWNHOME UNITS \nASSOCIATED CIRCULATION AREAS AND \nAPPROXIMATELY 16\,560 FEET OF \nPROJECT PUBLIC ACCESS \nIMPROVEMENTS TAKING PLACE \nOFF-SITE ON PUBLICLY OWNED \nPROPERTY. THE PROJECT WILL \nPROVIDE APPROXIMATELY 18\,800 \nSQUARE FEET OF DEDICATED \nPUBLICLY OWNED PUBLIC ACCESS IN \nAN AREA WHERE PUBLIC ACCESS \nDOESN’T CURRENTLY EXIST THIS \nINCLUDES 14\,250 SQUARE FEET OF \nDEDICATED PUBLIC ACCESS IN THE \nBAY AND SHORELINE BAND AND 180 \nFOOT OF DEDICATED PUBLIC ACCESS \nOUTSIDE OF COMMISSION’S \nJURISDICTION. IMPROVEMENTS IN \nTHE PUBLIC ACCESS AREA WILL \nINCLUDE A TEN FOOT WIDE CONCRETE \nPATH WITH 210 FOOT SHOULDERS ON \nEACH SIDE THAT WILL CONNECT \nROADWAY TO PLAN IMPROVEMENTS AT \n557 EAST BAY SHORE OVERLOOKS \nOBSERVATION DECK DELIVERED OVER \nTHE TIDAL DITCH WITH VIEWS \nTOWARD THE BEAR ISLANDS AND \nPLAZA AT THE TRAIL ENTRANCE\, \nPERMIT IS FIVE FEVEN EAST BAY \nSHORE SITES TIDESAL TO \nFACILITIES ON THE SIDE. IN \nADDITION PROJECT WILL PROVIDE \n4\,550 TOTAL SQUARE FEET OF \nPUBLIC ACCESS\, INCLUDING NEW \nTRAIL PLAZA SIDEWALK CONNECTION \nTO THE BEAR ISLAND TRAIL HEAD \nAND SIDEWALK ALONG THE EAST BAY \nSHORE ROAD LEADING TO FIVE NEW \nPUBLIC SHORE PARKING SPACES IN \nTHE RIGHT OF WAY S CONTAMINATION \nIN THE SOIL AND SEDIMENT ON THE \nSITE IN THE TIDAL DITCH THE \nWATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD IS \nCONDUCTED THROUGH SEPARATE \nRELATED REMEDIATION PROJECTS \nINCLUDING RENEEDIATION OF THE \nON-SITE AREA SHOWN HERE IN \nPURPLE OR BLUE THIS WORK BASED \nON-SITE CLEAN UP PLAN DEVELOPED \nUNDER OVERSIGHT ASSIST WATER \nBOARD INVOLVING CONSTRUCTION OF \nTHE RETAINING WALL EXCAVATING \nCONTAMINATED SOIL AROUND THE \nPLAN UTILITY LINES AND GRADING \nAND CAPPING CONTAMINATED SOIL \nUNDER GEO TEXTILE AND IMPORTING \nCLEAN SOIL. IN ADDITION ANOTHER \nPROJECT IS BEING PROPOSED BY A \nDIFFERENCE APPLICANT TO \nREMEDIATE THE SITE BANK IN \nYELLOW AND ORANGE SITES IN AREAS \nBELOW THE RETAINING WALL AND \nDITCH MEETING REMEDIATION \nPROJECTS COMPLETED TO THE \nCONSTRUCTION OF ANY HOUSING OR \nPUBLIC ACCESS COMPONENTS THE \nPROJECT SITE BANK AREA WILL \nBECOME DEDICATED OPEN SPACE. \nTHE PROJECT WILL ELEVATE THE \nENTIRE SITE TO 5 TO 7 FEET ABOVE \nEXISTING GRADE FINISHED GRADE OF \n13 FEET AND VD88 EXCEPT FOR THE \nNORTHWEST CORNER PORTION OF THE \nPUBLIC ACCESS ELEVATIONS \nDECREASE TO AROUND 11 FEET TO \nCONFORM WITH EXISTING GRADES IN \nTHE CALTRANS RIGHT OF WAY. \nSTORM TIDAL LEVEL PROJECTS AND \nCONTRACTS WITH PROPOSED GRANT \nAWARDS OVERED TO RISE 12.SKWIEN \nFEET 88 FROM CURRENT LEVELS OF \n10.69 FEET ON HIGH EMISSIONS \nSCENARIO PROVIDED BY THE \nOCEANARY PROTECTION COUNCIL \nUNDER 2018 SEA LEVEL RISE \nGUIDANCE. AT THE PROPOSED \nELEVATIONS MOST PROJECT AND \nPUBLIC ACCESS AREA WILL BE \nRESILIENT TO FLOODING FROM THE \n100 YEAR STORM TIED IN 2050 \nUNDER MEDIUM HIGH RISK HIGH \nEMISSION SCENARIO WITH EXCEPTION \nOF IMPROVEMENTS IN THE NORTHWEST \nPART OF THE SITE. \nHOWEVER THE 100 YEAR STORM TIME \nIS PROJECTED TO REACH 13.6 FEET \nBY 2060 AND 14.5 FEET BY 2070 \nMEANING PUBLIC ACCESS AREAS \nWOULD BE AT RISK OF FLOODING \nBEFORE THE END OF THE CENTURY. \nGROUNDS WATER LEVELS POTENTIAL \nTO COMPROMISE PROJECT STORM \nDRAINS BY 2050 AND PROJECTED TO \nBE AT OUR ABOVE GROUNDS LEVEL BY \n2100. THIS SLIDE SHOWS WHAT \nTHAT WILL LOOK LIKE BASED ON \nCURRENT CONDITIONS NEARLY ALL OF \nTHE SURROUNDING AREA WOULD BE \nFACING IMPACTS BY THIS TIME. \nTHE APPLICANTS CONTEMPLATED \nADAPTATION STRATEGIES DURING THE \nDESIGN PHASE INCLUDING RAISING \nTHE EDGE CHATTY RETAINING WALL \nAND ELEVATES THE MULTI-USE TRAIL \nBUT HAVE NOT COMMITTED TO A \nSINGLE ADAPTATION STRATEGY AT \nTHIS TIME STAFF HAS AGREED TO \nMONITOR THE SITE AND ENGAGE IN \nAN ADAPTATION PLANNING PROCESS \nTHAT WILL BEGIN BY 2050 OR AT \nANY EARLY STAGES OR ANY SIGNS \nMUCH FLOODING TO REASSESS SITE \nCONDITIONS USING BEST AVAILABLE \nSCIENCE AT THE AND DEVELOP AND \nIMPLEMENT APPROPRIATE ADAPTATION \nMEASURES TO AVOID IMPACT ON THE \nPUBLIC ACCESS AREA BECAUSE THE \nPROJECT INVOLVES SALE OF TOWN \nHOMES AND EXPECT PERMIT TO BE \nTAKEN OVER BY HOMEOWNERS \nASSOCIATION REQUIRES NOTICE TO \nBUYERS THAT CLEARLY INDICATES \nRESPONSIBILITIES OF THE \nPERMITTEE TO MAINTAIN AND ADAPT \nPUBLIC ACCESS AREA FOR THE LIFE \nOF THE PROJECT RECOMMENDATION \nFOR CONTENTS OF THAT NOTICE IS \nINCLUDED IN APPENDIX C OF THE \nSTAFF RECOMMENDATION. ACCORDING \nTO THE COMMISSION’S VULNERABLE \nMAPPING TOOL THE PROJECT SITE IS \nLOCATED WITHIN A BLOCK \nIDENTIFIED AS HAVING LOW SOCIAL \nVULNERABILITY GIVEN INDUSTRIAL \nCOMMERCIAL NATURE OF SURROUNDING \nDEVELOPMENT MUCH OF THE AREA \nSHOWS HAVING LOW SOCIAL \nVULNERABILITY ALSO IDENTIFIED IS \nHIGHEST CONTAMINATION VULNERABLE \nWHICH IS ASSOCIATED WITH NEARBY \nHAZARDOUS CLEAN UP ACTIVITIES \nGROUNDS WATER THREATS HAZARDOUS \nWASTE FACILITIES AND SOLID WASTE \nFACILITIES. PROJECT DESIGN \nAPPLICANT CONDUCTED OUTREACH TO \nCOMMUNITY GROUPS TO IDENTIFY \nENVIRONMENTAL SOCIAL EQUITY \nCONCERNS\, DESIRES FOR AFFORDABLE \nHOUSING AND COMMUNITIES IMPROVED \nSHORELINE ACCESS TO TRAIL \nCONNECTIONS AND PARKING ISSUES \nAPPLICANTS PROPOSING TO MAKE \nOFFSITE PUBLIC ACCESS \nIMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING SEGMENTS \nALONG EAST BAY SHORE ROAD AND \nFIVE DESIGNATED PUBLIC SHORE \nPARKING SPACES. THE PROJECT HAS \nBEEN DESIGNED TO INCLUDE EIGHT \nBELOW MARKET RATE UNITS THAT \nWILL BE AFFORDABLE TO HOUSEHOLDS \nMAKING UP TO ONE HUNDREDS 20% OF \nTHE AREA MEDIAN INCOME WHICH IS \nAPPROXIMATELY 21\,000 FOR A \nFAMILY OF FOUR. RELEVANT POLICY \nISSUES RAISED BY PROJECT INCLUDE \nWEATHER PROPOSED PUBLIC ACCESS \nIS MAXIMUM FEASIBLE CONSISTENT \nWITH THE PROJECT OTHERWISE \nCANNOT WITH MCATEER-PETRIS\, BAY \nPLAN IN TERMS OF BAY FILL \nAPPEARANCE AND DESIGN SCENIC \nVIEWS WATER QUALITY MITIGATION \nFISH AND WILDLIFE AND CLIMATE \nCHANGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE \nAND SOCIAL EQUITY. WITH THAT I \nWOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE KRYSTA \nHEINS VICE PRESIDENT FOR \nDEVELOPMENT AT SEARS REGIS HOMES \nBAY AREA TO PRESENT THE \nPROPOSAL IN GREATER DETAIL \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: I WANT TO \nREMIND FOLKS THAT WE ARE CLOSE \nTO A QUORUM. SO\, PLEASE WE NEED \nYOU TO STAY. THANK YOU VERY \nMUCH. \n>>SPEAKER: THANKS \nKATHARINE. \nAPPRECIATE THAT. I’M CHRIS \nDEHAN WITH REGIS HOMES JOINED BY \nJEFF SMITH ALSO WITH REGIS HOMES \nAND OUR DESIGN TEAM. REGIS \nHOMES IS A LOCAL HOME BUILDER \nAND DEVELOPER BASED IN SAN \nMATEO. GREAT. THANK YOU. \nREGIS HOME BUILDER BASED IN SAN \nMATEO WE HAVE BEEN IN BUSINESS \nFOR 30 YEARS WE HAVE A LONG \nTRACK RECORD DELIVERING HOUSING \nTHROUGHOUT THE BAY AREA AND HERE \nIN REDWOOD CITY INCLUDING THE \nTHREE PROJECTS YOU SEE ON THE \nSCREEN BEFORE YOU. WE’RE REALLY \nEXCITED ABOUT THIS PROJECT. \nHERE TO TELL YOU MORE ABOUT OUR \nHOUSING PROPOSAL AT 505 EAST BAY \nSHORE ROAD. I WOULD LIKE TO \nSTART BY THANKING BCDC STAFF WHO \nHELPED US GET HERE TODAY\, \nINCLUDING KATHARINE\, YURIE\, \nJESSICA\, TONY\, ANDREA\, ETHAN\, \nAND SO MANY MORE. IT’S BEEN A \nHUGE TEAM. THANK YOU\, ALL. 505 \nEAST BAY SHORE IS A SMALL BUT \nIMPORTANT HOUSING PROPOSAL \nTHAT’S A BROADER TRANSFORMATION \nOF THE BEAR ISLAND NEIGHBORHOOD \nTHAT STARTED WITH CITIES GENERAL \nPLAN UPDATE BACK IN 2010 THE \nVISION IS MIXED USE WATERFRONT \nNEIGHBORHOOD CONSISTING OF \nHOUSING OF MIXED USES\, \nDEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITIES LIKE \nBLUE HARBOR VILLE AS MARINA AND \nOF COURSE THE APPROVAL OF 480 \nUNIT PROJECT NEXT DOOR AT 557 \nEAST BAY SHORE WE’RE PART OF \nTHAT TRANSFORMATION. OUR \nPROJECT SITE IS THE GATEWAY TO \nTHAT NEIGHBORHOOD\, YOU GET OFF \nAT WHIPPLE AND COME ON TO \nBAYSHORE ROAD THE SITE IS \nWALKABLE TO DOWNTOWN\, AND \nINCLUDES RESOURCES TO BEAR \nISLANDS AND WILDLIFE REFUGE. \nTHIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TODAY \nTHERE ARE NO TREES NO \nAPPEAL\, THE BUILDINGS ARE AGING. \nIT’S LACKING BASIC PUBLIC \nACCESS AND SAFETY MEASURES LIKE \nA SIDEWALK STREET TREES\, \nPARKING\, NOTHING CHATTY KIND. \nSO TODAY WE HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO \nTRANSFORM THIS SITE. NOT ONLY \nCAN WE BUILD NEW HOUSING\, WE CAN \nALSO BEAUTIFY THE ENTRANCE TO \nTHE NEIGHBORHOODS\, WE CAN CREATE \nNEW PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE BAY \nFRONT\, AND ADD MUCH NEEDED \nSAFETY FEATURES TO THE GATEWAY \nSITE. I WANT TO FILL IN A FEW \nGAPS HERE. \nJUST OVER TWO AND A HALF ACRES \nTHIS\, IS A SMALL SITE IN THE \nGRAND SCHEME OF THINGS WE’RE \nEXCITED AT THE OPPORTUNITY TO \nTURN IT INTO 56 NEW HOMES \nINCLUDING THE EIGHT AFFORDABLE \nHOMES THAT KATHARINE MENTIONED. \nLET’S SEE. WE TALKED ABOUT THE \nDITCH AND LEVY TRAILS. SO\, I \nWON’T GO THROUGH THAT. I WANT \nTO MENTION FEATURES OF THE SITE \nDESIGN. WE HAVE BROKEN UP THE \nHOMES INTO NINE BUILDINGS ACROSS \nTHE STATE TO AVOID CREATING TOO \nMUCH MASS. WE HAVE PASEOS \nRUNNING THROUGH THE SITE TO \nENHANCE VIEWS TO CREATE VIEW \nCORRIDORS AND ENHANCE CONNECTION \nTHROUGH TO THE BAY. WE MAXIMIZE \nLANDSCAPING ACROSS THE SITE YOU \nCAN SEE THAT HERE AND INCLUDED A \nMODEST PRIVATE OUTDOOR AMENITY \nSPACE FOR RESIDENTS IN THE LOWER \nRIGHT HAND CORNER BUT TRIED TO \nMAKE MOST OF THIS AS PUBLIC AS \nPOSSIBLE. I’LL SHARE \nARCHITECTURE NEXT. HOMES ARE \nTHREE STORY TALL\, ARCHITECTURE \nIS CONTEMPORARY WITH MIX OF \nMATERIALS PRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACE\, \nTHREE LEVELS\, ABOVE GRADE THAT \nWAS EXCEPTIONAL BECAUSE WE \nWANTED THE PUBLIC SPACE ALONG \nTHE TRAIL TO FEEL PUBLIC SO WE \nELEVATED THE PRIVATE OUTDOOR \nSPACES. HERE IS A VIEW OF THE \nTRAIL WITH THE DITCH IN THE \nFOREGROUND AND THE BAY AND \nWILDLIFE REFUGE IN THE \nBACKGROUND WE’RE PROUD TO OFFER \nA FULL 14 FOOT WIDTH BAY TRAIL \nSECTION HERE THAT CONSISTS OF \nTEN FOOT CENTER WALKWAY WITH TWO \nFOOT SHOULDERS ON EITHER SIDE \nFOR MULTI-MODAL USE\, WE HAVE \nCAN’T LEVERED OVERLOOKS WE CALL \nNODES WITH INFORMATIONAL SIGNAGE \nAND PERFORMINGS TO ENHANCE THE \nPUBLIC ENJOYMENT AND USE OF THE \nTRAIL. WE HAVE PASEOS RUNNING \nTHROUGH AND EMPHASIS AND \nCONNECTION THROUGH THE BAY\, \nPRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACES \nDELINEATED WITH LANDSCAPING AND \nNOT FENCES TRYING TO CREATE AN \nOPEN EXPERIENCE. SO IN ADDITION \nTO HELPING ADDRESS THE HOUSING \nSHORTAGE THIS PROJECT OFFERS A \nNUMBER OF DIFFERENT COMMUNITY \nBENEFITS INCLUDING THE \nAFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT WE \nTALKED BUT I WANT TO POINT OUT \nTHAT’S 15% OF THE OVERALL HOMES \nAT THE MODERATE INCOME LEVEL \nTHAT WAS AN INCREASE FROM OUR \nRIM REQUIREMENT OF 10%. THE NEW \nPUBLIC ACCESS AND OPEN SPACE \nEASEMENTS TOGETHER ARE OVER \n20\,000 SQUARE FEET MORE THAN 18% \nOF OUR SITE AREA NOT INCLUDING \nOFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS I’LL TALK \nABOUT NEXT. WE’RE EXCITED TO \nOFFER SIGNIFICANT BIKE \nPEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS \nADAPTATION FOR SEA LEVEL RISE \nAND MORE THAT I’LL OUTLINE IN \nACKNOWLEDGE SLIDES AND NEW \nDEVELOPMENT WILL BRING \nSIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT AND \nINFRASTRUCTURE FEES AND OF \nCOURSE ENHANCED PROPERTY TAX \nREVENUE TO THE CITY TO FURTHER \nSUPPORT IMPROVEMENTS IN THE \nAREA. \nI WANTED TO EMPHASIZE THESE ARE \nFOR SALE HOMES WHICH IS GOING TO \nHELP THE CITY MEET ITS GOAL OF \nINCREASING OWNERSHIP HOUSE STOCK \nAS SOME OF YOU MAY KNOW THERE \nHAS BEEN DEVELOPMENT IN REDWOOD \nCITY LION SHARE OF WHICH IS \nAPARTMENT HOMES THIS IS A BADLY \nNEEDED UNDERSERVED SEGMENT OF \nTHE MARKET THOSE AFFORDABLE \nUNITS WILL ALSO BE OFFERED FOR \nSALE WHICH IS FAIRLY RARE. AT \nTHE MODERATE INCOME LEVEL \nPERFECT FOR FIRST SPONSORED AND \nESSENTIAL MEMBERS OF THE \nCOMMUNITY AT MARKET RATE HOMES \nSIZE AT THIS PRICE POINT TOWN \nHOMES ARE PERFECT FOR FIRST TIME \nHOME BUYERS WHICH ARE\, SORT OF\, \nMOST UNDER SERVED SEGMENT OF THE \nMARKET. I WANT TO FOCUS ON THE \nTRAIL AND HOW WE DESIGNED IT. \nWITH THE GOAL OF MAXIMIZING \nPUBLIC ACCESS WHILE MINIMIZING \nANY POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO THE BAY \nOLDER IN OUR DESIGN PROCESS WE \nENGAGED BROADLY TO COMPLETE A \nBIOLOGICAL STUDY TO LOOK AT THE \nDITCH AND TIDAL VEGETATION IN IT \nAND COMPLETED A JURISDICTIONAL \nDETERMINATION WITH THE ARMY CORP \nBASED ON THAT JURISDICTIONAL \nDETERMINATION WE RECONFIGURED \nOUR SITE PLAN\, UNDERSTANDING \nWHERE THE DITCH AND BAY IS AND \nDESIGN EVERYTHING AROUND THAT \nRATHER THAN PUSHING INTO IT. \nWORKING WITH BCDC STAFF WE ADDED \nA CAN’T LEVER ALONG THE TRAIL TO \nACHIEVE THE FULL 14 FOOT WIDTH \nBAY TRAIL SECTION WHILE AVOIDING \nPHYSICAL IMPACTS INTO THE \nDITCH. \nWE’RE AWARE OF THE RISK SEA \nLEVEL RISE POSES TO THE \nCOMMUNITY AND WE’RE COMMITTED TO \nDOING OUR PART TO PREPARE THE \nCOMMUNITY FOR FUTURE CONDITIONS \nOUR PROJECT INCLUDES A NEW SEA \nWALL ALONG THE DITCH TO HELP US \nBUILD UP THE SITE ENABLING US TO \nADD NEW PUBLIC ACCESS WHILE \nMAINTAINING FEASIBLE UNIT COUNT \nTHE SEA WALL WAS PIVOT ALL TO \nOUR SITE PLAN AND ENABLING US TO \nRAISE THE SITE UP BETWEEN 5 AND \n7 FEET ACROSS THE SITE PROVIDING \nPROTECTION OF 2100 MEDIAN HIGH \nWATER ALIGN AND ADAPTABLE TO 100 \nYEAR FLOOD ELEVATIONS IF NEEDED \nIN THE FUTURE. I WANT TO \nCLARIFY CONTEXT\, BEYOND THE \nDRAINAGE DITCH WE TALKED ABOUT\, \nTHE LEVEE AND SLEW AT BUYER BARE \nISLANDS REFUGE THERE IS AN \nEXISTING BAY TRAIL SEGMENT IN \nGREEN HERE IN BLUE I WANT TO \nPOINT OUT THE OTHER PUBLIC \nACCESS WALK WAYS LIKE THE PG \nLEVEE TRAIL AND WALKWAYS FROM \nOTHER NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN THE \nAREA AND THEN IN YELLOW YOU CAN \nSEE THE NEW TRAIL SEGMENTS FROM \nOUR PROJECT SITE AND 557 EAST \nBAY SHORE ROAD COMBINED HERE. \nSO JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT \nTHEY’RE ADDITIVE TO AN EXISTING \nNETWORK OF PUBLIC ACCESS IN THE \nAREA. SPEAKING OF CONTEXT\, I \nWANTED TO ZOOM IN ON AN EXISTING \nFLAW AND A PRETTY SERIOUS ONE \nABOUT THIS NETWORK OF PUBLIC \nACCESS. THIS IS A VIEW OF THE \nINTERSECTION AT WHIPPLE ROAD AND \nBAYSHORE AT THE FRONT OF OUR \nSITE WHERE THE EXISTING BAY \nTRAIL HEAD IS LOCATED. AS \nTHINGS STAND TODAY YOU CAN SEE \nTHE INTERSECTION IS INCOMPLETE \nAND UNSAFE THERE IS NO SIDEWALK\, \nNO PARKING\, NO SAVE PEDESTRIAN \nACCESS AT ALL TO THE BAY TRAIL\, \nTRAIL HEAD THEN THE CROSSWALK TO \nNOWHERE WHICH DEAD ENDS INTO A \nCHAIN LINK FENCE TODAY IN \nADDITION TO BUILDING MUCH NEEDED \nNEW HOUSING WE HAVE OPPORTUNITY \nTO FIX THIS PROBLEM. OUR \nPROPOSAL INCLUDES ING WHY BEYOND \nOUR PROPERTY LINE WITH \nSIGNIFICANT OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS \nTO CREATE A SAFER CONNECTION TO \nTHE TRAIL SYSTEM INCLUDING A NEW \nSIDEWALK WITH RAISED LANDSCAPE \nPLANTERS TO PROVIDE ENHANCED \nPEDESTRIAN PROTECTION. THIS \nJURISDICTION CREATES OPPORTUNITY \nFOR A NEW TRAIL HEAD WE’RE \nCALLING IT A PLAZA WITH SEATING \nELEMENTS\, A DRINKING FOUNTAIN\, \nSIGNAGE\, AND A MICRO-MOBILITY \nSTATION OR THE CITY’S BIKESHARE \nAND/OR SCOOTER SHARE PROGRAM AND \nOF COURSE WE GET TO COMPLETE THE \nCROSSWALK TO NOWHERE. \nALL RIGHT. AS MANY OF THE \nCOMMISSIONERS MAY RECALL THE 557 \nEAST BAY SHORE ROAD SITE WAS \nAPPROVED WITH PACKAGE OF PUBLIC \nACCESS AMENITIES HOWEVER THEY’RE \nCOMPLETELY ORPHANED AND \nINACCESSIBLE BY THE PUBLIC \nWITHOUT TRAVERSING THROUGH THE \nSITE FROM BAYSHORE ROAD WE \nPROVIDE A DIRECT CONNECTION FROM \nTHE SITE THROUGH OURS TO THE \nTRAIL HEAD CREATING A CONTINUOUS \nPATHWAY. WE’RE PROUD OF HOW \nSUSTAINABLE THIS PROJECT WILL BE \nTHESE HOMES WILL BE ALL ELECTRIC \nNO NATURAL GAS PLUMBED TO THE \nPROPERTY NO TAIL PIPES TO THESE \nHOMES THEY WILL HAVE SOLAR PV \nPANELS INSTALLED AS WELL AS EV \nCHARGING OUTLET’S PART OF ALL \nELECTRIC CONSTRUCTION INCLUDES \nHEAT PUMP WATER HEATING WHICH \nINCLUDES TECHNOLOGY YOU’RE GOING \nTO HEAR A LOT ABOUT IN THE FIGHT \nAGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE PURPLE \nPLUMBING FOR IRRIGATED RECYCLED \nWATER AND SO MUCH MORE. AS ALL \nOF US IN THIS INDUSTRY KNOW IT \nCAN BE QUITE A JOURNEY TO GET \nNEW HOUSING APPROVED I WON’T GO \nTHROUGH IN DETAIL BUT WANT TO \nMENTION WE’RE REALLY EXCITED TO \nBE HERE TODAY. WE WERE APPROVED \nBY THE CITY ABOUT A YEAR AGO AND \nPRIOR TO THAT WE WENT THROUGH \nFOUR ROUNDS OF DESIGN REVIEW TWO \nWITH THE CITY AND TWO WITH BCDC \nWE COMPLETED A FULL \nENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND \nCONDUCTED EXTENSIVE COMMUNITY \nOUTREACH. AND WE ARE ASKING FOR \nYOUR APPROVAL THIS AFTERNOON. \nSPEAKING OF COMMUNITY OUTREACH\, \nPART OF OUR PROCESS OF REGIS \nHOMES IS TO MEET WITH AS MANY \nSTAKEHOLDERS AS POSSIBLE \nINCLUDING STAKEHOLDERS BUT FOLKS \nIN THE CITY MORE BROADLY AND IN \nTHE BAY AREA. NOT ONLY DO WE \nMEET WITH GROUPS THAT SUPPORT \nHOUSING WE TRY TO MEET WITH AS \nMANY GROUPS AS WE CAN THAT MAY \nSEE THE WORLD DIFFERENTLY THAN \nWE DO THIS IS A LIST OF GROUPS \nWE HAVE MET WITH THROUGH THE \nYEARS IMPORTANTLY MENTION \nSUPPORT OF THE BEAR ISLAND \nNEIGHBORHOOD\, BOOSTER\, AND WE \nSAT DOWN WITH CITIZENS COMMITTEE \nTO COMPLETE THE REFUGE AND \nSIERRA CLUB TO HEAR ABOUT THEIR \nCONCERNS WE MADE A FEW CHANGES \nIN \nRESPONSE. AND WITH THAT WE’RE \nPROUD TO HAVE THE ENDORSEMENT OF \nTHESE FINE GROUPS HERE AND THANK \nYOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS AFTERNOON \nI’LL \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nI’LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. \nDO WE HAVE PUBLIC SPEAKERS? \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: YES\, \nCHAIR WASSERMAN. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: HOW \nMANY? \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: CURRENTLY \nTHREE HANDS RAISED VIRTUALLY\, \nAND NONE IN-PERSON. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nLET’S CALL THEM. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: LUIS — \nPARDON ME FOR YOUR LAST NAME\, \nMIRANTE\, YOU’RE UP FIRST\, \nFOLLOWED BY GITA \nD. LUIS? \n>>SPEAKER: CAN YOU HEAR ME. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: YES. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>SPEAKER: HELLO MR. CHAIR\, \nMEMBERS\, MY NAME IS \nLUISMIRANTE YOU NAILED MY LAST \nNAME LIKE AN OLYMPIC GYM \nAND-A-HALF CONGRATULATIONS THANK \nYOU I’M HERE TODAY PROUD TO \nSUPPORT THIS PROJECT \nON BEHALF OF THE BAY AREA \nCOUNCIL ALL WITH THE GOAL OF \nMAKING THE BAY AREA THE BEST \nPLACE IN THE COUNTRY TO LIVE AND \nWORK. THE HOUSING CRISIS THE \nBAY AREA FACES IS AS YOU KNOW \nOBVIOUSLY ONE OF THE MOST \nIMMENSE CHALLENGES THAT OUR \nEMPLOYERS AND OUR RESIDENTS IN \nTHIS REGION FACE TODAY SO WE’RE \nPROUD TODAY TO BE A PART OF \nHELPING SUPPORT THIS PROJECT \nWHICH IS A SMALL BUT MIGHT \nCONTRIBUTION TO REDUCE YOU THE \nINTENSITY OF THAT CRISIS. OUR \nPROJECT ENDORSEMENT COMMITTEE \nREVIEWED THIS PROJECT AND \nUNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO SUPPORT IT \nIN PART BECAUSE THE PROJECT \nALIGNS WITH OUR GOALS OF \nEXPANDING AFFORDABLE \nHOMEOWNERSHIP OPTIONS IN A JOB \nMARKET THAT SO CLEARLY NEEDS \nTHEM AND BECAUSE THE PUBLIC \nBENEFITS AND RESILIENCY EFFORTS \nTHAT THE PROJECT UNDERTOOK GO \nABOVE AND BEYOND IN OUR OPINION \nIN TERMS OF CONTRIBUTING VALUE \nTO THE PUBLIC. SO\, WHEN LOOKING \nAT THIS PROJECT\, I HOPE THAT YOU \nSEE IT’S NOT JUST A HOUSING \nPROJECT BUT ALSO ONE THAT \nIMPROVES THE REGION’S RESILIENCY \nHOWEVER SLIGHTLY\, AND IS PART OF \nA BIGGER PICTURE THAT WE NEED TO \nMEET TO GET TO OUR CLIMATE GOALS \nAND TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR REGION \nCAN ADAPT TO AND BE RESILIENT TO \nCLIMATE CHANGE W THAT I’M HAPPY \nTO ANSWER QUESTIONS YOU HAVE \nABOUT OUR SUPPORT LETTER WHICH \nWAS TRANSMITTED TO YOU YESTERDAY \nAND OTHERWISE URGE YOUR SUPPORT \nFOR THIS STERLING PROJECT. \nTHANK YOU. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: THANK \nYOU. GITA \nDEV. YOU ARE NEXT. \n>>SPEAKER: CAN YOU HEAR ME. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: YES WE \nCAN. \n>>SPEAKER: YOU CAN GO TO SLIDE \nNUMBER 14 AND THEN WE COULD \nSTART THE CLOCK? \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nKATHARINE\, CAN YOU SHARE SLIDE \n14? THANK YOU. WHICH \nPRESENTATION WAS IT? OUR STAFF \nPRESENTATION OR THE APPLICANT’S \nPRESENTATION? \n>>SPEAKER: I BELIEVE IT WAS THE \nAPPLICANT’S PRESENTATION\, THE \nLAST ONE. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: ONE \nMINUTE. \n>>SPEAKER: 14 OR 17. EITHER \nONE WILL DO. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: IS THIS \nTHE CORRECT SLIDE? \n>>SPEAKER: IT ACTUALLY SHOWED A \nSITE PLAN. MAYBE TRY 17. \nJUST THE PREVIOUS ONE. JUST GO \nBACK TWO. ONE MORE. \nYEAH. I THINK THIS WILL BE \nFINE. THIS WILL BE FINE. THANK \nYOU SO MUCH. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: YOUR TIME \nIS NOW RUNNING. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. I’M GITA \nDEFINITELY\, I’M WITH THE SIERRA \nCLUB ALIVE CAMPAIGN. I \nAM APPRECIATIVE THAT REGIS \nHOMES PROJECTS\, HOWEVER I WANT \nTO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT SIERRA \nCLUB DID NOT MEET WITH REGIS \nHOMES ON THIS PROJECT THEY DID \nREACH OUT AND WE DECLINED ALSO I \nWOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT \nCITIZEN’S COMMITTEE TO COMPLETE \nTHE REFUGE IS ADAMANTLY OPPOSED \nTO THIS PROJECT THERE WERE ALSO \nCOMMUNITY BENEFITS BUT SOME OF \nTHOSE ARE NOT BENEFITS SOME OF \nTHOSE ARE REQUIRED FEES. SO\, \nGIVEN THAT\, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO \nPOINT OUT IS FOR\, I ASSUME THAT \nALL YOU COMMISSIONERS REALIZE \nTHAT THE FRONT ROW OF TOWN HOMES \nTHAT ARE SHOWN IN THIS SITE PLAN \nARE ALL WITHIN THE BCDC 100 FOOT \nSET BACK BAND. AND WITH GIVEN \nSEA LEVEL RISE\, YOU CAN SEE THAT \nWE REALLY NEED THAT 100 FEET. \nYOU CAN SEE THAT THE PROJECT \nNEXT TO IT IS RESPECTING THAT \n100 FOOT SET BACK WITH ITS \nHOMES. I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT \nTHAT THIS SEGMENT OF WHAT \nTHEY’RE CALLING THE BAY TRAIL IS \nREALLY AN ISOLATED SEGMENT THAT \nIS REALLY FOR THE ENJOYMENT \nENJOIMENT OF THE PEOPLE WHO \nLIVE IN THESE HOMES BECAUSE \nTHERE IS NO CONNECTION BACK TO \nTHE BLUE LINE WHICH IS USED AS A \nPUBLIC TRAIL\, AND I AM VERY \nFAMILIAR WITH IT. I DO ACCEPT \nALL OF THE POINTS ABOUT HOW \nDIFFICULT THE CONNECTION IS TO \nBEAR ISLAND\, AT THE WILL LOW\, AT \nTHE WHIPPLE ROAD. HOWEVER\, I \nREALLY THINK THIS WOULD BE THE \nWRONG TIME TO ENCROACH TO ALLOW \nENCROACHMENTS INTO THIS 100 FOOT \nSET BACK BAND. ONE SHORELINE\, \nAS YOU ALL KNOW\, CAME BEFORE US \nAND SAID THAT IT IS THEIR POLICY \nTO TRY TO MAINTAIN A 100 FOOT \nSET BACK IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR \nTHE BAY TO STAY ALIVE. TO NOT \nHAVE SEA WALLS RIGHT UP AGAINST \nTHE BAY. \nAND YOU CAN TELL IF YOU HAD \nANYTHING TO DO WITH \nCONSTRUCTION\, THAT DOING \nCONSTRUCTION INTO THE BAY\, INTO \nTHAT SLOUGH\, INTO THAT DITCH \nWHICH HAS ENDANGERED SPECIES \nYOU’RE GOING TO HAVE TO CLOSE \nOFF THAT DITCH IN ORDER TO BE \nABLE TO DRAIN IN ORDER TO BE \nABLE TO PULL THAT STUFF \nUNDERGROUND. I WOULD SAY ONE \nTHING\, AFFORDABLE HOUSING\, THIS \nIS NOT THE PLACE TO PUT \nHOMEOWNER AFFORDABLE HOUSING\, \nTHEY’RE GOING TO GET HIT UP WITH \nA LOT OF COSTS WHEN THE SEA \nLEVELS IN 2050. THE STORM \nDRAINS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE \nREDONE THIS IS NOT THE PLACE TO \nLOCATE HOUSING AND PARTICULARLY \nAFFORDABLE HOUSING. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: THANK YOU \nFOR YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT YOUR \nTIME HAS NOW FINISHED. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: MOVING ON \nTO KEVIN CHAN. YOU MAY NOW \nUNMUTE. \n>>SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON \nMEMBERS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY \nCONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT \nCOMMISSION MY NAME IS KEN CHAN \nAND I AM THE SENIOR ORGANIZER \nWITHIN THE HOUSING LEADERSHIP \nCOUNCIL SAN MATEO COUNTY WE WORK \nWITH COMMITTEES AND THEIR \nLEADERS TO PRODUCE AND RESERVE \nQUALITY AFFORDABLE HOMES \nAPPRECIATION TO STAFF FOR THE \nHARD WORK ON TODAY’S \nPRESENTATION\, ON BEHALF OF HCL \nOUR LETTER I WOULD LIKE TO \nEXPRESS OUR SUPPORT FOR 505 \nBAYSHORE TOWNHOME PROJECT REGIS \nHOMES BAY AREA AS YOU MAY \nALREADY KNOW CREATING OWNERSHIP \nOF AFFORDABLE HOMES IN OUR STATE \nIS DIFFICULT BECAUSE OF LACK OF \nAVAILABLE FUNDING. THIS IS WHY \nWE SUPPORT THE EIGHT AFFORDABLE\, \nTWO BEDROOM AND 4 TO 8 MARKET \nRATE HOMES THAT THE CITY \nDISPARATELY NEED\, FAMILIES WILL \nGET STABILITY THEY NEED TO \nTHRIVE IN THEIR COMMUNITIES \nWHERE THEY WILL NO LONGER WORRY \nABOUT QUALITY OF AFFORDABLE \nHOMES AND ALSO BE ABLE TO LIVE \nNEAR THEIR PLACES OF WORK \nREDUCES STRESS ON THE BAY AREA \nINFRASTRUCTURE AND DECREASE BOTH \nTHEIRS AND YOUR TIME ON THE ROAD \nLEAVING TIME FOR HEALTH FAMILY \nAND COMMUNITY. THANK YOU FOR \nYOUR CONTINUED LEADERSHIP AND WE \nURGE YOU TO APPROVE THE 505 \nEAST BAY SHORE TOWNHOME \nPROPOSAL. \nTHANK YOU SO MUCH. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: THANK \nYOU. CHAIR WASSERMAN THERE IS \nNO MORE PUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>SPEAKER: I WOULD ENTERTAIN A \nMOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC \nHEARING. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: I’LL MOVE TO \nCLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND MOVES. AND \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON SECONDS. \nTHERE IS NO OBJECTION. THE \nPUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. \nCOMMISSIONER QUESTIONS AND \nCOMMENTS? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: — UH — \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: YES\, THANK \nYOU. LET’S SEE. I WAS GOING TO \nASK IF EITHER STAFF OR THE \nAPPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT \nON THAT — THE COMMENT ABOUT THE \n100 FOOT SET BACK AND — JUST \nGIVE US A LITTLE BIT MORE \nCONTEXT ABOUT THAT? \n>>SPEAKER: HAPPY TO. I HOPE \nCAN YOU HEAR ME. KATHARINE\, I \nACTUALLY THOUGHT THAT SLIDE 14 \nWAS REALLY HELPFUL FOR THIS \nSUBJECT. I’M HAPPY TO COMMENT \nON THAT. THE SHORT ANSWER IS \nTHIS IS A SMALL SITE PUTTING A \n100 FOOT SET BACK WOULD MAKE \nTHIS UNDEVELOPABLE THAT’S WHY \nWE’RE TRYING TO MAXIMIZE AMOUNT \nOF PUBLIC ACCESS THAT WE CAN \nOFFER TO THE SITE UNDERSTANDING \nWE CAN’T GET TO THE FULL 100 \nFEET ALSO MENTION TO LOOK AT THE \nOTHER DEVELOPMENTS IN THE AREA \nIF WE CAN GET THE SLIDE UP HERE \nIF YOU LOOK AT THE VILLAS\, BLUE \nHARBOR\, MARIN A NONE HAVE 100 \nFOOT SET BACK SOME HAVE A \nSIMILAR SEA WALL WITH SMALLER \nSIDEWALK. OUR TRAIL SECTION IS \n14 FEET PLUS LANDSCAPING SETI \nWENT OUT TO BLUE HARBOR VILLE AS \nAND MEASURED EIGHT FOOT AND TEN \nFOOT SIDEWALKS SO THIS IS A HUGE \nINCREASE COMPARED TO THE LARGER \nSITES. I HOPE THAT’S HELPFUL. \nTHE 557 EAST BAY SHORE SITE NEXT \nTO US IS LARGER IT HAS 480 \nUNITS APARTMENT COMPLEX A \nDEVELOPMENT THAT’S LARGE THEY’RE \nCAN SUPPORT MORE PUBLIC BENEFITS \nLIKE THIS. \nGREAT. THANK YOU. IF YOU LOOK \nTO THE TOP RIGHT HERE YOU CAN \nSEE THE DEVELOPMENTS I’M TALKING \nABOUT AND IF YOU SQUINT\, ONE \nPARTICULAR MARINA VERY LIMITED \nSET BACK OURS IS MUCH LARGER AND \nWE’RE PROUD OF THAT. \n>>SPEAKER: AND I ALSO WANT TO \nJUST CLARIFY\, SO\, BCDC’S \nJURISDICTION IS THE 100 FOOT \nSHORELINE BAND THAT JUST MEANS \nTHAT WE HAVE PERMITTING \nAUTHORITY WITHIN THAT AREA. \nIT’S NOT A SET BACK. IT \nDOESN’T\, SORT OF\, PRECLUDE THIS \nTYPE OF DEVELOPMENT IN IT. SO\, \nI WANT TO CLARIFY THE DIFFERENCE \nBETWEEN OUR PERMITTING \nJURISDICTION AND THE CONCEPT OF \nA SET BACK. I DON’T KNOW IF YOU \nHAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD. \n>>SPEAKER: YES\, WELL\, THAT’S \nHELPFUL. BUT\, SO\, ARE THE ONE \nSHORELINE AND THE OTHER POLICIES \nWE HAVE. SO THEY RECOMMEND  . \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: UP TO\, YOU \nKNOW\, THE 100 FOOT SET BACK OR \nMAXIMUM SET BACK\, BUT THEY LEAVE \nIT UP TO BCDC DISCRETION\, IS \nTHAT RIGHT? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \n— CAN WE GET CLARIFICATION \nEITHER FROM KATHARINE OR FROM \nLEGAL ON WHAT OUR JURISDICTIONAL \nAUTHORITY IS WITHIN THE 100 \nSHORELINE BAND? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: AND POLICY \nRECOMMENDATIONS\, YEAH. \n>>SPEAKER: SO\, WE DON’T HAVE \nANY POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT \nNOT BUILDING WITHIN THE 100 FOOT \nBAND. OUR AUTHORITY\, BASICALLY\, \nUNDER — SORRY. IT’S HARD UNDER \n— UNDER 66632.4 \nIS BASICALLY PUBLIC ACCESS. IT \nSAYS BASICALLY THE COMMISSION \nMAY DENY AN APPLICATION FOR A \nPERMIT OR FOR A PROPOSED PROJECT \nONLY ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE \nPROJECT FAILS TO PROVIDE MAXIMUM \nFEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS WITHIN \nTHAT SHORELINE BAND. IN FACT\, \nOUR REGULATIONS ENVISION THAT WE \nWILL BUILD WITHIN THAT SHORELINE \nBAND. THAT’S PRETTY CLEAR. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. GO AHEAD\, \nCOMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO. . \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: OKAY. LET \nME THINK ABOUT THAT. AND I \nGUESS THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION I \nHAVE IS LIGHTING\, I GUESS THERE \nIS NO LIGHTING\, PLAN FOR THAT \nWALKWAY OR ADDING LIGHTING TO \nTHAT AREA? \n>>SPEAKER: OF COURSE\, YEAH\, \nTHERE IS LOW BALLARD LIGHTING\, \nALL ALONG\, WE HAVE CONDITIONS \nAPPROVAL FROM THE CITY RELATED \nTO DARK SKY ORDINANCE BUT THE \nPATHWAY WILL BE LIT. I THINK \nTHAT’S YOUR QUESTION. \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: YEAH. \nOKAY. WELL\, I’M SURPRISED\, I \nWOULD THINK THAT WE WOULD WANT \nTO MINIMIZE LIGHTING\, BECAUSE OF \nWILDLIFE ISSUES. BUT THAT’S NOT \nWITHIN OUR SET OF \nRECOMMENDATIONS OR GUIDELINES \nEITHER? \n>>SPEAKER: SO WE DIDN’T INCLUDE \nWITHIN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION \nANY CONDITIONS RELATED TO \nLIGHTING. I MIGHT. \n>>KATHARINE PAN: I DON’T KNOW \nIF OUR BAY DEVELOPMENT ANALYST \nHAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS BUT \nWITH LIGHTING\, I KNOW ESPECIALLY \nWITH PUBLIC ACCESS AS IT GETS \nLATER INTO THE EVENING THAT \nTHERE IS ALSO A SAFETY CONCERN \nRELATED TO LIGHTING\, SO I DON’T \nKNOW IF WITHIN THE EIR\, THAT \nTHERE WAS ANY SPECIFICATION TO \nLIKE THE INTENSITY OF THE \nLIGHTING THAT WAS ALLOWED. BUT \nI’LL LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK TO \nTHAT. \n>>SPEAKER: NOT THAT I RECALL \nAND I’LL ADD I THINK LIGHTING \nFOR WALKWAYS MIGHT BE A BUILDING \nCODE ISSUE I’M NOT SURE\, SO I’M \nNOT SURE YOU CAN’T LIGHT A \nPATHWAY IN THIS SITUATION BUT WE \nALSO HAVE LOW LIGHTING TO TRY TO \nMITIGATE T I HOPE THAT’S \nHELPFUL. \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: WELL\, LOW \nLIGHTING IS BETTER THAN TOO MUCH \nLIGHTING. BUT\, YES\, I — I \nMEAN\, I WOULDN’T — I WOULD HOPE \nTHAT BCDC LOOKS AT THAT LIGHTING \nISSUE. BECAUSE I WOULD IMAGINE \nTHAT IT WOULD HAVE SOME IMPACT \nON THE HABITAT AND WILDLIFE. \nSO\, THAT’S — I GUESS THAT’S THE \nCOMMENT I’LL MAKE AT THIS \nPOINT. \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND I DO \nAPPRECIATE ALL THE OTHER \nSUSTAINABILITY FEATURES AND \nSUCH\, BUT THERE’S — BUT IT IS \nAT A SENSITIVE LOCATION. SO\, I \nAPPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER ZAPEDA. \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: THANK YOU \nCHAIR. WOULD STAFF BE ABLE TO \nPUT UP THE SLIDE AGAIN? ONE OF \nTHOSE INFAMOUS SLIDES THAT HAS \nBEEN PRESENTED. PAGE 14 OR 12 I \nDON’T REMEMBER WHICH ONE IT IS \nTHE ONE THIS’S LOOKING AT THE \nNEXT DOOR PROPERTY\, THAT’S \nALREADY BEEN APPROVED. I HAVE A \nQUESTION ON THIS ONE. THANK \nYOU. JUST\, HISTORY\, AND FOR ME \nTO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE — TO BE \nCONSISTENT IN OUR RESPONSES WITH \nANY PROPERTY. SO\, THE PROPERTY \nRIGHT NEXT DOOR\, I SEE THE 100 \nFOOT LINE\, AND I’M IMAGINING \nTHE LINE THERE BASED ON ONE OF \nTHE OTHER SLIDES THAT DREW THE \nLINE IN THERE ON THE YELLOW \nSQUARE. \nSO THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR THAT \nWAS ALREADY APPROVED BY BCDC I’M \nASSUMING\, IN PRIOR MONTHS OR \nYEARS\, I’M NOT SURE WHEN IT WAS \nPROVED\, BUT IF STAFF IS ABLE TO \nTELL US — HOW THEY  THE \nDECISION FOR HAVING THAT GREEN \nAREA BE GREATER THAN WHAT WE’RE \nREQUESTING THIS PROJECT? AND IF \nTHERE IS A RHYME OR REASON WHY \nONE WOULD HAVE IT BUT THE OTHER \nWOULD NOT OTHER THAN THE SPACE \nIS SMALLER AND EVERYTHING IS \nNEEDED TO BUILD MORE HOUSING? \n>>SPEAKER: SO\, FOR THE 557 EAST \nBAY SHORE PROJECT THAT WAS \nAPPROVED BY THE COMMISSION ABOUT \nTHIS TIME LAST YEAR\, IT REALLY \nDOES\, SORT OF\, COME DOWN \nPROBABLY TO SIZE. YOU KNOW\, THE \nQUESTION FOR US — OR THE \nQUESTION BEFORE THE COMMISSION \nIS THIS MAXIMUM FEASIBLE PUBLIC \nACCESS CONSISTENT WITH THE \nPROJECT AND SO FOR THAT PROJECT \nIT’S\, AS YOU CAN SEE IT’S \nSIGNIFICANTLY LARGER. WE PUSHED \n— OR WE WORKED WITH THEM TO \nENSURE THAT AS MUCH OF THAT \nSHORELINE BAND BE DEDICATED \nPUBLIC ACCESS AS POSSIBLE. IT \nWAS SOMETHING THEY WERE ABLE TO \nACCOMMODATE BASED ON THEIR \nPROJECT. FOR THIS ONE — AND \nYOU CAN SEE PRETTY MUCH\, LIKE\, \nWHERE THAT GREEN SPACE ENDS. \nPART OF THEIR APARTMENT BUILDING \nDOES CROSS OVER INTO THE SHORE \nLINER BAND\, BUT THAT PRETTY MUCH \nCORRESPONDS TO THE SHORELINE \nBAND. SO IF YOU CONTINUE ACROSS \nON TO THIS SITE YOU CAN SEE THAT \nPRETTY MUCH CUTS THIS SITE IN \nAND A HALF. AND SO\, I THINK\, IN \nTERMS OF FEASIBILITY\, THAT’S \nMORE FOR THE PROJECT PROPONENT \nTO SPEAK TO THE DETAILS OF \nTHAT. \nBUT YOU KNOW\, THE QUESTION IS\, \nLIKE\, FOR A PROJECT TO MOVE \nFORWARD\, WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM \nFEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS THAT \nTHEY’RE ABLE TO PROVIDE\, AND IN \nTHIS CASE\, YOU KNOW\, WE DID DO A \nCOMPARISON WITH SOME OTHER \nPROJECTS WITHIN THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION AND IT — IT’S IN \nTHE BALLPARK OF PERCENTAGES OF \nTHE SITE\, BUT OF COURSE THAT IS \nTHE QUESTION BEFORE THE \nCOMMISSION. \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: DO WE HAVE A \nMINIMUM AMOUNT? I KNOW WE HAVE \n100 FEET BCDC JURISDICTION BUT \nDO WE HAVE A MINIMUM AMOUNT THAT \nHAS TO BE GIVEN TO PUBLIC \nACCESS? BECAUSE HERE\, THE 100 \nLINE\, THERE IS ANOTHER ONE\, I \nTHINK IT WAS THE SECOND TO LAST \nLINE THAT HAS THE BCDC \nJURISDICTION LINE WHICH IS RIGHT \nWHERE — I BELIEVE IS RIGHT \nWHERE THE HOMES\, I THINK THIS IS \nTHE PURPLE LINE IS THE BCDC \nDINE? SO\, IT’S PRETTY — LIKE \nYOU WERE SAYING IT’S PRETTY MUCH \nHALF OF THE PROPERTY. SO\, FOR \nCONSISTENCY PURPOSES\, AND I’M \nSURE THIS WON’T BE THE ONLY \nPROPERTY THAT WE’RE GOING TO BE \nREVIEWING IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF \nYEARS\, BECAUSE WE NEED MORE \nHOUSING\, WHAT IS THE MINIMUM \nREQUIREMENT WITHIN THE 100 \nFEET? \nAND IS IT BASED ON WHAT THEY’RE \nTELLING US THAT THEY CAN GIVE \nUS? OR BASED ON A NUMBER THAT \nWE HAVE THAT SAYS\, IN OUR 100 \nFEET\, WE MUST HAVE A MINIMUM OF \nX? \n>>SPEAKER: WE DO NOT HAVE A \nMINIMUM AMOUNT\, WHETHER THAT’S \nIN TOTAL ACREAGE OR SQUARE \nFOOTAGE OR PERCENTAGE OF A SITE \nTHAT’S REQUIRED BY A LAW OR \nPOLICY TO BE DEDICATED OR \nIMPROVED AS PUBLIC ACCESS. IN \nTHE STAFF REPORT\, YOU KNOW\, THIS \nIS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE \nTAKE SUCH GREAT PAINS WITH THAT \nSECTION OF FINDINGS\, TO GO \nTHROUGH WITH COMPARISONS WITH \nPAST COMMISSION DECISIONS AND \nTHEN LOOKING AT OF COURSE THE \nWAY THAT THAT PUBLIC ACCESS AREA \nIS ACTUALLY PRESENTED AND \nIMPROVED\, LIKE HOW USEABLE IS T \nWHAT ACTUAL BENEFITS IS IT \nPROVIDING WHAT’S CONNECTSTIVITY\, \nHOW ACCESSIBLE IS IT\, ALL OF \nTHOSE ASPECTS ARE\, SORT OF\, \nDETAILED IN OUR POLICY. YOU \nKNOW\, WE DO WANT PUBLIC ACCESS \nTO BE USABLE WE WANT IT TO BE \nACCESSIBLE\, WE WANT IT TO SERVE\, \nLIKE\, YOU KNOW\, A WIDE RANGE OF \nPOPULATIONS\, ET CETERA. SO \nTHOSE ARE THE SORTS OF THINGS \nTHAT WE LOOK AT OR THAT WE \nLOOKED AT IN THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION. BUT AS FOR THE \nACTUAL AMOUNT\, THAT’S ONE OF THE \nTHINGS THAT THE POLICIES AND \nLAWS DON’T PROVIDE. THAT’S — \nTHAT IS\, LIKE\, THE DISCRETIONARY \nPART OF THIS APPROVAL. \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: THANK YOU. AND \nDO WE HAPPEN TO KNOW\, OUT OF ALL \nTHE OTHER PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE \nAPPROVED IN THE PAST\, WHICH ONE \nIS THE ONE THAT HAS THE LEAST \nAMOUNT OF PUBLIC ACCESS? THIS \nONE HAS A 14 FOOT TRAIL. DO WE \nKNOW IF WE HAVE ANY WITH LESS? \nJUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT \nBECAUSE WITH EVERY VOTE WE SET \nNEW PRECEDENCE AND I WANT TO \nKNOW HOW WE’RE SETTING IT. \n>>SPEAKER: SO\, WITHOUT TAKING \nTHE SLIDE DOWN AND\, SORT OF\, \nOPENING UP THE STAFF RACK\, I \nCOULDN’T TELL YOU SPECIFICALLY\, \nBUT I — WHAT CHRIS WAS SAYING \nABOUT THE BLUE HARBOR \nDEVELOPMENT\, FOR EXAMPLE\, YOU \nKNOW\, THAT TRAIL IS SMALLER. \nINITIALLY\, I THINK THIS PROJECT \nCAME IN WITH A SIMILARLY\, SORT \nOF\, NARROW TRAIL AREA THAT ENDED \nUP BECOMING EXPANDED AS WE \nTALKED THROUGH THE PROCESS WITH \nTHEM. OR AS THEY MADE THEIR WAY \nTHROUGH THE PROCESS. SO\, THERE \nARE\, CERTAINLY\, PROJECTS WITHIN \nTHE COMMISSION’S JURISDICTION \nWITH LESS PUBLIC ACCESS \n[LAUGHTER] \nBUT I WOULDN’T BE ABLE TO \nIMMEDIATELY POINT THOSE OUT TO \nYOU\, AND I WOULDN’T NECESSARILY \n— YOU KNOW\, EVERY PROJECT \nSHOULD BE KIND OF CONSIDERED ON \nITS OWN MERIT\, AND SO THAT’S\, \nSORT OF\, THE OTHER REASON WHY \nTHE COMPARISON IS DIFFICULT. \nBECAUSE YOU DO JUST — JUST \nBECAUSE ANOTHER PROJECT HAS LESS \nDOESN’T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT \nTHIS IS BETTER. IT IS LIKE\, A \nPROJECT BY PROJECT BASIS. KIND \nOF ENCOURAGE TO YOU LOOK AT IT \nTHAT WAY. \n>>JEFF SMITH: CAN I ADD ANOTHER \nPIECE OF INFORMATION THIS IS \nJEFF SMITH THE APPLICANT WITH \nREGIS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: GO \nAHEAD. \n>>SPEAKER: TWO PIECES OF \nINFORMATION IF YOU COULD GO BACK \nTO THE SLIDE THAT KIND OF SHOWS \nTHE GENERAL AREA. AND I KNOW \nTHIS BECAUSE WE WORKED VERY \nCLOSELY WITH 557 ON THEIR \nDESIGN. IN FACT WE HAVE THE \nSAME CIVIL ENGINEER THE SAME \nLANDSCAPE ENGINEER\, WE HAVE THE \nSAME ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS \nAND WE KNOW THE ARCHITECT. THE \n557 PROPERTY\, IF YOU REMEMBER \nBACK\, IT WAS THE OLD THEATRE\, \nAND WHEN THEY BUILT THAT \nTHEATRE\, THEY ACTUALLY GAVE BCDC \nAN EAST EASEMENT\, A 50 \nFOOD EASEMENT BACK IN THE DAY \nIT’S OVER 50 YEARS OLD THAT WAS \nTHE PRIMARY REASON THEY DECIDED \nTO ORIENTED SITE AS THEY DID \nTHAT’S WHY THIS SITE LOOKS \nDIFFERENT IN ADDITION TO THE \nFACT THAT IT’S SEVEN TIMES \nBIGGER. I WANT TO ALSO POINT \nOUT THE BLUE HARBOR PROJECT \nWHICH WAS IN THE UPPER RIGHT \nHAND CORNER WHICH DOES HAVE A \nBCDC PERMIT WITH A SMALL WALK. \nWE DID PUSH OUR BUILDINGS BACK \nTO MAINTAIN THE DESIRED WALKWAY \nAND SET BACK THAT BCDC STAFF \nASKED US TO THAT GIVES CONTEXT \nOF THE THREE PROJECTS IN THE \nAREA. \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: THANK YOU. MY \nLAST YE IS DO WE REQUIRE SOME \nKIND OF SIGNAGE THAT SAYS THIS \nIS PUBLIC ACCESS? \n>>SPEAKER: WE DO. SO\, THAT IS \nPART OF THE\, YOU KNOW\, MAKING IT \nUSEABLE\, MAKING IT WELCOMING\, SO \nTHERE IS WITHIN THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION AT LEAST SOME \nREQUIREMENTS AROUND WAYFINDING \nAND SIGNAGE.   AND THERE IS \nKIND OF A STANDARD PUBLIC SHORE \nACCESS SIGN THAT YOU SEE AROUND \nTHE BAY AREA. AND THAT’S\, SORT \nOF\, LIKE I CAN’T BRANDING THAT \nWE REQUIRE. \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: THANK YOU SO \nMUCH. NO MORE QUESTIONS. THANK \nYOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: CAN \nI HAVE THE FULL SCREEN BACK\, \nPLEASE? THANK YOU. \nI DON’T SEE ANY OTHER \nQUESTIONS. \nCOMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: THANK YOU CHAIR \nWASSERMAN. SO\, I UNDERSTAND \nWHERE THE 100 FEET PUTS IT \nWITHIN THE PROJECT\, BUT ARE WE \nSTARTING AT THE SLOUGH\, OR ARE \nWE STARTING AT THE DITCH? WHEN \nWE MEASURE OUT THE 100 FEET? \n248 STARTS AT THE DITCH. SO\, \nTHAT TIDAL DITCH\, IT’S \nTIDALLY INFLUENCED SO THIS IS \nSOMETHING WE DISCUSSED WITH THE \n557 APPLICANT BUT THE BAY TIDAL \nINFLUENCED THE WATER BODY AND \nALSO BECAUSE THERE IS MARSH \nVEGETATION WITHIN THE DITCH \nTHAT\, SORT OF\, CHANGES LIKE HOW \nWE WOULD NORMALLY SAY THE BAY \nSHORELINE IS MEAN HIGH WATER BUT \nIN THE AREAS OF TIDAL MARSH IT \nMAKES IT EDGE EVER TIDAL MARSH \nUP TO FIVE FEET ABOVE MEANS SEA \nLEVEL SO THAT’S THE LINE THAT \nTHEY’RE GOING FROM AS BAY \nSHORELINE THAT’S MARSH \nVEGETATION FIVE FEET ABOVE SEA \nLEVEL MARK. \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: IT’S \nINTERESTING IT’S CALLED A DITCH \nI ASSUME AT ONE POINT IT WAS \nCALLED A DRAINAGE DITCH WHEN IT \nWAS ALL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES \nTHEN IT BECAME PART OF THE MARSH \nOVER TIME BECAUSE SOMEONE DIDN’T \nMAINTAIN THE DITCH AND THE FLOW \nOF WATER OFFSITE. \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH. MY \nUNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE WAS \nONCE WAS A TIDAL GATE IN THAT \nAREA BUT AT SOME POINT IN THE \nPAST IT MALFUNCTIONED AND \nACCORDING TO OUR REGULATIONS\, IT \nTURNED THAT AREA BACK INTO BAY. \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: OKAY. THANK \nYOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nJEFF\, DID YOU WANT TO SAY \nSOMETHING? \n>>SPEAKER: JEFF SMITH: JUST \nFOR CONTEXT I FEEL LIKE I HAVE \nBEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR SO LONG \nAND JUST A BIT OF HISTORY THAT’S \nEXACTLY THE CASE COMMISSIONER \nADDIEGO THERE IS ONE SMALL PIPE \n12 INCH PIPE THAT CONNECTS THE \nDITCH TO THE SLOUGH IT WASN’T A \nDRAINAGE DITCH AND ALLOWED WATER \nTO GO OUT IT DID NOT ALLOW WATER \nTO GET BACK IN AND UNFORTUNATELY \nAT SOME POINT SOMEONE FAILED TO \nMAINTAIN THAT AND MADE \nCONNECTION BUT IF YOU HAVE TO GO \nBACK OUT TO THE SLOUGH IT WOULD \nMOVE THE LINE NORTH 60 TO 70 \nFEET THAT WAS INITIAL DISCUSSION \nWE SAID RATHER THAN FIGHT OVER \nTHE LINE LET’S WORK TOGETHER \nTHAT WAS SIX YEARS AGO\, WORKING \nWITH THE CITY AND BCDC STAFF AND \nTHEN THE COMMISSION SO \nAPPRECIATE THAT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: I HAVE ONE \nFOLLOW-UP QUESTION\, SINCE THE \nARGUMENT IS IT’S SUCH A \nRELATIVELY NARROW PARCEL OR \nSMALL PARCEL\, SO JUST GOING BACK \nTO — I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE \nHISTORY OF THE PARCEL WAS OR \nWHEN IT WAS SOLD\, BUT I MEAN\, \nWHEN IF IT WAS SUBDIVIDED\, OR \nWHEN IT WAS SOLD\, I MEAN\, IT WAS \nSOLD WITH THAT 100 FOOT \nJURISDICTION LINE IN MIND. IS \nTHAT CORRECT? OR IS THAT \nSOMETHING THAT BCDC HAS\, OR THE \nCITY WOULD HAVE ANY — GIVES ANY \nCONSIDERATION TO? \n>>SPEAKER: WOULD YOU MIND \nREPHRASING THAT QUESTION. \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: JUST KIND \nOF LOOKING AT THE VIABILITY OF \nTHAT PARCEL AS COMMERCIAL PARCEL \nFOR EITHER HOUSING OR COMMERCIAL \nUSE AND IF YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THERE \nIS THAT IMPORTANT 100 FOOT \nJURISDICTIONAL AREA\, WOULD THEY \nHAVE SUBDIVIDED IT WITH — OR \nSOLD IT WITH THAT FULL \nUNDERSTANDING? \nI MEAN\, IF THE ARGUMENT IS THAT \nIT IS THAT THE PEARLS IS TOO \nNARROW TO GIVE THE FULL \nCONSIDERATION FOR PUBLIC \nACCESS? \n>>SPEAKER: SO\, THAT HISTORY IS \nNOT SOMETHING THAT I’M AWARE \nOF. \nI WILL SAY OUR JURISDICTION HAS \nHAD THE SAME DESCRIPTION SINCE \nTHE MCATEER-PETRIS ACT WAS \nPASSED\, AND\, SO\, ANYONE DOING \nDUE DILIGENCE ON PROPERTY ALONG \nTHE BAY FRONT SHOULD BECOME \nAWARE THAT THEIR PROPERTY IS \nSUBJECT TO BCDC PERMITTING \nAUTHORITY. WHAT I WILL SAY\, \nTHOUGH\, JUST TO GIVE WHOEVER \nORIGINALLY SUBDIVIDE THAT AREA\, \nTHE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT\, YOU \nKNOW\, AS JEFF WAS SAYING AT SOME \nPOINT\, THAT AREA ACTUALLY WENT \nSUBJECT TO BCDC JURISDICTION THE \nSAME WAY BECAUSE THAT DITCH \nDIDN’T — WASN’T ALWAYS PART OF \nOUR BAY JURISDICTION. \n>>SPEAKER: COMMISSIONERS\, I \nTHINK I WANT TO BE REALLY \nCLEAR. \nOUR JURISDICTION HERE IS MAXIMAL \n— MAXIMUM PUBLIC — MAXIMUM \nFEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS IN OUR \nSHORELINE BAND. THAT’S WHAT \nWE’RE — \n>>SPEAKER: CONSISTENT WITH THE \nPROJECT. \n>>SPEAKER: YES CONSISTENT WITH \nTHE PROJECT. STAFF DOES A \nPROCESS\, THEY GO LOOK AT THE \nPROJECT AND THEY DETERMINE WHAT \nIS MAXIMUM FEASIBLE PUBLIC \nACCESS. THAT’S WHAT WE’RE \nCALLED UPON TO DO HERE. THERE \nIS NO 100 FOOT SET BACK. THAT \nIS A MISNOMER THAT. IS \nNOTHING. \nIT DOES NOT EXIST. SO WHEN \nPEOPLE BUY A PIECE OF PROPERTY \nTHAT IN OUR SHORELINE BAND\, IT’S \nNOT THAT THEY EXPECT TO MOVE THE \nPROPERTY 100 FEET OFF THAT. IS \nNOT — THIS IS NOT AN EASEMENT \nFOR PUBLIC ACCESS. WHAT WE DO \nIS WE DETERMINE WHAT IS MAXIMUM \nFEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS \nCONSISTENT WITH THE PROJECT THAT \nIS THERE. THAT’S — AND I WANT \nTO BE REAL CLEAR ABOUT THAT \nBECAUSE I FEEL LIKE WE’RE \nGETTING OFF ON A TANGENT HERE \nAND MISUNDERSTANDING WHAT THE \nPROCESS IS. THE PROCESS IS \nSIMPLY\, IS THIS THE MAXIMUM \nFEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS GIVEN \nWITH THIS PROJECT\, GIVEN THE \nCONSTRAINTS OF THE SITE. WE’RE \nGIVEN A PARTICULAR SITE\, DECIDE \nWHAT ARE THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE \nSITE HOW DO YOU PROVIDE MAC MUM \nFEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS THERE ARE \nMANY PROJECTS THAT HAVE COME \nBEFORE BCDC AND A LOT OF THOSE \nARE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME PROJECTS \nSO IF SOMEONE HAS A \nSINGLE-FAMILY HOME PROJECT WE \nSAY WHAT’S THE MAXIMUM FEASIBLE \nPUBLIC ACCESS WHICH MAY BE ZERO \nWITH A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME \nBECAUSE YOU DON’T WANT PEOPLE \nWANDERING INTO THE SINGLE-FAMILY \nHOME SO THERE IS NO PUBLIC \nACCESS IN THE SHORELINE BAND ON \nTHAT OR IT MAY HAPPEN THERE MAY \nBE ABILITY TO PROVIDE SOME \nSTAIRS DOWN THERE OR SOMETHING \nWE LOOK AT EACH PROJECT AND MAKE \nCASE BY CASE DETERMINATION AND \nFROM IS NO SET BACK IT JUST \nDOESN’T EXIST AS A CONCEPT \nWITHIN OUR REGULATIONS I THINK \nIT’S IMPORTANT THAT WE \nUNDERSTAND THAT THE COMMISSION \nCAN APPROVE OR DENY THE PROJECT \nBUT IT’S GOT TO BE BASED ON \nMAXIMUM FEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS \nAND STAFF HAS PROVIDED \nCONSISTENT WITH THE PROJECT — \nYES LARRY KEEPS \nSAY CONSISTENT WITH THE \nPROJECT\, HE’S CORRECT WE LOOK AT \nTHE PROJECT\, LOOK AT THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION AND SAY HAS THE \nAPPLICANT PROVIDED MAXIMUM \nFEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS. \nSTAFF BELIEVES THEY HAVE GIVEN \nTHE CONSTRAINTS OF THE PROJECT \nTHE QUESTION IS\, DO YOU THINK \nTHEY HAVE\, AND THAT’S WHAT \nYOU’RE VOTING O REALLY NOTHING \nELSE. I MEAN\, THE CITY OF \nREDWOOD CITY HAS GONE INTO THE \nOTHER ISSUES\, YOU KNOW\, THAT’S \nOUR JURISDICTION\, THAT’S OUR JOB \nTODAY. \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: YES. I — \nOKAY\, POINT TAKEN. I UNDERSTAND \nTHAT. YEAH\, ARE THE ONLY POINT \nI WOULD MAKE IS \nPERHAPS BEYOND TODAY A \nDISCUSSION IS WHEN IN THE LONGER \nTERM WHEN CITIES DO LOOK AT \nZONING FOR AREAS ALONG THE \nSHORELINE AS WE HOPE THAT THEY \nALLOW\, YOU KNOW\, ZONE WITH — \nWITH SEA LEVEL RISE\, ET CETERA\, \nIN — AS ONE OF THE \nCONSIDERATIONS. SO\, THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \nHAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS AND A \nREQUEST/SUGGESTION. I WANT TO \nREEMPHASIZE WHAT GREG SAID. THE \n100 FEET SHORELINE BAND IS \nWITHIN OUR JURISDICTION UNDER \nSTATE LAW\, UNDER THE \nMCATEER-PETRIS ACT FOR PURPOSES \nOF MAXIMUM FEASIBLE PUBLIC \nACCESS WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF \nTHE PROJECT. THERE IS A \nSEPARATE OVERLYING PIECE\, WHICH \nI THINK WE WILL GET TO IN THE \nFUTURE\, COMING FROM OUR \nGUIDELINES TO JURISDICTIONS \nUNDER SB272 OF HOW TO RESPOND\, \nTHAT MAY HAVE SOME EFFECT ON THE \nACTIVITIES WITHIN THE 100 \nSHORELINE. BUT THE PRIMARY \nJURISDICTION OVER WHAT GOES \nTHERE\, ACCEPT FOR PUBLIC ACCESS \nIS UP TO LOCAL JURISDICTION NOT \nTHIS AGENCY. \nMY SUGGESTION REQUEST IS \nWHETHER WE CAN HAVE A CONDITION \nTHAT THE — THAT THE CONDITIONS \nIN THE EXISTENCE OF PERMIT IS \nRECORDED. \nWE HAVE HAD OCCASIONAL \nDISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS THERE IS \nA CONDITION HOMEOWNERS BE GIVEN \nNOTICE BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THE \nWAY DO THAT NOTICE IS RECORDING \nTHE PERMIT SO THAT SHOWS UP IN \nTHE RECORD AND IT’S PARTICULARLY \nOUT FOR THIS PROJECT WHICH IS \nFOR SALE PROJECT SO THAT THE \nINDIVIDUAL OWNERS AND SUCCESSORS \nAND BUYERS WOULD THEN CLEARLY \nHAVE NOTICED BECAUSE IT WOULD BE \nIN THE RECORD AND TITLE REPORT I \nPOSE THAT TO STAFF AND THEN \nASSUMING THAT’S OKAY WE’LL POSE \nTO SEE WHETHER IT’S ACCEPTABLE \nTO THE APPLICANT \n>>SPEAKER: QUICKLY THERE IS \nALREADY ONE CONDITION WITHIN THE \nPERMIT SO IT’S IN ADDITION TO \nTHE NOTICE TO BUYERS ANY TIME WE \nHAVE DEDICATION CONDITION WITHIN \nA PERMIT IT’S TYPICAL WHERE WE \nWOULD REQUIRE RECORDING AS WELL \nTHE TIMING ON THIS ONE IS \nSLIGHTLY DIFFERENT IF THAT IT’S \nREQUIRED AT THE TIME OF CLOSE OF \nSALE OF THE PROPERTY. \n>>KATHARINE PAN: BECAUSE THE \nPERMITTEE CURRENTLY DOES NOT \nACTUAL LE OWN THE PROPERTY\, THEY \nHAVE AN OPTION TO PURCHASE. BUT \nIT IS IN THERE THAT AT THAT \nTIME\, WHEN THEY’RE READY TO MOVE \nFORWARD WITH THE PROJECT\, THAT \nIT WILL BE RECORDED. \nI THINK AT THIS POINT IT’S NOT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: NO\, \nYEAH\, I APPRECIATE THAT. THAT \nUNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES\, YOU \nCAN’T RECORD THE PERMIT UNTIL IT \nCOMES INTO THE APPLICANT’S HANDS \nTHAT\, MAKES PERFECT SENSE. I \nJUST WANT TO MAKE SURE STAFF IS \nSATISFIED THAT WE’RE FULLY \nPROTECTED. NO DISRESPECT AT ALL \nTO THE APPLICANT THAT THAT WILL \nBE DONE. SO\, IT’S THERE. \nTHAT’S FINE. I’M SATISFIED. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: CHAIR \nWASSERMAN\, CAN I INTERRUPT FOR A \nSECOND. CAN I PLEASE ASK ALL \nCOMMISSIONERS TO TURN ON YOUR \nCAMERAS\, ALL COMMISSIONERS ON \nTHE CAMERA AT ALL TIMES WE NEED \nTO MAKE SURE WE’RE KEEPING \nQUORUM AND THE ONLY WAY WE CAN \nTELL IS IF WE CAN SEE YOU. \nTHANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: IF \nTHERE ARE NO OTHER COMMENTS THEN \nSTAFF RECOMMENDATION\, PLEASE. \nOH I’M SORRY. WE DID CLOSE THE \nPUBLIC HEARING\, DIDN’T WE? \nTHANK YOU. STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION\, \nPLEASE. \n>>SPEAKER: ALL RIGHT. SO THIS \nSTAFF RECOMMENDATION WAS MAILED \nTO YOU ON MAY 10TH\, 2024. IN \nHERE I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A \nMOMENT TO RECOGNIZE THAT A LOT \nOF THE HARD WORK ON THE STAFF \nANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION WAS \nACTUALLY COMPLETED BY JESSICA \nFINKEL ONE OF OUR EXCELLENT \nPERMIT ANALYSTS WHO RECENTLY \nWENT ON PLAN LEAVE AND SO \nCOULDN’T BE HERE TO PRESENT THE \nITEM TO YOU TODAY I WANT TO \nPRESS MY APPRECIATION FOR HER \nEFFORTS BECAUSE IT MADE IT \nPOSSIBLE FOR US TO CARRY IT THE \nREST OF THE WAY. WITH THAT \nSTAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE \nCOMMISSION APPROVE THE PERMIT \nAPPLICATION WITH SEVERAL \nCONDITIONS AMONG THEM ARE \nDEDICATION OF THE ON-SITE PUBLIC \nACCESS AREAS AND IMPROVEMENTS \nWITHIN THE TOTAL PUBLIC ACCESS \nAREA INCLUDING IN THE CALTRANS \nREDWOOD CITY RIGHTS OF WAY \nPRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW PROCESS \nENSURING FEASIBILITY AND \nCONSISTENCY OF FINAL DESIGN \nSUBMITTING PROPERTY INTERESTS \nFOR WORK ON LANDS THAT ARE NOT \nCURRENTLY OWNED BY PERMITTEE \nPRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK \nSUBMITTING APPLICABLE WATER \nQUALITY CERTIFICATIONS OR WASTE \nCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FROM THE \nWATER BOARD PRIOR TO BEGINNING \nWORK DOCUMENTING COMPLETION OF \nON-SITE AND OFFSITE REMEDIATION \nPRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK ON \nINHABITABLE SPACES MEASURES TO \nPROTECT BAY RESOURCES \nCOMPENSATORY MITIGATION FOR THE \nHABITAT IMPACTS OF NEW BAY FILL\, \nMONITORING AND ADAPTATION \nPLANNING TO ENSURE CONTINUED \nVIABILITY PUBLIC ACCESS NOTICING \nFUTURE HOME BUYERS ABOUT \nRESPONSIBILITIES UNDER PERMIT \nINCLUDING REQUIREMENTS TO \nMAINTAINS ADAPT PUBLIC ACCESS \nAREAS STAFF CONSISTENT WITH THE \nCOMMISSIONS LAWS AND POLICIES \nRECOMMENDS THAT YOU ADOPT \nRECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTAKE DOWN THE SLIDE SO YOU CAN \nSEE THE SCREEN PLEASE. IS THERE \nA MOTION? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: I’LL MOVE THE \nSTAFF — \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I’M \nRECOGNIZING COMMISSIONER \nADDIEGO. \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: I WOULD LIKE TO \nMOVE APPROVAL OF THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION PATTED PAT EKLUND \nI’LL SECOND. THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nECKLUND SECONDS. IF THERE ARE \nNO FURTHER QUESTIONS SIERRA \nPLEASE CALL THE ROLL. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: AYE. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER GILMORE? \n>>MARIE GILMORE: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER GORIN? \n>>SUSAN GORIN: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER? \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER KIMBAL? \n>>SPEAKER: ABSTAIN. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: IT’S A \nTOUGH ONE\, BUT\, YES\, I GUESS SO. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER LEFKOZITZ? \n>>SPEAKER: AYE. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nYES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER PEMBERTON? \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: AYE. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER PINE? \n>>DAVE PINE: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER RANDOLPH? \n>>SEAN RANDOLPH: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER ZEPEDA? \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: CHAIR \nWASSERMAN? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: I HAVE A \nTOTAL OF 14 YESES\, ZERO NOS\, AND \nONE ABSTENTION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THE \nMOTION PASSES. THANKS ALL OF \nYOU FOR ALL OF YOUR HARD WORK \nAND THANK YOU TO THE COMMISSION \nFOR THE THOUGHTFUL QUESTIONS. \nTHAT BRINGS US TO ITEM TEN\, WE \nWILL RECEIVE A BRIEFING AND \nCONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZING OUR \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO \nA MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING \nAMONG BCDC AND THE MEMBER \nAGENCIES OF THE BAY AREA \nREGIONAL COLLABORATIVE\, BARC. \nTHE PURPOSE OF THE MOU IS TO \nCOORDINATE EFFORTS TO ADDRESS \nTHE THREATS OF FLOODING AND SEA \nLEVEL RISE IN THE SAN FRANCISCO \nBAY AREA. \nJESSICA FAIN OUR PLANNING \nDIRECTOR WILL INTRODUCE THE \nISSUE THEN INTRODUCE ALLISON \nBROOKS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR THE \nLEADER OF THIS EFFORT TO DRAFT \nAND ADOPT THE MOU. \n>>JESSICA FAIN: GOOD AFTERNOON \nCHAIR WASSERMAN AND GOOD \nAFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS I’M \nPLEASED TO BE HERE AT THE END OF \nTODAY’S MEETING WITH YOU TO \nPRESENT AND SEEK YOUR \nAUTHORIZATION FOR OUR EXECUTIVE \nDIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO AN \nINTER-AGENCY MEMORANDUM OF \nUNDERSTANDING ON FLOODING AND \nSEA LEVEL RISE. I’M JOINED \nTODAY BY ALLISON BROOKS THE \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE BAY \nAREA REGIONAL COLLABORATIVE WHO \nHAS HELPED SPEARHEAD THIS EFFORT \nAND WHO IS GOING TO BE \nCOPRESENTING WITH ME TODAY. SO \nIF SOMEONE CAN PULL UP THE \nPRESENTATION\, WE CAN GET GOING. \nTHANK YOU. SO\, THE COMMISSION \nIS WELL AWARE THAT SEA LEVEL \nRISE IS HAPPENING AND THAT AS A \nREGION IT WILL FUNDAMENTALLY \nCHANGE THE WAY THAT WE WILL \nLIVE\, WORK\, AND RECREATE ALONG \nOUR BAY SHORELINE. NEXT SLIDE \nPLEASE. IT WILL ALSO COST A LOT \nOF MONEY. HERE IS A SLIDE FROM \nA RECENT REPORT THAT BCDC AND \nMTC ABAG RELEASED LAST SUMMER \nTHAT MAPS OUT THE $110 BILLION \nTHAT IS ESTIMATED\, THAT IT WILL \nCOST THE REGION TO ADAPT TO \nRISING SEA LEVEL BY \nMID-CENTURY. \nAND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS $110 \nBILLION ESTIMATE\, ABOUT HALF \nTHOSE COSTS ARE BASED ON WHAT WE \nKNOW OR OUR PLANNED PROJECTS\, IF \nYOU LOOK AT THE MAP ON THE RIGHT \nTHOSE ARE THE BLUE SPACES AS \nWELL AS WHAT WE CALL PLACE \nHOLDER PROJECTS GREEN LINES \nWHERE NO PROJECT EXISTS BUT WE \nKNOW SOMETHING WILL HAVE TO \nHAPPEN THERE. WHILE THIS IS A \nLOT OF MONEY IT APPEALS IN \nCOMPARISON TO THE ESTIMATED $231 \nBILLION IN \nANTICIPATED DAMAGES SHOULD WE \nDO NOTHING. \n$230 BILLION ARE BASED ON \nACCESSED PROPERTY VALUES AS WELL \nAS TRANSPORTATION ASSETS. THE \nREPORT INDICATED THERE IS \nCONSIDERABLE UNEVENNESS ACROSS \nTHE REGION IN TERMS OF PROJECT \nTYPES HOW FAR ALONG PLACES ARE \nAS WELL AS ABILITY OF LOCAL \nGOVERNMENTS AND OTHER PLACES TO \nRAISE FUNDS THERE ARE EQUITY \nIMPLICATIONS TO THIS WORK AS WE \nLOOK ACROSS THIS REGION TO TRY \nTO ADAPT AS A REGION. \nADDITIONALLY IT’S WORTH NOTING \nTHERE IS A WIDE RANGE OF \nACTIVITIES THAT ARE NEEDED BOTH \nTHE RESTORATION OF OUR BAY \nWETLANDS\, AND OTHER NATURE-BASED \nSTRATEGIES. BUT WE ALSO KNOW \nTHAT A VARIETY OF GRAY \nINFRASTRUCTURE STRATEGIES ARE \nNEEDED IN OTHER PLACES. SO \nWHILE A LOT OF THE WORK THAT A \nLOT OF OUR REGIONAL AND STATE \nAGENCIES ARE FOCUSED ON NOW \nACCELERATING NATURE-BASED \nSTRATEGIES THERE IS NOT A \nSIMILAR ANALOG FOR GRAY \nINFRASTRUCTURE WHERE \nNATURE-BASED STRATEGIES ARE NOT \nFEASIBLE AND BOTH OF THESE TYPES \nOF SOLUTIONS ARE REQUIRED. NEXT \nSLIDE PLEASE. \nSO THIS REPORT AS WELL AS BCDC’S \nWORK THROUGH OUR BAY ADAPT \nPROGRAM HAVE REALLY IDENTIFIED \nTHE NEED TO NOT JUST IDENTIFY \nTHIS BIG FUNDING GAP\, BUT THAT \nWE NEED TO WORK TOGETHER TO \nIDENTIFY HOW WE CAN IDENTIFY \nLEADS WHO CAN SPEARHEAD AND HELP \nFILL THE GAPS WITH SOME OF THESE \nFUNDING HOLES. THE BAY ADAPT \nJOINT PLATFORM FOR EXAMPLE\, \nCALLS FOR A REVENUE GENERATION \nAND DISTRIBUTION PLAN AND \nACCOMPANYING GOVERNANCE \nSTRUCTURE TO RAISE AND \nDISTRIBUTE FUNDS AND THIS REPORT \nWE RELEASED LAST YEAR LIKEWISE \nCALLS FOR ESTABLISHING AND \nDEVELOPING BETTER LEAD ROLES FOR \nORGANIZING HOW WE FUND THIS \nWORK. THE BAY AREA REGIONAL \nCOLLABORATION HAVE ROLLED UP \nTHEIR SLEEVES TO DEVELOP THE SEA \nLEVEL RISE MOU IT IS ATTACHED IN \nYOUR MEETING PACKAGE TODAY\, \nATTACHMENT A\, AND I’LL TURN IT \nOVER TO ALLISON TO TALK US \nTHROUGH IT. \n>>ALLISON BROOKS: THANKS \nJESSICA\, AND THANKS FOR HAVING \nME HERE TODAY. I CAN SIT DOWN? \n[LAUGHTER] \nGREAT. THANKS JESSICA. IT’S \nGREAT TO BE WITH YOU TODAY \nCOMMISSIONERS. NEXT SLIDE. A \nQUICK RECAP OF WHAT IS THE BAY \nAREA REGIONAL COLLABORATION. IT \nWAS CREATED THROUGH STATE \nSTATUTE. WE HAVE FOUR MEMBER \nAGENCIES WRITTEN INTO THE \nLEGISLATION. THE TOP $4\, \nINCLUDING BCDC\, AND THEN WE HAVE \nTHE EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THREE \nAGENCIES THAT PARTICIPATE \nREGULARLY IN OUR EFFORTS\, AND \nTHEY ARE SIGNATORIES OF THIS \nMOU\, AS WELL. AND THEY’RE ALL \n— WE’RE MAKING OUR WAY THROUGH \nGETTING THEIR APPROVAL\, EACH \nAGENCY’S APPROVAL TO HAVE THE \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTORS OR OFFICERS \nSIGN THE MOU. EACH ARE KIND OF \nAPPROACHING IT IN THEIR OWN WAY\, \nBUT YOU’RE THE FIRST ONE TO \nBRING — YOU’RE THE FIRST ENTITY \nTHAT WE’RE BRINGING IT FORWARD \nTO\, SO THAT’S EXCITING. NEXT \nSLIDE\, PLEASE. \nSO\, WHAT IS — WHAT’S IN THE \nMOU? WHAT IS THE MOU\, IF YOU \nHAVEN’T HAD A CHANCE TO POUR \nOVER IT QUITE YET\, WELL\, ITS \nPURPOSE IS TO ALIGN EFFORTS \nEXPERTISE AND CORE FUNCTIONS \nACROSS THOSE SEVEN AGENCIES TO \nACCOMPLISH SOME KEY GOALS\, \nACCELERATE PROJECT \nIMPLEMENTATION\, INCREASE THE BAY \nAREA’S COMPETITIVENESS FOR \nFUNDING SO HOW CAN WE WORK \nTOGETHER TO GO AFTER \nINCREASINGLY MORE SCARCE \nRESOURCES AT THE STATE LEVEL AND \nAT THE FEDERAL LEVEL TO SUPPORT \nSOME OF OUR BIG ADAPTATION \nPROJECTS WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD \nAROUND THE REGION. ANOTHER GOAL \nIS TO ESTABLISH STRUCTURES \nCOORDINATION AND PROJECT \nPRIORITIZATION\, SUPPORT \nMULTI-JURISDICTIONAL \nPARTNERSHIPS\, AND SUPPORT CITIES \nAND COUNTIES\, AND WORK WITH YOU \nALL TO EXPAND YOUR CAPACITY TO \nFUND AND IMPLEMENT ADAPTATION \nPROJECTS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL\, \nBECAUSE WE KNOW THAT’S REALLY \nWHERE THE RUBBER HITS THE ROAD. \nSO\, I’LL QUICKLY GIVE A BRIEF \nSUMMARY OF EACH OF THE FIVE \nTOPIC AREAS WHICH YOU’RE SEEING \nON THE SLIDE HERE THAT ARE \nCOVERED IN THE MOU\, THESE CORE \nFUNCTIONAL AREAS WHERE WE HAVE \nIDENTIFIED LEADS WHERE\, AS MUCH \nAS POSSIBLE. SO\, ON THE \nPLANNING SIDE\, PREPARING FOR SEA \nLEVEL RISE AND FLOODING RISK\, \nTHAT FOCUSES ON PLANS\, POLICIES \nAND PROJECT PRIORITIES TO FOSTER \nAN ENABLING ENVIRONMENT FOR WIDE \nSCALE ADVANCEMENT OF EQUITABLE \nMULTI-BENEFIT CLIMATE ADAPTATION \nPROJECTS. THE FIRST MAIN ITEMS \nINCLUDED IN THAT ARE BCDC \nDEVELOPING YOUR REGIONAL \nSHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR \nSENATE BILL 272\, WHICH IS OFF \nAND RUNNING\, AND THE SECOND IS \nTO DEVELOP A SEA LEVEL RISE \nFUNDING AND INVESTMENT STRATEGY \nTHAT’S BEEN GOING TO BE LED BY \nBCDC AND MTC ABAG TO REALLY \nPRIORITIZE PROJECTS AND FUNDING \nSTRATEGIES WHICH WILL THEN BE \nINCLUDED IN PLANNED BAY AREA. \nSO\, WE HAVE MADE GREAT STRIDES \nWORKING TOGETHER OVER THE YEARS \nTO REALLY START TO INTEGRATE \nTHESE EFFORTS AND I THINK IT’S \nSHOWING UP HERE REALLY NICELY. \nON THE FUND MANAGEMENT SIDE\, IT \nDESCRIBES HOW THE AGENCIES WILL \nCOLLABORATE TO SEEK\, SECURE\, AND \nDISTRIBUTE FUNDING TO SUPPORT \nTHE DELIVERY OF PROJECTS THAT WE \nHAVE IDENTIFIED THE STATE \nCOASTAL CONSERVANCY IS THE LEAD \nFOR FUNDING PROPOSALS TO FEDERAL \nAGENCIES\, THE STATE COASTAL \nCONSERVANCY WITH BARC WILL TRACK \nWITH STAFF AND COORDINATE \nFUNDING PROPOSALS AND THERE ARE \nROLES IN THERE FOR SAN FRANCISCO \nESTUARY PARTNERSHIP\, MTC AND \nABAG AND CALTRANS TO RAISE \nFUNDS\, ALIGN AND DISTRIBUTE \nFUNDING\, AS WELL AS COORDINATE \nON LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY AND \nREGIONAL FUNDING MEASURES. THIS \nSECTION ON TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE \nFOCUSES ON HOW REGIONAL AGENCIES \nCAN BEST SUPPORT PROJECT \nDEVELOPMENT AND DELIVERY THROUGH \nA REGIONAL TA PROGRAM. THIS IS \nINTENDED TO AUGMENT THE CAPACITY \nOF LOCAL GOVERNMENT\, SPECIAL \nDISTRICTS AND LOCAL \nORGANIZATIONS. OF COURSE\, \nREALLY BRINGING THIS TO THE \nSCALE\, I THINK WE ALL WOULD \nBENEFIT FROM AND REALLY WHAT WE \nNEED IS \nGOING TO NEED IS MORE FUNDING. \nTHERE IS A LOT TO START WITH AND \nMANY INVOLVED IN THIS SPACE \nWE’RE WORKING TOGETHER TO FOCUS \nON HOW WE CAN ORGANIZE OURSELVES \nAND POTENTIALLY EXPAND AND MEET \nTHE NEEDS OF THE REGION \nPROVIDING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. \nTHE REGULATORY ALIGNMENT SECTION \nIS FAIRLY SHORT BUT WE COMMIT \nTHE AGENCIES TO WORK TOGETHER \nAND WITH THE REGULATED COMMUNITY \nTO CONTINUALLY IMPROVE THE \nPERMITTING PROCESS TO FACILITATE \nMULTI-BENEFIT CLIMATE ADAPTATION \nPROJECT DELIVERY WHILE \nMAINTAINING IMPORTANT \nENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS\, AND \nFINALLY THE COORDINATION SECTION \nFOR COLLABORATIVE \nDECISION-MAKING DESCRIBES THE \nPROCESS AND FORUMS FOR \nCOLLABORATION AND \nDECISION-MAKING. AND IT’S WORTH \nNOTING\, THINGS CHANGE. WE KNOW \nTHINGS — THERE IS A LOT OF \nCHANGE IN THE WORLD. SO\, THE \nMOU DOESN’T SUPERSEDE OR CHANGE \nANY AUTHORITIES OR JURISDICTIONS \nOF INDIVIDUAL AGENCIES. IT \nDOESN’T LOCK US INTO THIS \nRELATIONSHIP MOVING FORWARD\, IT \nALLOWS FOR CHANGES TO OCCUR \nMOVING FORWARD. IT’S EXCITING \nTHE AGENCIES ARE COMMITTING TO \nREALLY KIND OF FIGURING OUT HOW \nTO SYNC OF AND ALIGN THESE \nEFFORTS AROUND THESE FUNCTIONS. \nNEXT SLIDE PLEASE. \nHERE IS A QUICK ROLES AT A \nGLANCE SUMMARY SHEET WE HAVE \nPREPARED THAT IDENTIFY THE PRIME \nENTITIES FOR THE DIFFERENCE \nFUNCTIONAL AREAS THE CORE AGENCY \nIS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM AND \nESSENTIALLY EVERYBODY’S INVOLVED \nIN EVERYTHING ON THIS NEXT \nSLIDE. SO WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? \nWHY DOES THIS MATTER? WELL\, WE \nHAVE NEVER DONE SOMETHING LIKE \nTHIS BEFORE IT’S INTRODUCING A \nCOORDINATED REGIONAL STRATEGY TO \nFUND AND DELIVER PROJECTS WHICH \nREALLY HASN’T BEEN UNDERTAKEN. \nIT IS SIGNIFICANT AND THERE IS A \nLOT OF WORK TO DO TO REALLY \nOPERATIONALIZE THIS BUT IT IS \nOUTLINING RULES AND \nRESPONSIBILITIES ACROSS \nFUNCTIONAL AREAS TO ACHIEVE \nTHESE SHARED GOALS. I THINK WE \nHAVE ALL BEEN WORKING ON THIS\, \nAND I THINK THIS IS A PRETTY BIG \nDEAL\, AND I’LL HAPPENED IT OVER \n— WE HAVE ONE MORE SLIDE? I \nTHINK THAT’S IT. THAT WOULD BE \nIT. OH\, YEAH\, I CAN HAND IT \nOVER TO JESSICA NOW. \n>>JESSICA FAIN: SORRY. IN CASE \nTHIS SOUNDS SOMEWHAT FAMILIAR TO \nYOU OR ANY OF THESE CONCEPTS\, IT \nREALLY SHOULD. MUCH OF THIS \nCOMES FROM THE BAY ADAPT JOINT \nPLATFORM THE CONSENSUS DRIVEN \nROADMAP FOR REGIONAL SEA LEVEL \nRISE ADAPTATION LED BY BCDC \nADOPTED IN 2021 THE MOU SPECIFIC \nCALLS OUT FOR EXAMPLE\, SOME OF \nOUR BAY ADAPT GROUPS LIKE THE \nIMPLEMENT BAY ADAPT \nIMPLEMENTATION COORDINATING \nGROUP OUR LEADERSHIP GROUP TO BE \nA FORUM THAT’S TO HELP MOVE THAT \nMOU FORWARD RELIES ON REGIONAL \nSHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN \nBACKBONE TO SUPPORT THAT BCDC IS \nPROVIDING TO HELP MOVE IT \nFORWARD AS L LASTLY THE MOU \nADVANCING SEVERAL OF BCDC’S \nSTRATEGIC PLAN GOALS NAMELY GOAL \nONE LEADING REGIONAL PLANNING \nEFFORTS THAT RESULT IN \nSUCCESSFUL EQUITABLE ADAPTATION\, \nGOAL TWO IMPROVING OUR \nREGULATORY PLANNING FUNCTION IN \nA UNIFIED REGIONAL SCALE \nAPPROACH AND GOAL THREE \nEMBEDDING EQUITY INITIATIVES AND \nPRACTICES THROUGH THE OUR \nPROGRAMS. NEXT SLIDE. \nSO\, OUR NEXT STEPS\, AS ALLISON \nMENTIONED\, EACH OF THE AGENCIES \nIS WORKING THIS THROUGH THEIR \nOWN SYSTEM WE LIKE TO BE FIRST \nLIKE ALL THINGS RELATED TO SEA \nLEVEL RISE\, PAVING THE WAY\, THEN \nTHE IDEA IS THAT THE BARC \nGOVERNING BOARD MEETING IN JULY\, \nHOPEFULLY THE FULL BOARD WILL \nAPPROVE THIS\, THEN THE HARD WORK \nBEGINS AS WE START TO REALLY \nDIVE INTO THE WORKPLAN THAT \nWE’RE DEVELOPING AND MOVING \nTHESE PIECES FORWARD. \nNEXT SLIDE. \nI’LL READ THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION AND THEN PERHAPS \nWE CAN OPEN IT UP FOR \nDISCUSSION. BUT\, WE’RE ASKING \nYOU TODAY TO AUTHORIZE THE \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO \nA MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING \nAMONG THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY \nCONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT \nCOMMISSION AND THE ASSOCIATION \nOF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS\, ALSO \nHOST SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY \nPARTNERSHIP\, THE BAAQMD\, THE BAY \nAREA REGIONAL COLLABORATIVE\, THE \nCALIFORNIA STATE COASTAL \nCONSERVANCY\, THE CALIFORNIA \nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION \nDISTRICT FOUR\, THE METROPOLITAN \nTRANSPORTATION COMMISSION\, AND \nTHE CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER \nQUALITY CONTROL BOARD\, SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY REGION. TO \nCOORDINATE EVERYDAYS TO ADDRESS \nTHE THREATS OF FLOODING AND SEA \nLEVEL RISE IN THE SAN FRANCISCO \nBAY AREA. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE \nTHANK ALL OF THE PRESENTERS. I \nWILL HAVE SOME REMARKS IN A \nBIT. \nDO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: NONE \nIN-PERSON AND NO HANDS RAISED\, \nCHAIR WASSERMAN. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. COMMENTS OR \nQUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? \nCOMMISSIONER JOHN-BAPTISTE? \n>>ALICIA JOHN BAPTISTE: THANKS \nCHAIR WASSERMAN\, AND THANKS TO \nALLISON AND STAFF FOR THE \nPRESENTATION. JUST WANT TO \nCONGRATULATE YOU ALL ON GETTING \nTO THIS POINT. I KNOW IT’S \nGOING TO BE COMPLEX TO FIGURE \nOUT HOW TO WORK ACROSS SO MANY \nDIFFERENT AGENCIES BUT HAVING A \nSHARED UNDERSTANDING OF WHO IS \nDOING WHAT AND WHAT THE PURPOSE \nIS IS INCREDIBLY HELPFUL AND I \nTHINK THIS IS GOING TO BE A \nVALUABLE TOOL. SO\, \nCONGRATULATIONS FOR THAT. I HAD \nONE SPECIFIC QUESTION THAT MAYBE \nALLISON CAN SPEAK TO. I NOTED \nIN THE WRITE-UP THAT YOU HAVE A \nLEAD IDENTIFIED FOR SEEKING AND \nSECURING FEDERAL FUNDING. I \nDIDN’T SEE ANY REFERENCE TO THE \nSAME THING ON THE STATE LEVEL. \nBUT THAT’S — I ASSUME THE \nPATHWAY THAT WE’LL NEED TO \nPURSUE AS WELL\, AND I WONDER IF \nYOU COULD SPEAK TO THE APPROACH \nTHAT’S PLANNED THERE? \n>>ALLISON BROOKS: YEAH. THAT’S \nA GREAT QUESTION. IT’S PART OF \nTHE COORDINATION THAT WE’RE \nDOING\, WHERE WE’RE HAVING A \nSUBCOMMITTEE OF THE KEY AGENCIES \nAROUND THE FUND-RAISING TO\, \nFIRST\, IDENTIFY — WE’RE GOING \nTO HAVE A LIST AND IDENTIFY ALL \nTHE ACTIVE FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES \nTHAT ARE COMING FORWARD\, AND \nTHROUGH OUR WORK TOGETHER AND \nCOORDINATION\, WE’LL IDENTIFY WHO \nTHE APPROPRIATE LEAD IS FOR A \nSPECIFIC GRANT OPPORTUNITY AS \nTHEY COME FORWARD BASED ON WHO \nIS BEST POSITIONED TO GO AFTER \nIT. AND THEN THROUGH THAT\, \nWE’LL IDENTIFY OPPORTUNITIES FOR \nJOINT PROPOSALS THAT MAY COME \nFORWARD. BUT\, REALLY\, I THINK \nIT’S HELPFUL TO JUST SAY WE’RE \nGOING TO START WITH THE COASTAL \nCONSERVANCY AS THE KIND OF MAIN \nENTITY. BUT THERE WILL BE \nOPPORTUNITIES WHICH WE RECOGNIZE \nFOR STATE GRANTS AND OTHERS \nWHERE ANOTHER APPLICANT CAN \nPROBABLY BETTER SUITED TO GO \nAFTER IT. SO\, THAT’S REALLY \nWHERE THE COORDINATION AND THE \nSYSTEM WE’RE SETTING UP TO \nREGULARLY BE ON TOP OF THESE \nOPPORTUNITIES WILL KICK N FOR \nSURE.   . \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: A QUESTION \nABOUT FINANCE. I’M REALLY \nPLEASED TO SEE THE DISCUSSION \nWITH INVESTMENT STRATEGY IN \nPLANNING\, NUMBER ONE\, BUT UNDER \nNUMBER TWO\, I HAVE A QUESTION\, A \nLOT OF THE DISCUSSION AS STAFF \nWAS JUST TALKING ABOUT\, IS ABOUT \nA LOT OF LANGUAGE IN HERE ABOUT \nSEEKING FUNDING FROM STATE \nGRANTS FEDERAL GRANTS AND \nREGIONAL SOURCES. WE HAVE \nTALKED MANY TIMES ABOUT THE \nPOTENTIAL FOR A REGIONAL — A \nREGIONAL BALLOT MEASURE\, LIKE \nMEASURE AA\, THAT WOULD BE \nSUBSTANTIALLY LARGER\, FINANCE \nADAPTATION\, I KNOW 2H DISCUSSES \nTHAT POTENTIAL\, BUT IT SAYS \nLEAVING INSTRUCT BE DETERMINED \nFOR THAT ITEM\, THAT IDEA IS \nCRITICAL THERE MAY BE ANALOGOUS \nIDEAS THAT ARE JUST NOT QUITE \nTHAT BUT SOMETHING ELSE CREATIVE \nALONG THOSE LINES. I WANTED TO \nASK WHY 2H IS LEFT UNRESOLVED \nAND WHETHER THIS MOU ADEQUATELY \nCAPTURED OTHER POTENTIAL \nCREATIVE FUNDING MECHANISMS? \nBECAUSE WE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO \nCOME UP WITH THOSE \nMECHANISMS. \n>>JESSICA FAIN: I CAN TRY TO \nANSWER THIS\, I DON’T THINK \nANYONE IS JUMPING TO LEAD THE \nFUNDING MEASURES AT THIS POINT\, \nAND CERTAINLY\, WOULDN’T WELL \nSUITED\, BCDC IS NOT GOING TO \nLEAD A REGIONAL FUNDING MEASURE \nFOR EXAMPLE\, MTC AND ABAG ARE \nOCCUPIED RIGHT NOW WITH OTHER \nBALLOT MEASURES INCLUDING \nHOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION WHICH \nHAVE RESILIENCY COMPONENTS AS \nWELL BUT AREN’T SPECIFIC ON THIS \nTOPIC. I THINK THIS IS \nIMPORTANT TO INCLUDE THIS IS A \nCONCEPT WE DON’T WANT TO LOSE \nIT’S KNOWN IT’S IMPORTANT TO BE \nDISCUSSED FOR A LONG TIME THAT \nWE’RE COMMITTING TO BUT I THINK \nTHERE IS MORE TO BE DONE IN \nTERMS OF FIGURING OUT EXACTLY \nTHE RIGHT LEAD ON HOW TO MOVE \nTHAT FORWARD. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ONE \nOF THE DIFFICULTIES IS THIS MOU \nIS REALLY AIMED AT THESE \nGOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND WHILE \nGOVERNMENT AGENCIES WERE \nINVOLVED IN AA\, THEY WERE NOT \nTHE LEAD AND THAT MAY BE THE \nCASE AGAIN. BUT WE WILL \nCERTAINLY BE VERY INVOLVED IN \nNOT ONLY THINKING ABOUT IT\, BUT \nMAKING SURE IT STAYS AT THE TOP \nOF EVERYBODY’S ATTENTION. \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nTHANK YOU. I WANT TO THANK \nJESSICA AND ALLISON AND ALL OF \nTHE AGENCIES. I HAVE BEEN \nFOLLOWING THIS AND VERY \nGRATIFIED TO SEE ALL THE \nPROGRESS IT’S MADE. I WANT TO \nOFFER A FURTHER THOUGHT ALONG \nTHE LINES THAT COMMISSIONER \nNELSON JUST OFFERED\, AND THAT \nIS\, I KNOW THE FOCUS HERE IS ON \nCOORDINATING GRANT APPLICATIONS \nFOR FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDING\, I \nTHINK IT’S ALSO IMPORTANT TO \nREALIZE THAT THE PRIVATE AND \nNON-PROFIT SECTORS WILL PLAY A \nROLE IN FUNDING IN THE KIND OF \nMITIGATION ACTIVITIES THAT WE’RE \nLOOKING FOR. AND SO WHILE IT \nDOESN’T TOTALLY FIT WITHIN THE \nGRID AND TABLE THAT WE SAW\, I \nTHINK THE AGENCIES\, AND BARC\, \nWANT TO CONSIDER IN THE FUTURE \nHOW WE WOULD INCORPORATE THE \nPRIVATE AND NGO SECT ON WERES \nWHO WILL INEVITABLY GET INTO THE \nPICTURE AND HOW WE LEVERAGE \nTHOSE DOLLARS ALONG WITH THE \nSTATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING. SO \nJUST WANTED TO THROW THAT INTO \nTHE POT FOR FUTURE \nCONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \nWANT TO JOIN IN THANKING \nEVERYBODY. WHEN I WAS INVOLVED \nIN A NUMBER OF DISCUSSIONS \nLEADING UP TO THIS MOU\, AND \nTHERE WAS INITIALLY A LOT OF \nSKEPTICISM\, NOT ABOUT DOING IT\, \nBUT HOW DIFFICULT IT WOULD BE\, \nOR NOT\, AND HOW QUICKLY WE COULD \nDO IT. AND I THINK WE ARE \nBEATING PEOPLE’S EXPECTATIONS. \nI SHARE JESSICA’S PRIDE IN OUR \nBEING FIRST AGENCY TO APPROVE \nIT\, AND I THINK IT WILL MOVE \nALONG WITH ALL OF THE AGENCIES\, \nBUT IN PART BECAUSE THIS CLEARLY \nWAS A COOPERATIVE EFFORT. NOT \nALWAYS WILLINGLY\, BUT EVERYBODY \nUNDERSTANDS THE IMPORTANCE OF \nDOING THIS AND TAKING THIS \nAPPROACH. AND A LOT OF THE \nFOCUS IS ON FINANCING\, BUT THE \nMOU GOES BEYOND THAT AND TALKS \nABOUT TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND \nMOVING TOWARDS IMPLEMENTATION. \nSO\, I WOULD — IF THERE ARE NO \nFURTHER QUESTIONS\, WELCOME \nSOMEONE MAKING THE MOTION TO \nAPPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION THAT \nWE AUTHORIZE OUR EXECUTIVE \nDIRECTOR. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: CHAIR \nWASSERMAN\, I BELIEVE YOU NEED TO \nCLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FIRST? \nNEVER MIND. I STAND CORRECTED. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: OKAY\, I WOULD \nLIKE TO MOVE THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND MOVES. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: SECOND. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: AND \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER SECONDS. \nIF THERE ARE NO COMMENTS\, SEER A \nPLEASE CALL THE ROLL. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: CAN I \nCONFIRM THAT WAS ECKLUND AND \nGUNTHER\, CORRECT? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: YES. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: THANK \nYOU. COMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: ECKLUND? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: AYE. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: GORIN? \n>>SUSAN GORIN: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: GUNTHER? \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: KIMBALL? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER LEFKOZITZ? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: MOULTON \nPETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nYES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nPEMBERTON? \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: AYE. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER PINE? \n>>DAVE PINE: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER RANDOLPH? \n>>SEAN RANDOLPH: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: ZEPEDA? \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER BEACH? \n>>JUSTINE BEACH: ABSTAIN. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: YOU \nCAN THROW IN A REGRETFUL. \n>>SPEAKER: VERY REGRETFULLY\, \nPERSONALLY SUPPORT. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: CHAIR \nWASSERMAN? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nVERY HAPPILY\, YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: A TOTAL \nOF 15 YESES\, ZERO NOS\, AND ONE \nABSTENTION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU\, ALL VERY MUCH. I \nAPPRECIATE THIS. I APPRECIATE \nYOUR ATTENTION AND EFFORTS\, AS \nALWAYS. \nAND WITH THAT\, I WOULD \nENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN \n>>PAT ECKLUND: I’LL MOVE TO \nADJOURN. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND MOVES TO \nADJOURN AND COMMISSIONER NELSON \nSECONDS. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: SO WE’RE ON OUR \nWAY NOW TO ABAG. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \n[LAUGHTER] \nIF THERE AREN’T NO OBJECTIONS \n\n \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs 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. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant 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. \nIf 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. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf 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. \nCampaign Contributions\nState 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. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings 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.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/may-16-2024-commission-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240502T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240502T170000
DTSTAMP:20240910T225726Z
CREATED:20240118T073133Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240910T225726Z
UID:10000096-1714654800-1714669200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:May 2\, 2024 Commission Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Commissioners are located at the primary physical location and may be located at the teleconference locations specified below\, all of which are publicly accessible. The Zoom video-conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually is also specified below. \nPrimary Physical Meeting Location \nMetro Center375 Beale St.\, Board RoomSan Francisco\, CA 94105415-352-3600 \nTeleconference Locations \n\n\nCNRA Building\, 715 P St.Sacramento\, CA 95814\n\n\n14265 Highway 128Boonville\, CA 95415\n\n\n176 E. Blithedale Ave.Mill Valley\, CA 94941\n\n\nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/89261651141?pwd=Yolo_X3i5Bj1zilCAN8pY22-povhGQ.U61iG35S8nb899rG \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID892 6165 1141 \nPasscode136595 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic 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]\nApproval of Minutes for April 18\, 2024 Meeting(Sierra Peterson) [415/352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing on Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Public Pathway Pilot ProjectThe Commission will receive a briefing from Caltrans and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) regarding the status of the four-year Public Pathway Pilot Project on Richmond-San Rafael Bridge originally authorized by BCDC Permit No. 1997.001.04. The briefing will include a report on the findings of the pilot project\, as well as proposed changes to the pilot being contemplated for a forthcoming permit amendment request.(Katharine Pan) [415/352-3650; katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov]Public comment letters // Presentation // Presentation // Additional Public Comments\nPublic Hearing and Vote on 505 East Bayshore Road Permit Application – POSTPONEDThe Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote on an application by Regis Homes Bay Area\, LLC\, to redevelop an approximately 2.54-acre industrial parcel with a new residential project consisting of 56 for-sale townhouses\, as well as shoreline public access and open space areas\, within the Bay and 100-foot shoreline band at 505 East Bayshore Road in the City of Redwood City\, San Mateo County.(Katharine Pan) [415/352-3650; katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov]\nSan Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District (OneShoreline) BriefingRepresentatives of OneShoreline\, the Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District working throughout San Mateo County\, will brief the Commission on its vision and plan for the future to build resilience to rising sea level.(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				This report lists the administrative permit applications that have been filed and are pending with the Commission. The Executive Director will take the action indicated on the matters unless the Commission determines that it is necessary to hold a public hearing. The staff members to whom the matters have been assigned are indicated at the end of the project descriptions. Inquiries should be directed to the assigned staff member prior to the Commission meeting. \nAdministrative Permit Applications and Federal Consistency Actions \n\nApplicants\n\n\n\nU.S. Army Corps of Engineers San Francisco District\, Regulatory Division450 Golden Gate Avenue\, 4th FloorSan Francisco\, CA 94102-3404 \n\n\nDe Minimis Determination for the MOTCO Large Object Relocation Project No. C2024.001.00 \n\n\n\nSubmitted\nJanuary 4\, 2024 (originally)\, with subsequent information submitted January 25\, 2024\, April 3\, 2024\, and April 9\, 2024\, and April 22\, 2024.\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Coastal Zone in subtidal waters near the Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO)\, south of Ryer Island and Roe Island\, in Suisun Bay. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nMOTCO has submitted a proposed project to relocate 25 submerged objects from a subtidal area at MOTCO that is planned for dredging\, to a different subtidal area that would be out of the path of boat traffic and strong currents. MOTCO located the objects using sonar and believes them to be pieces of ships sunk during the 1944 Port Chicago ammunition explosion disaster; therefore\, the objects are historical artifacts and are protected by the Sunken Military Craft Act. MOTCO has concluded that the activity would not result in significant direct or indirect coastal effects\, and qualifies as a de minimis activity under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). The CZMA requires that the state agencies review the de minimis activity proposed by the Federal agency\, and either concur with\, or object to the de minimis determination. If the State agency concurs with the Federal agency\, the activity will be excluded from further State agency review. If the State agency objects to the de minimis finding\, the Federal agency must provide the State agency with a negative determination or a consistency determination. \nOn March 15\, 2024\, BCDC staff issued a letter of disagreement with MOTCO’s de minimis determination. After further discussion\, MOTCO submitted additional information on the project and agreed to modify the project to include the submittal of project work plans and minimization measures for BCDC staff review and approval prior to undertaking the project. \n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\n\nWith this modification to the project\, BCDC staff agrees with MOTCO’s determination that the project will have insignificant direct or indirect (cumulative and secondary) coastal effects\, and thus is a de minimis activity. (Rowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov) \n\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Articles about the Bay and BCDC \nBay Area community members\, lawmakers push for funding to restore tidal marsh to help with flooding \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				Meeting recording \n\n \n\nMeeting transcript\n\nBoardroom SX80: Commission. \nBoardroom SX80: You were slow on that one. Commissioners\, if you are. \nBoardroom SX80: please unmute yourself to answer yes\, whether you’re here or participating virtually\, and then mute yourself. After responding\, Sierra\, will you please call the role? \nBoardroom SX80: May we first have our video played Felipe to insist? \nBoardroom SX80: Welcome to this meeting of the San Francisco Bay. \nBoardroom SX80: chair\, Wasserman here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner. Diego\, here\, Commissioner on we are \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Ambuel here\, Commissioner Eckerley. \nJenn Eckerle\, Commissioner: Here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eckland\, President\, Commissioner Joy. Here\, Commissioner Gun here. \nBoardroom SX80: oof. \nKarl Hasz\, Commissioner: Karen. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Hawes. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Kishimoto. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: Here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Nelson\, here Commissioner Pemberton. \nSheri Pemberton\, Commissioner: Here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Pine here \nBoardroom SX80: into the mic\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Here\, thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner. Pardon me\, Commissioner Ramos. \nBoardroom SX80: Here\, Commissioner Randolph\, here\, Commissioner\, show Walter here\, Commissioner Stefani. \nBoardroom SX80: Present. \nBoardroom SX80: Total. 17. Present. Malton Peters. Oh\, pardon me\, did I miss anyone? Commissioner Malton Peters? Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Total of 18 present chair Wasserman\, you have quorum. \nBoardroom SX80: We have a quorum and therefore can conduct business. \nBoardroom SX80: I wanna thank all of you for being here particularly. I wanna thank the people who have responded to my request that on some of our meetings roughly every every other month we get as many people as possible\, many commissioners as possible. Here in person there is a different sense\, a different ability to communicate. Zoom has given us some very wonderful things. It’s just not quite the same. \nBoardroom SX80: That brings us to item 3\, which is the public comment period. \nBoardroom SX80: This is the time when the public can comment on matters not on the agenda. \nBoardroom SX80: or where there has not been a hearing \nBoardroom SX80: to bring matters to our attention. So if you are here for either of the items on the agenda\, you should speak on those items. Submit your speakers cards. \nBoardroom SX80: physically or virtually \nBoardroom SX80: and for public comment period I will give each person 3 min. \nBoardroom SX80: Do we have any people for public comment\, not on agenda items. \nBoardroom SX80: We currently have 3 hands raised. Chair Wasserman. Go ahead and call them\, please\, Shawn Camden\, your first stop\, and I’m I hope\, Shawn\, I did let me before you start the timer. \nBoardroom SX80: Typically\, when we have people speak virtually. \nBoardroom SX80: we show the timer\, and that’s so that they know how much time there is. We have had some requests from people who wish to have their faces shown. \nBoardroom SX80: And I absolutely want to respect that. If you want that \nBoardroom SX80: say that we’ll do that\, and since the timer will not be shown to you\, we will have Sierra give you a 1 min and a 30 s warning. \nBoardroom SX80: Sean\, just to confirm. \nBoardroom SX80: Would you like to speak on this item? \nBoardroom SX80: No public comment. Currently\, chair Wasserman\, thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: So that brings us to item 4\, \nBoardroom SX80: which is approval of the minutes of our April eighteenth meeting. We have received copies of the minutes. \nBoardroom SX80: I would appreciate a motion to\, and a second to approve the minutes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Nelson moves Commissioner Gunther slightly slower on the trigger seconds. \nBoardroom SX80: Are there any comments or \nBoardroom SX80: changes to the minutes. \nBoardroom SX80: seeing none. Is there any opposition to approving the minutes. \nBoardroom SX80: or does anyone wish to abstain? \nBoardroom SX80: I see none. The minutes are approved. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: That brings me to my report. I’m going to try to be brief. I don’t always succeed at that. \nBoardroom SX80: First\, since Commissioner Eisen is out of the country and not available to participate. I have asked Commissioner Randolph to act as our vice chair for the meeting this afternoon\, and he has graciously agreed to do so. He has a fair amount of experience doing so. \nBoardroom SX80: Just as I thanked everybody for being here today\, or as many as possible. I want to remind you that we can’t do that at our next meeting it will be virtual because of construction going on in this meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: so that if you are going you you need to give the address that you’re going to be at \nBoardroom SX80: to Regina! \nBoardroom SX80: No\, to you. Sorry to Sierra. \nBoardroom SX80: I was trying to divide responsibilities\, and I did it wrong. \nBoardroom SX80: by \nBoardroom SX80: today or tomorrow \nBoardroom SX80: end of business today. Chair Wasserman end of business today. \nBoardroom SX80: So please send that to her. \nBoardroom SX80: So that we can properly post it. \nBoardroom SX80: hey? \nBoardroom SX80: On a \nBoardroom SX80: sad note\, and yet a celebratory one\, as you all know\, I believe\, Will Travis\, the longtime executive director of Bcdc. \nBoardroom SX80: Passed away last week. \nBoardroom SX80: I did not serve on this commission with Will as executive director. We missed each other by about 4 months. \nBoardroom SX80: But I knew him well before that\, and we talked a fair amount afterwards. \nBoardroom SX80: There is a tribute to him posted. \nBoardroom SX80: and I urge you to read it. He was most certainly one of the leaders and effective leaders of both protecting the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: but also thinking \nBoardroom SX80: proactively and creatively on the things that we need to do\, and not simply\, reactively. \nBoardroom SX80: He\, I think\, taught all of us a great deal. \nBoardroom SX80: He was \nBoardroom SX80: Strong in his beliefs. \nBoardroom SX80: and not shy about sharing them. \nBoardroom SX80: But he listened to people \nBoardroom SX80: as part of \nBoardroom SX80: the series of events that led me to becoming chair of this commission. Where there was some \nBoardroom SX80: significant differences between regulated \nBoardroom SX80: people\, both governments and and developers and others about what new \nBoardroom SX80: rules should apply as we adapt to rising sea levels. \nBoardroom SX80: He was very effective in shuttled diplomacy. \nBoardroom SX80: It was actually one of the \nBoardroom SX80: great examples I have seen of public negotiations which are often not easy\, because most of them\, albeit not all\, need to be conducted in in public. And he really did a superb job of that. \nBoardroom SX80: He understood people\, and he did listen\, but he was absolutely not afraid \nBoardroom SX80: to lead \nBoardroom SX80: others may wish to comment on him briefly. I don’t. We have a lot of speakers\, so I don’t wanna go on at great length\, but I. I wanna give people the opportunity because the number of people work with him much more than I did. And I will recognize the Dean in the sense of longer serving member. This commission\, John Joya. \nBoardroom SX80: I had a chance to serve with Trav. When I joined the Commission in 99\, when he was executive director through his retirement in 2011. So I just want to acknowledge one main point. \nBoardroom SX80: I think Trav\, more than anyone was really responsible for moving. This commission\, this agency toward addressing\, planning for sea level rise. Not just the work of the Bay Plan amendment which establish policies on sea level rise. \nBoardroom SX80: but really just ramping up the work. And it was really part of our planning function. I think our planners here are the lead sort of group of individuals as many but lead group of individuals in the Bay area who really work with local government\, state agencies and others and private sector to work on planning for resiliency. So I just wanted to acknowledge that point that really was Trav’s leadership\, to move the Commission to \nBoardroom SX80: into that. So instead of just dealing with a bay that was potentially going to get smaller back in the 19 sixties to dealing with the bay that was going to get larger. \nBoardroom SX80: So I just want to acknowledge that \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Nelson. I’m now gonna go around agree with everything the Chair and Commissioner Joy just said and all. I’ll add to that is that Trav was also\, and I worked with it for many years before I was on the Commission when I was before the Commission while I was an advocate on Bay issues. trav on top of everything that the chair and the Commissioner\, Commissioner Joyce said Trav was entrepreneurial\, smart and funny\, and a ton of fun to work with \nBoardroom SX80: Mr. Yaxley. Thank you very much for allowing me an opportunity to talk about Will Travis\, I started working with the US. Environmental\, US. Army corps of Engineers in 1 69\, \nBoardroom SX80: and we had a lot. The Army Corps of engineers had a lot to do with the formation of the Bcdc. Believe it or not\, but I really got to know him. When I moved over to the US. Environmental Protection Agency. I was in charge of the oceans and estuaries program for EPA. Region 9\, \nBoardroom SX80: and that’s where I really got to know and work with Will Travis on a lot of issues\, because obviously we were in the 301 H and 4. One permitting process and everything else. So we worked with Bcdc. And all the other State agencies \nBoardroom SX80: that were involved with water\, and one of the things that I would most admired about him is his willingness and his eagerness to listen to others and to try to solve problems. And he did it in a way that you never felt that you were being put down\, and you never felt like you weren’t part of the group\, and I really respected him for how he treated others\, even people that didn’t necessarily share his views. \nBoardroom SX80: So I really spent a lot of time working with him because of both the agencies. In fact\, my boss\, Jean Huggins. He was a director of public affairs for the US. Army Corps Engineers\, and that’s how I first got to to know about Bcdc. When it was formed in 69\, \nBoardroom SX80: and so\, and then really got to know him. And I was in charge of \nBoardroom SX80: oceans and water program for EPA. It’s \nBoardroom SX80: he was just a really neat guy\, and it’s really sad to see people pass away. But he left a legacy that he will always be remembered because of that. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, John. I. I had the privilege of working with Trav for almost 9 years as as chairman of the BC. DC. At the time\, and he was. \nBoardroom SX80: He was always incredibly professional\, incredibly supportive of the Commission \nBoardroom SX80: and of me. And he he had it felt like just the right balance in his focus on conservation and and development\, which is what what we’re about here in the end of the day. \nBoardroom SX80: And it was already pointed out that he was really the pioneer for us in Bcdc. And in the region among the agencies\, in focusing on sea level rise and adaptation at a time when it wasn’t really on the agenda. We know there were issues out there\, but there was no institutional focus\, and there was a gap\, and he. He led us into a leadership role in that. And. \nBoardroom SX80: as Chair Wasson has said\, it wasn’t an easy territory. There are conflicting interests\, just to say the least. But in the end\, when we did take that first step forward\, I think it was to amend the Bay plan. It was a unanimous support by what are otherwise contending camps. And so I think that was quite an achievement \nBoardroom SX80: to get us to that point. And I think it’s one reason why we’ve been especially diligent ever since then about making sure we had everybody on board with us across the region as we go forward. \nBoardroom SX80: He was a terrific leader for the commission\, and \nBoardroom SX80: he he was also really engaging and charming. He was a terrific person to all\, miss. \nBoardroom SX80: All right\, thank you all. \nBoardroom SX80: We will adjourn the meeting in his memory \nBoardroom SX80: online. I’m sorry none of the concerns on. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t think so. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t see any hands \nBoardroom SX80: all right. Our next meeting\, as I noted will be in 2 weeks. On May sixteenth it will be virtual. \nBoardroom SX80: and we expect that we \nBoardroom SX80: may take up the following matters. \nBoardroom SX80: a permanent application for Pg’s continuing operation and maintenance projects throughout the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: a permitted application for a development at 505 East Bay Shore in Redwood City. \nBoardroom SX80: an enforcement case in the city of Richmond\, and \nBoardroom SX80: a memorandum of understanding among various state and regional agencies\, to better organize how we will fund and manage adaptation to rising sea levels in the Bay Area. \nBoardroom SX80: That last one is going to be really important. I do urge you to attend the meeting\, albeit virtually \nBoardroom SX80: that brings us to ex parte communications. If you have received a communication that is not on record on a matter that we are going to adjudicate \nBoardroom SX80: you may report it now. If you have not reported it in writing\, you do need to report it in writing in any event\, and the portal is available to do that. \nBoardroom SX80: Does anybody wish to make any ex-party communication reports? \nBoardroom SX80: And when you say a matters are adjudicated\, obviously\, there’s an issue coming before us on a potential permit. So I’ve had conversations with \nBoardroom SX80: like organizations\, residents\, bare council Mtc. and residents for and against the even though we have no application before us\, and we’re not making any decisions\, but just to be transparent. \nBoardroom SX80: and I left out\, turning back to Commissioner Joy\, the environmental. No sorry \nBoardroom SX80: you can report on the elected task force. There was a meeting of the elected officials task force on. They adapt yesterday\, and Commissioner Joy\, who chairs that we’ll give a brief report. So just briefly\, yesterday\, you know\, we do have this. \nBoardroom SX80: a very good group of elected officials\, 2 per county around the Bay Area to really address from a local level. How we address sea level rise\, and the meeting yesterday had 2 great presentations about best practices that are currently out there. One from San Mateo County and and Supervisor director. Pyne\, was part of that presentation. \nBoardroom SX80: and one from Bryn County\, and supervisor and director\, Stephanie Moulton Peters was part of that so great to see the work that’s occurring\, and what we said we would do is collect best practices from counties around the Bay Area and communities around the Bay Area\, about how cities and counties and the community are working together to address sea level rise. So we’ll hear from other counties and other efforts. And we did get an update on the regional shoreline adaptation plan from BC. DC. Staff. \nBoardroom SX80: That was it? \nBoardroom SX80: It’s \nBoardroom SX80: any questions on that. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t have a question\, but I do have a comment. I watched the presentation yesterday\, and I have to tell you really impressed with what San Mateo has done? You’re a large county \nBoardroom SX80: and a lot of cities\, and just having worked with a lot of folks down there\, too\, when I worked for EPA. It is really a good effort. And again\, I wanted to also compliment Supervisor Peters\, too\, for initiating the action\, and we’re in \nBoardroom SX80: and and getting that going. And I’m very interested in following that. And that’s why I watched it. And I was just going. Wow! Go\, girl. Go\, girl. So\, anyway\, both. Thank you very much for your fantastic presentations. Yesterday and discussion. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Pat. \nBoardroom SX80: Just as of alert for future meetings. There will be a meeting of the Environmental Justice Working Group\, virtually on the morning of May sixteenth\, prior to our Commission meeting and a meeting of the sediment working group the following day on the seventeenth. \nBoardroom SX80: in the morning also\, virtually \nBoardroom SX80: Our executive director had a sudden\, not serious\, but needed attention. Medical \nBoardroom SX80: issuing his family. That is why he is not here. Steve Goldbeck\, our deputy director\, is here \nBoardroom SX80: to make a report to us. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, chair. I will keep the report very\, very short\, because the executive director didn’t have one for today. But he did want me to make an announcement that I am going to be retiring. \nBoardroom SX80: and it’s been a pleasure and an honor to work for the Commission and the bay since the eighties\, but it’s time to pass the torch. \nBoardroom SX80: and I won’t be leaving until the end of the fiscal year in a couple of months\, and maybe returning in some capacity\, perhaps\, as a retired annuitant\, so you may have to kick around for a while\, but in any event I wanted to thank you all\, and no need for any further speechifying right now. \nBoardroom SX80: So that’s my report. \nBoardroom SX80: We will have\, and time at future meetings to \nBoardroom SX80: Recognize Steve’s yeoman work for this agency\, and on behalf of the people of California and the people of this region and the people of the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Sir \nBoardroom SX80: Alright. That brings us to item \nBoardroom SX80: 7 \nBoardroom SX80: the consideration of administrative matters. We have been furnished\, a listing of them. \nBoardroom SX80: and regulatory director\, Harriet Ross\, is ready and willing to talk about any. If you have questions. Are there any public comments on administrative hearing matters? \nBoardroom SX80: Sean Camden\, is your public comment for this item for or for a current item. \nSean Camden: No\, it’s a general comment. \nBoardroom SX80: I\, it should have been done and open\, but but I’ll allow it. Go ahead. \nSean Camden: Oh\, okay\, I thank you. \nSean Camden: I I just wanna say that \nSean Camden: removing a multi use bath from the Richmond Santa Fe bridge would be a huge step backwards for the future of Bay Area transportation. \nSean Camden: And I also want to address some of the lies that I’ve heard people telling about the about the path. I don’t think I need to. \nBoardroom SX80: Shawn. This is direct towards item 8 will ask you to hold your comment until it’s for item 8. Carol. \nBoardroom SX80: No further public comment at this time. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: That does. And I assume I don’t see any commissioners on items on the \nBoardroom SX80: administrative listing \nBoardroom SX80: that brings us to item 8. \nBoardroom SX80: A briefing and discussion regarding the status of the four-year public pathway pilot project on Richmond\, San Rafael Bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: originally authorized by the Commission several years ago as a permitting matter. The briefing presented by Caltrans and the Bay Area Toll authority will include a report on the findings of the pilot project as well as proposed changes to the pilot being contemplated for a vote by Adam\, the Toll authority later this year. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m sorry. Later this month \nBoardroom SX80: the Commission can expect a permit amendment request to be forthcoming after that is deliberations. \nBoardroom SX80: So \nBoardroom SX80: I want everybody to be clear in the public. I know there’s a lot of public interest in this. \nBoardroom SX80: we are not taking action today. We will not take action until after \nBoardroom SX80: the agency that has actually authority over it \nBoardroom SX80: takes an action and then seeks our approval of a permit or modification to a permit\, as the case may be\, but because we know this is an item of importance \nBoardroom SX80: we are. This is on the agenda for people to talk\, but I want the public in particular to understand we are not acting today \nBoardroom SX80: because it’s not timely for us to do so. We are a permitting agency. \nBoardroom SX80: We are not the sponsors of this project \nBoardroom SX80: shoreline development program manager. Kathryn Pan will introduce the briefing. \nBoardroom SX80: Do we have an estimate of the number of hands raised who wish to speak on this? If you do wish to speak\, you’ve submitted a card already. We’re counting you \nBoardroom SX80: Guess on virtual hands the current count is 24\, and climbing all right. I’m going to ask you to do 2 things\, please for the public speakers. One. Reduce your time to 2 min. \nBoardroom SX80: and second. \nBoardroom SX80: please try not to be repetitive. If if you simply want to come up and demonstrate that you’ve made the effort to come here\, or the effort to be on virtually and supporting what others people said. You can say that briefly\, and and and I don’t want to restrict what anybody says. Say what you wish to. But in respect for people’s time\, including the members of the public. I would ask you not to be repetitive. \nBoardroom SX80: With that \nBoardroom SX80: Take it away\, Katherine. \nBoardroom SX80: Alright. Well\, thank you. Chair Wasserman. Good afternoon\, Commissioners. I’m Katherine Pan\, the Shoreline development program manager at Bcdc. And I’ll be introducing this item\, which is a briefing on the Richmond San Rafael Bridge access improvement pilot project. \nBoardroom SX80: A staff report on this briefing was shared with you on April 20 sixth\, including a copy of Bcdc. Permit number 9\, 97\, 0 0\, one Amendment 4 and a written report from Caltrans and the Bay Area Toll authority or data detailing the information that will be presented today. \nBoardroom SX80: I’ll summarize some of the highlights of the staff report to provide the regulatory context for the project before passing things over to Cal Transambada\, who will provide a status report on the project \nBoardroom SX80: and just to situate you. Here’s a regional map of the project location. The Richmond San Rafael Bridge spanned San Francisco Bay between Marin and Contra Costa counties. It is owned by Caltrans\, and managed in partnership with data. A sister agency of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission\, or Mtc. \nBoardroom SX80: The bridge is a segment of Interstate 5\, 80\, and is a designated segment of the Bay Trail. \nBoardroom SX80: The Bridge Access Improvement Pilot Project was a four-year pilot to evaluate the use of the shoulder on the westbound upper deck of the bridge\, as a full-time separated class\, one multi-use pathway and the shoulder of the eastbound lower deck as a peak hour\, third vehicle Travel Lane\, and that was approved by the Commission in September 2016\, as part of a material amendment number 4 to permit number 9\, 7 0 0 1. \nBoardroom SX80: That permit was originally issued in 90 97\, to authorize the seismic retrofitting of the bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: At the time of the original permit. There was no bicycle or pedestrian access on the bridge\, although it was already designated as a proposed bay trail segment by the Bay trail project \nBoardroom SX80: when considering the project\, the Commission heard from many community members advocating for bicycle and pedestrian connection across the bridge\, and the findings of the original permit\, stated that providing bicycle and pedestrian access was desirable\, and would maximize the public access benefits of the retrofit retrofit project. \nBoardroom SX80: However\, the Commission also found that there was a need for further study as to whether this kind of access could be provided safely that could not be accommodated by the urgent timing of the project. Therefore the original permit did not include any special conditions to require bicycle and pedestrian access across the bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: Instead\, the Commission decided to work with Caltrans to complete the necessary studies and the permit findings document that Caltrans voluntarily committed to using its best efforts to study the feasibility of providing non-motorized public access on the bridge\, and if such access was found to be feasible that it would ensure that it was provided \nBoardroom SX80: nearly 20 years later. In 16\, the pilot project followed from the series of studies and commissioned briefings and discussions stemming from that commitment which are further detailed in the Staff Report. \nBoardroom SX80: Material Amendment number 4 authorized 2 elements of the pilot project\, as well as some other permanent access improvements on the approaches to the bridge that were not part of the pilot on the eastbound lower deck of the bridge. The pilot involved the use of a 4 mile long segment of the shoulder as a vehicle travel lane during peak commute hours\, and this part of the pilot opened in 2\,018. \nBoardroom SX80: On the westbound upper deck of the bridge. The pilot involved a 4 mile long\, 10 foot wide\, 2 way. Class\, one accessible public pathway\, as well as a 42 inch tall\, 18 inch wide\, movable barrier to separate the path from vehicle traffic\, also safety railing and signage and usage instrumentation. \nBoardroom SX80: And this part of the pilot opened in 2019. \nBoardroom SX80: The purpose of piloting these uses of the shoulders was to seek a means of reducing congestion and travel time in the eastbound direction and providing pedestrian and bicycle facilities across the bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: Caltrans intended to evaluate the performance and usage\, to determine whether they should be made permanent. \nBoardroom SX80: The special conditions of the amended permit required. Caltrans provide a written and verbal report to the Commission on the status of the public pathway\, including\, but not limited to\, an analysis of public usage and benefits and assessment of any operational and safety issues\, and the need for any future changes to the facilities\, including removal or making them permanent. \nBoardroom SX80: This briefing and the written report attached to the staff report are intended to fulfill this requirement. \nBoardroom SX80: So at this point I’d like to introduce Larry Bonner of Cal trans. And Lisa Klein of Bada\, and invite them to provide their status. Report. \nBoardroom SX80: Right? Thank you\, Catherine. Good afternoon. My name is Larry Bonner. I’m the Cal Trans. District for Office Chief for the Office of environmental analysis. And I’m here today with Lisa Klein\, the Bay Area Toll authority section director for field operations and asset management \nBoardroom SX80: to chair Wasserman and the commissioners. First of all\, I just want to say\, thank you for the opportunity to provide an update on the pilot today and for considering next steps\, data and Cal. Trans. Are proud of this work and appreciate the commission support of the pilot which permitted the innovative uses of the shoulders on the Richmond Stanford bridge \nBoardroom SX80: data. And Cal trans. Acknowledged BCD. C’s long history of advocating for access in this corridor. We want to assure you that we take this very seriously. \nBoardroom SX80: We are pleased to provide this report and presentation today\, and acknowledge that this is a little later than we had anticipated. But Covid was not part of our original plan\, and it was important to let the post covid usage patterns abate in order to provide accurate findings and make recommendations. \nBoardroom SX80: Lisa and I will be presenting updates and results of the pilot project on the Richmond Santa File Bridge. Along with some recommendations for the future \nBoardroom SX80: for today’s presentation\, we will cover the following 3 topics\, an overview and recap of the project itself. \nBoardroom SX80: the findings and results from the project’s pilot study efforts\, and then we will conclude with\, recommend the next steps in a proposal for the pilot\, based on the current results and findings \nBoardroom SX80: and 14 data\, took responsibility for funding and implementing the Richmond San Rafael Bridge Access Improvement Pilot Project undertaken in partnership with Caltrans. The transportation authority of Marin and the Contra Costa transportation authority with the combined goals to address traffic congestion and provide bicycle and pedestrian access to and across the bridge. This was undertaken to be consistent with the core strategies in the planned bar area 2050\, including the Bay trail\, build out \nBoardroom SX80: the project partners committed to a 4 year pilot that in April of 2018 converted the lower deck\, emergency shoulder to a part time. Third travel Lane followed in November of 2019\, with the conversion of the upper deck emergency shoulder to a full time. 10 foot\, multi-use\, bicycle\, and pedestrian path. \nBoardroom SX80: Note for the sake of clarity\, please\, that the shoulder on the upper deck has not been used as a travel lane since the 1970 S. And in no part of this pilot or in the recommendations we will discuss today. Are we proposing to use this shoulder on the upper deck as a travel lane. \nBoardroom SX80: The pilot project was designed for 2 main purposes. The purposes of this project were to provide pedestrian and bicycle access along the Interstate 5 80\, which achieved the Bay trail connections between the East Bay and Marin County through the multi-use path on the upper deck of the Richmond Santa Fe Bridge\, and to reduce congestion\, congestion. Excuse me\, and travel time on Eastbound I. 5 80\, over the Richmond Santa trail Bridge through the part-time third travel lane on the lower deck of the bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: In addition\, the pilot project provided for several permanent improvements\, including permanent trail connections for bicyclists and pedestrians in Richmond and San Rafael\, and permanent traffic improvements through the widening on the bridge approaches. \nBoardroom SX80: as mentioned in the previous slide. In addition to the pilot project\, improvements built\, monitored\, and still under study\, the project implemented\, implemented non-pilot\, permanent improvements and connections to existing trails and landmarks on each ends of the bridge to remote connectivity in support of the goals of the Plan Bay Area 50 plan. \nBoardroom SX80: On the contrary\, Costis County side. The project installed a class\, one bidirectional path for bicycles and pedestrians\, separated from automobile traffic by a permanent concrete barrier along the north side of Westbound I 5 80 from the tewkesbury Standard Avenue\, intersection\, near Point Richmond\, to Stenmark Drive\, near Point Milate. \nBoardroom SX80: This replaced the existing one-way class\, 2 bicycle lanes that were on both eastbound and westbound i. 5\, 80. \nBoardroom SX80: On the Marin County side the project widened a 10 foot sidewalk to provide for a bi-directional path for bicyclists and pedestrians along East Francisco boulevard in the city of San Rafael. In addition. \nBoardroom SX80: there is an ongoing construction project to finish. The remaining sidewalk widens that will further close the gap between the multi-use path on the Bridgeman Bridge\, and the connections to Sir Francis Drake\, Boulevard Anderson Drive and connections to the Bay trail. \nBoardroom SX80: Throughout the pilot period. Mtc. And data\, also implemented initiatives to encourage bike commutes across the bridge they partnered with local organizations and coalitions for guided group rides\, which which included options to try ebikes and bike education and safety demonstrations. They also started an ebay commute program that provided discounts on ebay purchases for qualified applicants. \nBoardroom SX80: As Catherine summarized in the beginning for you all\, and as detailed in the Staff Report\, Bcdc. Has a long history regarding access in the corridor and the permit reflects that. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you all now I’ll turn it over to Lisa Klein. \nBoardroom SX80: Good afternoon\, thank you\, Larry. I’m going to pivot now to the pilot. Study results. The evaluation of the pilot was conducted by Uc. Berkeley partners for advanced transportation technology\, and I’m going to call them Uc. Berkeley Path for short. And it was a data driven evaluation that addresses the areas identified in the Permit amendment. \nBoardroom SX80: The evaluation includes 2 reports\, the phase\, one report was issued in the summer of 2022. It’s included in full in your board packet\, and\, as you might suspect\, and as Larry acknowledged\, much of the data in that report reflects the Covid period. \nBoardroom SX80: The phase 2 report adds data through this spring\, you know very current data\, and it’ll be published in a couple of weeks. We do have some preliminary results from that phase. 2 report. And we’ve included those in the summary memo in your board packet. And that’s what I’ll be focused on in my presentation today. \nBoardroom SX80: So I’m going to very quickly run through the findings on the lower deck pilot first\, because I suspect there’s going to be more interest in discussion on the upper deck path. \nBoardroom SX80: So the results for the lower deck\, finding the lower deck pilot\, are really quite clear. The project has been very\, very well received by the public as well\, really\, as soon as it opened the that part time Lane essentially eliminated the eastbound congestion on the bridge\, and it now saves East Bay commuters between 14 and 17 min on their return trip home in the evening. \nBoardroom SX80: We’ve also seen some reductions on the traffic on local streets\, and we’ve seen reduction in the traffic incidents or crashes\, and we also find that drivers are generally following the rules around part time\, part time use\, and you know\, not driving in it when it’s\, in fact\, a shoulder \nBoardroom SX80: when it comes to the upper deck. Honestly\, the results here are far more mixed. And this is true both of the data I’ll share with you and of the public reaction to the pilot. \nBoardroom SX80: We have\, I believe\, demonstrated that public access is important\, and the path is is quite well used\, especially on weekends. At the same time we’ve seen some puzzling data emerging related to traffic incidents or crashes in these phase 2 findings. And we believe that this suggests trying something a little different to see what more we can learn \nBoardroom SX80: data\, and all of the partners\, and Cal\, trans. And all of you\, I believe\, have heard very\, very strong opinions that support keeping the path\, and very strong opinions that support removing the path\, and also strong opinions regarding use of the upper deck shoulder as a third traffic lane\, and I just want to reiterate\, as Larry noted the beginning\, that that is beyond the scope of this pilot decision. \nBoardroom SX80: The shoulder\, because it has not been a travel lane for decades requires an entirely different analysis. It requires a full environmental review. Data and Cal Trans are embarking on some analysis at the direction of the Bata Board. But it’s not something we’re asking Bcdc. To consider. Now\, there’s quite a bit more work to be done. \nBoardroom SX80: There is a lot of data in the evaluation\, and I’m going to focus on a few key areas in my presentation. I’ll start with path usage and safety. \nBoardroom SX80: So the daily usage on the path is about 2 and a half times higher on weekends than weekdays. This means essentially that the number of people using it over a weekend is about the same as the number of people using it over the work week. \nBoardroom SX80: On average\, there are 360 bicycle trips per day on a Saturday or a Sunday and 140 trips on a weekday. \nBoardroom SX80: and there is quite a bit of seasonal variation. For example\, on Saturdays\, in the summer the average is closer to 500 trips total. That day \nBoardroom SX80: someone did ask me the other day about traffic volumes on the bridge\, and those average about 35\,000 vehicles a day on the upper deck. \nBoardroom SX80: on the \nBoardroom SX80: on the use of the path. The majority of trips\, about 85% are recreational\, based on surveys that were conducted in the evaluation. So over the course of a week that would be about 1\,200 recreational trips and about 200 commute trips \nBoardroom SX80: when it comes to safety. Those who use the path have rated it say they feel quite safe and comfortable\, using it\, giving it an 8 out of 10 rating. \nBoardroom SX80: All right. There’s been a lot of attention\, and some\, I think\, perhaps\, confusion about traffic congestion. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s true that over the past decade or so the congestion in this corridor has has grown considerably. When we look more closely at the recent data\, however\, the regular congestion patterns are not really that different today than they were before the past. \nBoardroom SX80: before the path. And the pilot \nBoardroom SX80: that’s illustrated by this graph. Here on the right\, we call this a heat map it shows when and where traffic speeds are slowest during the morning commute. \nBoardroom SX80: and it’s really good for looking at what I’ll call regular congestion patterns\, but it doesn’t really do a good job of capturing the experience when there are incidents or crashes\, and I’ll come back to that in a moment. \nBoardroom SX80: The upper half of this colorful chart here shows 2019 conditions\, and the lower half shows 2023\, and you can see that the patterns of red and red showed speeds. They’re really quite similar. \nBoardroom SX80: And that’s even though the traffic today is about 90% of the volumes that use the bridge in in 2\,019 before Covid. \nBoardroom SX80: The red indicates very slow speeds\, less than 35 miles per hour\, and the pink is up to 55 miles per hour. \nBoardroom SX80: The width of the graph correlates with geography. So if you start on the right point d that letter D\, there in Richmond correlates with Regatta Boulevard Point C. Is Stenmark. Drive right about at the Toll Plaza\, and then Point B is Sir Francis Drake Boulevard in Marin. \nBoardroom SX80: and then the height of each graph represents the hours during the morning. So if you look at the 2023 graph on the bottom\, you can see that the typically that congestion shown in red starts a little after 6 Am. And it’s very\, very close to the Toll Plaza \nBoardroom SX80: between 7 and 8 Am. It backup grows to or grew. This is 2023 to Regatta Boulevard\, and then it decreases over the course of the morning and kind of dissipates there a little bit after about 10 Am. \nBoardroom SX80: And compared to 2019\, the backup in 2023 was about a quarter of a mile longer\, and it also dissipated about 15 min earlier. \nBoardroom SX80: So it’s very\, very similar. Again\, this is regular commute traffic\, not really reflecting incidents\, and I think it’s worth acknowledging that \nBoardroom SX80: an incident probably generates much slower speeds on the bridge. The speeds on the bridge are shown in the big pink box. I forgot to mention that \nBoardroom SX80: so probably generate much more slower speeds on the bridge\, and perhaps more backup enrichment. I think that’s probably more likely what people remember. \nBoardroom SX80: So I’m gonna turn now to incidents\, and this is a place where the data leaves us frankly\, with more questions than answers. You know. Honestly\, it’s harder than we’d like\, probably to correlate incidents and congestion\, and we do have a lot of information on on incidence and incident rates. So the phase 2 findings suggest that incident rates overall are down about 15 to 20% over the course of the day\, but they’re up about 20 to 30 Morning Peak. \nBoardroom SX80: and that’s of interest to us\, because the peak is when incidents are likely to cause the most backup and the most headaches for commuters. \nBoardroom SX80: So on the left of this chart in the blue and red there. The slide shows that the increase in incident rate\, you know\, in incidence incident rates gone up in the morning. It’s largely in collisions that are rear ends or side swipes. \nBoardroom SX80: and those are the most common types of incidents. So that’s perhaps not surprising. \nBoardroom SX80: On the right\, in the green and orange. The data shows that the increase in incidents are mostly the kind of incidents where there’s no reported injury as opposed to incidents where there’s a serious injury or fatality. \nBoardroom SX80: So \nBoardroom SX80: I spend a little bit more time on this topic. \nBoardroom SX80: as you guessed\, the time that it takes for emergency responders to get to an incident really makes a difference. Not only have incident rates increased during the morning peak\, but the UC. Berkeley Path study also found\, it may be taking longer to respond to them. \nBoardroom SX80: And response times can really range a lot from\, say\, less than 5 min to 30 or 40 min. Or\, you know\, really\, you know\, really extreme incident even longer than that \nBoardroom SX80: today\, the average is 16 min to respond. And that’s compared to about 13 min before the pilot\, and I’ll acknowledge that sounds very small\, and you’re probably wondering why do we care if it’s a small change\, and I’d say we care\, because each minute of delayed response to an incident multiplies traffic by a factor of 4. \nBoardroom SX80: And this creates more uncertainty about travel times\, and that’s really can be a big deal when you got to get to work on time. \nBoardroom SX80: So \nBoardroom SX80: I’m going to\, you know\, kind of briefly recap the findings here and then talk about our proposed next steps. \nBoardroom SX80: The results for the lower deck part Time Lane are very clear and very positive in terms of addressing the purpose of the project relieving congestion\, and as I just discussed\, results for the upper deck path are much less clear. I do think we’ve really demonstrated the importance of access on this bay trail segment\, especially on weekends. \nBoardroom SX80: While there’s no increase in the regular congestion. There is some kind of thought-provoking data when it comes to weekday incidents\, and we would really like to try something different. So we can learn more. \nBoardroom SX80: And that brings me to our proposal\, which is graphically summarized on this slide. This is the Bat and Cal trans proposal\, and it’s still subject to board approval. As the chair mentioned in his introductory remarks. \nBoardroom SX80: we are proposing to make the lower deck part Time Lane permanent a permanent condition as it is\, and we are proposing to extend the pilot with some modifications on the upper deck to answer the questions raised by the data and to better understand the role of an emergency shoulder. Specifically\, we’re proposing to retain the multi-use path on days where there is less commute traffic. \nBoardroom SX80: restore the shoulder on other days of the week\, and run a bike shuttle when that space is functioning as a shoulder\, the shuttle service operations and the days that we would provide the path. We’re still working those out. To be honest. \nBoardroom SX80: I think you know\, weekends and Fridays and holidays are good candidates for the path. We may even be able to open the path midday\, Thursday as and we’ll be reviewing the traffic and operations on that. You know. If we could do that we’d really have an extension. That was about half time\, a path and half time a shoulder \nBoardroom SX80: we are proposing to extend through the end of 2025\, and it might actually possibly we might possibly ask for a longer extension that would really depend on the start date. How quickly we can get in front of you. For a permanent amendment\, or\, if we need a little additional time for for proper evaluation. \nBoardroom SX80: So let me just clarify what we’re trying to achieve with this proposal. The first is\, it really allows us to learn more about this. \nBoardroom SX80: this constrained real estate on the bridge\, and how it operates while we keep the bay trail segment open and the times it’s most used. It allows us to get more data on safety and operations with the emergency shoulder open on weekdays\, and it allows us a better understanding of access. I’m curious\, really\, whether we would attract some different bay trail users with a shuttle service. \nBoardroom SX80: and it allows us to take a closer look at equity. The demographics and equity considerations of users was not something in the current\, and the original scope for the Uc. Berkeley path\, and we think this is worth spending some time on. I think it’s important when you think about the variability in congestion due to incidents in the morning. \nBoardroom SX80: and it also allows us to continue working on projects such as the Richmond San Rafael\, forward\, that will make the approach to the bridge and Richmond work better\, and speed up transit and carpools in the corridor. \nBoardroom SX80: and before I wrap up I’m just gonna spend a minute on the Richmond. Sandra fell forward projects. These are fully funded projects that will move us toward a multimodal corridor\, and we believe they will alleviate but not not eliminate\, congestion in in Richmond. \nBoardroom SX80: Probably the most impactful of these projects. The biggest is the open road tolling and H. Ov lane extension that would open by the end of 2025. And this project will do 2 things. It will remove the toll booths at the plaza\, and it will streamline traffic through the plaza to reduce the slowdown that happens when the merging\, you know\, right now the plaza \nBoardroom SX80: sort of wows out to 7 lanes\, and then it goes back to a few lanes to get on the bridge\, so it’ll streamline that traffic \nBoardroom SX80: it’ll also provide an HOV. Lane\, extension for carpools and buses through the through Richmond. \nBoardroom SX80: We’re also working with A/C. Transit and Golden Gate transit to install\, transit signal priority on cutting Boulevard\, and we expect to make some improvements to the Richmond Parkway interchange by 2026 that will help with some of the local congestion and the traffic diversion. \nBoardroom SX80: And then in parallel. Although not shown on this slide\, Cal Transambada are looking at the ability to use the upper deck shoulder on the bridge as a carpool lane\, potentially in conjunction with a part time path\, and\, as I mentioned earlier that really requires a full environmental review process. And it’s not the subject of our the item before you today. \nBoardroom SX80: This is my last slide. So in terms of next steps\, we’re certainly very interested to hear your thoughts and questions today. \nBoardroom SX80: Our first step\, though\, before we can come back to you for a formal action is first to ask data to authorize staff. That’s me to pursue the proposal\, and we’ll be making an initial presentation to Bada committee in next week\, and then we’ll be seeking approval from the full authority at the end of the month. \nBoardroom SX80: Second\, we need to really define the the parameters of the modification. Like the days of the week\, the bike shuttle operations\, and work more closely with Bcd. Staff on the best approach to the permit\, particularly with respect to the lower deck. And then\, third\, we would submit a formal request for amendment for your consideration at a later meeting. So thank you very much for your attention\, and we look forward to your discussions after \nBoardroom SX80: I’m Katherine closes this out. \nBoardroom SX80: So thank you for that presentation\, and I also wanted to note that the current permit specifically prohibits the alteration or removal of the facilities without a permit amendment. And so in this sort of weird space where the authorization for the pilot project has run out before the next amendment comes in. Caltrans has submitted a request for a non-material \nBoardroom SX80: time extension to extend that authorization for the existing pilot as is to get them some time to like\, finish up their proposal\, finish up their valuation\, and come back in with a material amendment request later this year. \nBoardroom SX80: So at this point it seems worthwhile to share the legal and policy bases for how a future proposal for the pilot will be analyzed. So first\, as always\, it’s important to remember that section 6\, 6\, 6\, 0 2. The Mcatir Petrus Act finds that existing public access to the shoreline and waters of the San Francisco Bay is inadequate\, and that maximum feasible public access consistent with the proposed project should be provided \nBoardroom SX80: the Bay Plan further expands on this in particular in its public access policies\, and also includes a section of transportation policies and findings that are relevant to this case and to paraphrase transportation policies one and 4 require the Commission to encourage the development of alternative modes of transportation and to include pedestrian and bicycle paths in transportation projects on bridges over the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: and these are based on findings that primary reliance on single occupant vehicles for transportation in the Bay area results in further pressures to use the bay as a route for future roadways and bridges\, and that pressure to fill the bay can be reduced by providing safe and convenient public pathways for non-motorized forms of travel. \nBoardroom SX80: So\, before closing\, I’d like to offer some questions for the Commission to consider in your discussion. A staff appreciates any insights or direction you’re able to provide. In response to these questions\, as we prepare to return with the permit ease later this year with their amendment request. This first question is related to the conditions of the permit\, and simply asks whether the Commission believes that there is sufficient information at this time to remove the improvements\, make them permanent\, or propose an alteration \nBoardroom SX80: for the second question. Knowing that the Permity plans to request an amendment to the permit for a modified pilot project. What information would the Commission like to be included in the application and or the staff analysis to support a determination of whether the proposed modifications are appropriate \nBoardroom SX80: for the third question. At the conclusion of the pilot\, including any extended or modified version of the pilot\, what information should be provided to support a determination of whether non motorized public access is feasible on the bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: and lastly\, at the conclusion of the pilot\, what information should be provided to support a determination of whether any proposed permanent project would be providing the maximum feasible public access on the bridge consistent with that project\, and with that thank you very much for your attention to this presentation staff\, and the permities are happy to answer any clarifying questions you may have. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair was\, I would just like to make a short statement. I just wanted to remind everyone that this is an informational briefing\, and that this may come before us for a permanent amendment\, as you’ve heard. Therefore\, I just wanna state that now is not the time to state support or opposition to something that may come before us for a permanent amendment\, and that general comments and concerns that don’t state how you would vote on a permanent amendment are okay. \nBoardroom SX80: and that the focus should be on responding to these 4 questions that Staff has posed. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you for that. I’m \nBoardroom SX80: going to start with questions for clarification from the Commissioners. \nBoardroom SX80: and then we’ll go to public comment. I’m going to start with Commissioner Joy. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Thanks for the presentations. And as someone who lives in Richmond and represents the area. That’s the approach to the bridge\, and I’ve been both a driver in my car on the bridge and a biker across the bridge. So I’ve experienced the enjoyment of biking the frustration of delays. So I understand. I think the dynamics of this. \nBoardroom SX80: I do. I do have a number of questions that will help us later to determine. You know what \nBoardroom SX80: and answer the Commission questions\, but one of them deals with air quality studies that you may do\, and I wanted to get Greg Nudd before he leaves\, I think\, and then I’ll have Lisa come up. Greg. Greg has to is a senior official at the air district. And and as Greg comes up because I I think part of it is. \nBoardroom SX80: you know\, what are we gonna ask for in the study. And I know you’re gonna be doing air quality analysis. We’ll ask as an air district member\, that’s an issue that’s been raised. I do wanna make. I I do think it’s important to clarify cause. There’s a lot of good information and not so accurate information that’s out there in the public about all of this potential proposal\, and I know it’s clear that there’s no proposal to make this lane a \nBoardroom SX80: vehicle lane for cars\, potentially an HOV transit lane\, but not just a vehicle lane and a lot of the comments we hear. I think people think it’s gonna be turned into a Vehicle Lane. Then there’s this stuff going around that the bike lane has caused more air pollution which hasn’t happened. I just wanted but I wanted to understand\, Greg. \nBoardroom SX80: so can you just comment about air pollution impacts so far. And then if part that’s part one and part 2\, if we were to ask as they do studies. What kinds of studies would make sense? It sounds like the alternatives you’re looking at. I mean\, using it as a shoulder\, using it as an HOV. Transit lane have different implications for congestion and air quality. \nBoardroom SX80: But just so I know you had to leave\, so I wanted to ask you that before going back to Mtc. Sure\, I’ll keep it brief right now. We don’t have any evidence that the bike lane is causing greater air pollution. In Richmond. \nBoardroom SX80: The data that we see is consistent with what we see near every freeway in the Bay area\, where there is significant increases in air pollution in the mornings. But that’s typical of pretty much every freeway in the Bay Area \nBoardroom SX80: in terms of things to consider when you are doing an air quality\, evaluation of a traffic improvement project. \nBoardroom SX80: You want to look at the types of vehicles that are traveling. You want to look at. By that I mean light duty vehicles versus diesel trucks. \nBoardroom SX80: You want to look at vehicle speeds before and after\, and you want to look at total vehicle throughput before and after \nBoardroom SX80: What we are finding recently is because light duty\, vehicle\, tailpipe emissions are so low. \nBoardroom SX80: Congestion isn’t really an issue for light Dv vehicles from an air quality standpoint. Obviously\, it’s an issue from a quality of life standpoint\, and it can be an air quality issue if it causes traffic to back up on surface streets\, especially if there’s Diesel vehicles in that traffic. Mix \nBoardroom SX80: the thing to be careful about\, though\, is induced demand\, and if you \nBoardroom SX80: make some modifications that end up having greater throughput through the area you can actually see increases in particulate matter\, even though the congestion is lower. So it’s a little bit of a different framework than what we’re used to dealing with in terms of congestion\, and that really has to do with having a better first of all having cleaner cars\, which is great. \nBoardroom SX80: but also having a better understanding about the impacts of brake\, wear and tire\, wear and road dust from an air quality. So how does to the extent? How does more congestion\, versus less congestion affect \nBoardroom SX80: the the larger source which from cars now\, which is their break entire wear and road dust as opposed to the tailpipe emissions. How does Con\, having congestion versus not having congestion\, affect that \nBoardroom SX80: part? Well\, tireware tracks directly with vehicle. Miles traveled \nBoardroom SX80: as does road dust. And so the more vehicle Miles traveled you have\, the more tireware you have. \nBoardroom SX80: Recent study came out\, showing that most of the microplastics in the bay are actually tireware. \nBoardroom SX80: So the more Vmt you have\, the more tireware you have\, the more air pollution\, more water pollution \nBoardroom SX80: with electric vehicles. We’re we’re seeing increased tire wear because folks use their tires as brakes right through regenerative braking. But you see less brake wear so kind of the net impact of electric vehicles on that is is questionable. \nBoardroom SX80: In terms of Diesel. \nBoardroom SX80: if you’ve got Diesel trucks idling. That’s going to be a big problem for the community\, especially if if they’re on surface\, low surface level streets. \nBoardroom SX80: So generally\, then\, when this thanks crake\, that’s all I had\, but it sounds like when\, as you do\, a study\, their district will be involved making comments and reviewing the parameters of a study to ensure that we’re getting\, you know\, the the right overview and the right sort of comment on that. So and their district’s prepared to do that. Yeah\, we’re happy to help Mtc. \nBoardroom SX80: Provide some technical support on that. We’re we’re already working with them on the overall improvement projects and helping make sure that they \nBoardroom SX80: that they’ve got the right technical approach\, for with that their contractors are taking for their quality analysis. Great thanks. So I just had a few questions on the presentation\, maybe to \nBoardroom SX80: Lisa so\, or can Cal trans. Just to be clear? So you’re you’re not proposing a through Lane you’re proposing HIV and or a\, and transit long term\, but your your permit\, your permit application may seek. Just have a shoulder for a period of time\, and then \nBoardroom SX80: this HOV. Transit lane. How are you going to be able to distinguish \nBoardroom SX80: during this modified period. \nBoardroom SX80: the the cause of change\, the MoD\, the changes under the modified permit. If we’re also making the changes which are gonna benefit. This\, the Richmond center fall forward\, because right now you have 3 lanes of traffic going to 7 at the Toll Plaza going down to 2\, and your proposals to have \nBoardroom SX80: 3 lanes of traffic\, 3. Through the Toll Plaza down to 2\, which is\, gonna have\, I think\, a big\, positive effect on reducing congestion. So to the extent that you’re looking at that benefit from that project\, how are you gonna distinguish that from the modified for what you’re doing in the modified proposal. \nBoardroom SX80: the modified permit assuming it’s successful right? Assuming we’re not making be really clear here to the public. We’re asking questions to get information. We could potentially be disqualified from voting\, as as our counsel said\, if we\, if we start specifying\, you know\, support and opposition. And plus\, we don’t have all the information to make a decision. Right? Right? That’s right. That’s a very good question. And we are trying to thread a needle here\, so what we would hope to be able to do \nBoardroom SX80: do is very quickly come back to you with\, submit. The request for the Permit amendment to try this modification. As you noted\, the modification would restore the shoulder on the weekdays. No traffic on that lane. \nBoardroom SX80: and we would like to be able to run that through before we’d like to be able to\, you know. Open that pretty quickly. Run that next year before the forward project opens\, that forward project is projected to open the end of 2025 and so that would give us\, you know\, I mean hopefully about a good year’s worth of data before that. Those improvements get made to the toll. It’s your belief that forward projects gonna have \nBoardroom SX80: a great benefit of reducing congestion there. And have you thought about what? How much? \nBoardroom SX80: Well\, you know\, I think the forward project is not gonna eliminate connection at the plaza right? I mean\, we wouldn’t be building an H over Lane if it would\, because you wouldn’t. You know you wouldn’t have an advantage right? So I think. \nBoardroom SX80: I know that I have those numbers in my notes\, and how much it is. It’s it’s up. I think it’s it’s a few minutes worth of of relief for the general lanes. It’s a bit it’s a far more beneficial to the carpools and the transit vehicles that will be able to use the HOV. Lane. And it’s\, you know. \nBoardroom SX80: was a few minutes worthy. How are you thinking of doing enforcement? I’ve had an electric car for 10 years. I drive in H. Ov lanes that are packed all the time\, because I think I look around more than half the drivers are not \nBoardroom SX80: either 3\, you know\, have the number of passengers or have an electric car. So I mean\, obviously. \nBoardroom SX80: there’s the potential for for a traffic lane. How does. How do you? How are you gonna address that? Yeah. And that’s a really good question. Yeah\, enforcing carpool lanes is tough. There’s no doubt about it. You all see that all the time on the road\, and so do I. We do a little bit better on the bridge approaches a little bit easier on the bridge approaches than it is\, say on Interstate 80 in your neck of the woods there. \nBoardroom SX80: and that’s because\, you know\, the drivers are going through a single point at the at the Toll plaza\, where there’s an HOV. Lane. And they’re currently a little slower right there than they are on on Interstate 80\, and you can put a highway patrol vehicle \nBoardroom SX80: pretty much right there\, and they can look and see who’s in the lane\, and that’s much easier than having them drive by on\, you know\, when cars are drive by moving with traffic on the regular freeway. \nBoardroom SX80: could you collect this same data with less days of modified changes. You just propose something that was a Thursday through Sunday\, which is potentially 50 50. Do you need? How many days. Do you need to really collect the data to make a final decision? \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t. I don’t think I have a real specific answer to that question. What we are doing in trying to assess the number of days is really trying to balance the traffic patterns that we see where there\, you know\, is the the congestion\, and the number of vehicles that are traveling on the bridge\, and we see very clear patterns. Thus far traffic volumes are very consistent. \nBoardroom SX80: Tuesday\, Wednesday\, Thursday\, Monday is very close to those\, and then Friday\, the traffic is lower. So that is really what that’s one of the things we’re really considering. When we look at what days we want to \nBoardroom SX80: operate them out. You you’ve proposed a bike shuttle for the days that the bike lane isn’t available\, which presumably is in the lane of traffic which is also congested. Is there any reason your proposal \nBoardroom SX80: couldn’t include a bike shuttle \nBoardroom SX80: on the shoulder? A smaller vehicle on the shoulder that puts the again. Assuming this\, goes forward right? That puts bikes on a \nBoardroom SX80: on on a on on the shoulder that gets them across bike or pedestrian\, I should say\, yeah\, I mean\, I think that’s a that’s a really interesting idea. And I think it’s something we’d have to look at\, that’s we. We would want to really work through that with Cal. Trans. As the owner of the bridge and understand what you know what that kind of operation would mean. So I think it’s a \nBoardroom SX80: it’s a really interesting suggestion\, and something we’ll look at given that and this is more to Bcdc\, I mean one of the things we obviously have to consider maximum feasible public access. All those standards \nBoardroom SX80: have shuttles been used on some temporary or long term basis \nBoardroom SX80: to to deal with public access issues. And this is really \nBoardroom SX80: to to the staff\, have they? Or and maybe it’s also a legal question of whether or not it meets Max public access having a shuttle. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m looking at Ashley to see just in terms of like. \nBoardroom SX80: I guess. Like detouring\, I guess. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah. Does the maximum feasible public access interplay with using a shuttle on some days in place of actually providing the access. Actually Tomerland Bay design analyst we’ve seen shuttles \nBoardroom SX80: on the Richmond Bridge previously. \nBoardroom SX80: and then at Middle Harbour Road\, related to Middle Harbour Shoreline Park. \nBoardroom SX80: Use of shuttles. Doesn’t seem to be popular either with user groups or the people or the agencies running them. The Richmond felt bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: A shuttle was ran prior to the 1997 Richmond Bridge permit\, and it was canceled due to load ridership and unsatisfaction on the parts of the bicyclists \nBoardroom SX80: just due to unreliability. Just wondered. Okay\, thanks. And just a couple final. \nBoardroom SX80: So also is\, is there a reason you you want to go forward with the shoulder as opposed to waiting\, collecting more and apply for a permit when you’re when you’ve done the analysis to look at an HOV. Transit lane. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, that’s a good question. Well\, I think that you know\, because the shoulder I’m just shoulders\, or should I mean shoulder? And I’ll get to the incident question in a second. Right? Well\, I mean\, I think it really does relate to the it really does relate to the incidents\, you know. I think there’s also really it’s been a. It’s been a while now since we had a shoulder on that bridge right? It’s been for \nBoardroom SX80: 4 years\, and there’s Covid in between it right. And I think you know\, one of the things that we we wonder a little bit is. \nBoardroom SX80: you know\, do people really remember the experience of the of the bridge before before the pilot. And is there maybe some? You know\, it’s been a while. So this question about what do? What do incidents. Really\, what happens when there’s an incident at this point we we only have the more recent experience right where we have the \nBoardroom SX80: where we have the the path. And we do think that there is some value in getting fresh data. You know\, it’s also true that traffic is 90% of what it was before before Covid. And so it may function a little differently now in this period than it did\, you know\, back in (202) 018-2019. So that is one reason we’d like to go ahead and do it. Now\, how long is it going to take you to \nBoardroom SX80: determine\, analyze\, and determine whether \nBoardroom SX80: whether it’s feasible to have a \nBoardroom SX80: Hov transit lane there. Right? So we because\, yeah\, that’s\, I assume that’s where you ultimately are trying to end up in your permit application. But this intermediate use of a shoulder\, you know\, it’s just different. So just how long is it gonna take you? Right? Well\, I don’t know where we’re trying to end up. I mean\, I think we’re looking at. We’re looking at options\, and we wanna understand what the analysis will show \nBoardroom SX80: I \nBoardroom SX80: in terms of how long the analysis takes. It’s a 2 step process. We are doing an initial analysis. We call a design alternative assessment. And we are trying to move very expeditiously through that and complete that by the end of the year. That’ll tell. Give us a general sense of feasibility. \nBoardroom SX80: But it’s but it’s not. Gonna in order to really pursue this and to come back for a permit\, we would have to click complete and full environmental Review. It’d be comparable in scope to the Environmental review we did for the current pilot\, and that was a 2 year process. So it is a good 2 plus years before we could come back and ask for a permit. For an Hv. Lane \nBoardroom SX80: 2 plus years. So I mean\, cause the Commission is looking at like I don’t know. Maybe 3 general alternative options. One is whether to continue \nBoardroom SX80: the current status quo. \nBoardroom SX80: second is whether \nBoardroom SX80: to \nBoardroom SX80: amend the permit to our shoulder. \nBoardroom SX80: Third is whether ultimately to amend a permit to have HOV in a transit\, and \nBoardroom SX80: what you want us to do it sounds like is study. \nBoardroom SX80: What the benefits or not of the shoulder are. \nBoardroom SX80: and if we found that \nBoardroom SX80: there wasn’t a great benefit \nBoardroom SX80: that we go. \nBoardroom SX80: we would potentially go back to status quo\, or then entertain later an application on an HOV. Because that’s a yeah. There’s different cost benefits. \nBoardroom SX80: I should say\, for each of those right? I mean a shoulder versus HOV. Transit. It’s a big difference with different cost benefits and different impacts on congestion and air quality and all of that. But you’re only gonna collect data on the shoulder. You’re not gonna have collected data on the HOV. And the transit \nBoardroom SX80: right? But that’s true\, we will be doing analysis in parallel on the HIV lane on the shoulder. So the trick is to bring all this together. And there’s one reason. But you’re not going to have data from an HIV transit. We won’t have data for it. But I think \nBoardroom SX80: we. \nBoardroom SX80: you know\, I think \nBoardroom SX80: one of the challenges in traffic analysis is this notion of incidents and and this non-recurring congestion. And that’s a place where I think real life experience is especially valuable. Incidents are tremendously variable. Right? It’s anything from you. Get a flat tire and you pull over to a major crash\, and they vary on the weather and the time of day and the lighting\, and there’s just so much variation. \nBoardroom SX80: And so I think that’s an area where direct experience is particularly valuable\, I think\, as as an industry\, if you will\, we’re do a little better at traffic analysis when we’re talking about \nBoardroom SX80: right? You know. You calculate there were some increase in incidents. I get it in the morning. 6 to 9. But how many incidents are we talking about? What’s the actual\, absolute number of incidents we measure technically. But we and what\, in fact\, what’s the data you have? That shows what the impact of that incident was on any increased congestion or not. Right? Oh\, yeah. So we measure the incidence as rates \nBoardroom SX80: typically. And the rates are the numbers that are included in your packet. It’s rates per 1 million vehicle. Miles traveled. So it’s a very\, very small number\, which you know\, is really a good thing\, right? Because a lot of crashes. \nBoardroom SX80: So those numbers are in your packet\, I would have to go back and look at the actual number of incidents over a period of time. I don’t have that\, you know\, on top of my head. It seems that’s useful. And and how much\, then that’s a questionnaire. And to come back to us\, how much. \nBoardroom SX80: how many days was that? And how much did it actually affect congestion\, or how much did it affect delay? Right? \nBoardroom SX80: We don’t have that\, really. Thanks. Those are some questions about \nBoardroom SX80: speaking of. \nBoardroom SX80: Thanks. couple of of additional questions. The first is very much along that same line. I have struggled when I was looking at those graphics to look at number of incidents per 1 million miles traveled. I have no idea what that translates to in terms of real world number of incidents. \nBoardroom SX80: How they’re distributed\, do they? All we do. They happen at different times a day. If you’re considering\, varying the the the use of that shoulder that distribution might matter. So we don’t need those answers now\, but as we think about about moving forward as you folks are preparing to come back to us really help if those numbers came back to us in numbers that we could understand. \nBoardroom SX80: A couple of other questions\, I mean it it just in general\, we’re not I. I share Commissioner Joy’s questions and concern about this\, you know\, not not seeing this as sort of a one way step toward a transit line. We haven’t made that decision yet\, and you’re not proposing. We make that decision yet. But the debate here really is about \nBoardroom SX80: emergency. The the trade-off is really not about traffic. It’s about emergency use of that lane compared to at least it’s it’s emergency related traffic congestion related to the current bicycle use. Right? That’s the trade-off we’re talking about. \nBoardroom SX80: So I just wanna make sure we’re all clear about that. And and one of the things. Just with that in mind. I was trying to understand. \nBoardroom SX80: You said that the volume of traffic today is about 90% of the Pre covid levels. But the congestion level is pretty similar\, or maybe a little bit worse than Pre covid. Can you help us understand why that is\, I would expect the congestion to be \nBoardroom SX80: lower a little bit lower\, I mean\, I think that’s that’s one of the questions. So I would say it’s comparable. I wouldn’t say it’s a little bit worse\, I would say. It’s really very comparable. It’s a little different in shape\, but it’s really pretty comparable. And I think you know that is a good question. And I’m not sure we have a great answer for it. There is \nBoardroom SX80: you know. Still\, you know\, a lot of the congestion really has to do with that toll plaza and the fact it winds out and it comes back down. You’ve got a merge in the back. So that’s one of the considerations the path study did find. I didn’t highlight it because I don’t think it’s \nBoardroom SX80: necessarily central to to the discussion today. But the Path study did find that there’s a slight decrease in capacity on the bridge with the barrier in place\, and that\, I think\, has to do. It may have to do with how the cars are moving across the bridge. They may be a little slower right next to the barrier. That may be more in\, you know\, choosing more to be in the left lane\, because they don’t want to be next to the barrier. \nBoardroom SX80: But but what we found is that really\, you know\, it hasn’t really dramatically\, it hasn’t dramatically affected the performance on the \nBoardroom SX80: traffic across the bridge. It’s it’s sort of \nBoardroom SX80: hiding in the background there. But it\, you know. Could it be something with traffic? We don’t know. Now\, if this is a new normal\, we also don’t know that right? If traffic were to grow back\, could it be a consideration? Could it make the backup worse? You know? Maybe it could. But that’s also very hard to test in real real life\, when traffic is low\, couple of other questions that it’d be helpful \nBoardroom SX80: if you could provide us more information when you come back\, and I suspect we’re going to be hearing about some of this from the public. The \nBoardroom SX80: documents indicate that the Richmond Center fell. Bridge is the second most popular bridge for bicycle transit compared to the Bay Bridge. Be good to have those numbers as well. That that bridge\, that that connection doesn’t go all the way across currently\, but that those would be good numbers to see. I’d also be really interested. And I I’d be interested in members of the public. Talking about this as well is\, is to what extent\, if any\, is the low use on the bridge \nBoardroom SX80: are related to connections on either end. I wasn’t quite sure\, Larry\, you were talking about the the connection on the wet on the west end of the bridge\, and I wasn’t sure whether that was really affecting bicycle use in a significant way that might have an impact on use. \nBoardroom SX80: So that’s just a question for everybody about to the extent\, to what extent\, if any\, is the use being frankly lower than I would have expected\, especially during the weekdays related to access \nBoardroom SX80: off of the bridge. And the last question is\, if we’re considering going back to a shuttle\, it’d be helpful to hear from the members of the public and it’ll help to see the numbers. Staff just said that that was cancelled because of a lack of \nBoardroom SX80: public support. \nBoardroom SX80: Was that \nBoardroom SX80: I mean\, that could have been unreliability of the shuttle. It could be the fact that members of the public are much more enthusiastic about traveling across the bridge by bicycle rather than in the back of a van. \nBoardroom SX80: but those would be good numbers to have before us as well. \nBoardroom SX80: And I think that’s it. Thank you through the chair. If you would like you to respond to any of those like\, I can tackle them now\, or I could. I could hold\, and we could do\, unless you think there’s something very specific. I think most of them are intended as guidance for what comes back to us. Certainly. \nBoardroom SX80: thank you\, Commissioner Gunther. \nBoardroom SX80: just to follow up briefly\, I think that \nBoardroom SX80: the discussion seems to be \nBoardroom SX80: centering around the need \nBoardroom SX80: for benchmarks to better analyse the quantitative information that you’re giving us. \nBoardroom SX80: So\, for example. \nBoardroom SX80: there’s 500 people \nBoardroom SX80: each weekend on the bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: Is that a lot. \nBoardroom SX80: or is it not a lot did we project \nBoardroom SX80: in 2\,000 \nBoardroom SX80: 16\, what it would be \nBoardroom SX80: and that that kind of of of benchmarking would help us interpret right? So 14 to 17 min saved eastbound. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m getting the impression. That’s a lot. \nBoardroom SX80: compared to what I think that that would be really helping and just a couple of things like that. Number of incidents\, you know\, is\, are there incidents in the pedestrian bike lane \nBoardroom SX80: there for that week? \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, okay\, it’s very\, very small\, if there were any at all. \nBoardroom SX80: would reducing the speed on the bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: reduce the number of incidents. \nBoardroom SX80: Saggy \nBoardroom SX80: Joe\, would you like me to respond now? Something. I’m happy to take your guidance. I know you have other business to. Take care I would take these as as guidance for the information. That’s all\, that’s all that’s all they’re meant for. Thank you. So I think that that I know that sometimes \nBoardroom SX80: it feels like you’re pulling something out of thin air\, but in terms of interacting then with the greater public. As I\, I was responsible for using scientific information to decide. If the bay is healthy. \nBoardroom SX80: Well\, is it? How do you do that? There’s no heathometer you put into it right? You have to come up with this a sense of what’s good\, and and it would be great whatever you decide to do\, and whatever we all agree to do\, going forward to have some \nBoardroom SX80: goals\, some kind of benchmarks out there. We think this is going to reduce the number of incidents by whatever. And then let’s see what happens. And at least we can get a sense from that of of of what these statistics mean. And and again\, I’m gonna reiterate \nBoardroom SX80: there’s no right answer to this right. But your expert judgment. \nBoardroom SX80: informed by everybody else’s helps. Kind of guide the discussion in the future. Thanks. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. I just have some clarifying questions\, because I have not been as involved in this project as a lot of others have been. But so what you’re saying is that the lower deck\, which goes eastbound \nBoardroom SX80: the bike lane will remain \nBoardroom SX80: on the lower deck. There’s a part time\, Traffic Lane. It’s not. The lower deck is a vehicle line lane\, 2 to 7 Pm. Or part. So it’s not a bike lane. It is not a bike lane. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: that that is correct. Okay\, so the bike Lane pedestrian. It’s only on the upper deck. That’s correct. Yes\, okay\, that’s a very important clarification. \nBoardroom SX80: So \nBoardroom SX80: you’re looking at doing the upper deck. \nBoardroom SX80: which is westbound. You would like to try to convert that to an h of transit lane. \nBoardroom SX80: during the week. \nBoardroom SX80: and then on the weekends. Use that lane as the Bike Lane pedestrian Lane correct. There’s a series of things over time\, right? And and we’re a little more spread out. So the immediate \nBoardroom SX80: the immediate. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s not an ask yet\, because we still have to get authority\, but the immediate proposal is to extend the pilot to on the upper deck\, restore a shoulder on the weekdays and have the path. Retain the path on the weekends. We are in parallel with that\, and we would seek to get \nBoardroom SX80: a permit to do that very soon\, and you know\, perhaps have that in place ideally before the end of this year. In parallel with that\, we are doing analysis studies first feasibility\, sort of analysis\, and then perhaps an environmental review that would look at using that shoulder as a bus\, or HOV. Bus an HOV. Lane. \nBoardroom SX80: But that is a separate analysis. We would. We would not be able to come before the Commission with that for several years\, because it needs a full environmental review. So I guess I share some of the concern about how you’re gonna be able to compare different pilots. And since this proposal is substantially different than the pilot that has been occurring over the last few years. \nBoardroom SX80: So I share that very much. So help me to understand the public opposition. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s with the \nBoardroom SX80: upper deck. \nBoardroom SX80: Correct. That’s correct. Okay\, and it’s the opposition to retaining it as a bike and pedestrian \nBoardroom SX80: path. I’m gonna give her a lifesaver. But we’re gonna hear from the public. Okay\, I’d rather hear from the public than than have the calculation. Okay\, I’m speaking\, I guess\, for myself and others that may not have been involved in this\, and from the beginning it’d be helpful \nBoardroom SX80: to have. This is where we were. This is what we did\, and this is what we’re proposing\, and I sort of come in like this in midstream. \nBoardroom SX80: And you know I just hear a lot of controversy. But I don’t know what the controversy is \nBoardroom SX80: is about in particular. \nBoardroom SX80: And so you stated\, this congestion is triggered by the toll plaza. \nBoardroom SX80: Has Cal trans. Ever looked at what they could do\, and you probably have what you could do to the toll closet to \nBoardroom SX80: minimize\, if not eliminate. \nBoardroom SX80: that congestion \nBoardroom SX80: again. Sort of\, and maybe that maybe that has to be at a separate hour later. Okay\, so if you can explain that later\, that’s fine. Just some of these basics. \nBoardroom SX80: why is it that the bridge is more popular with bike and pedestrian? That’s a good question. \nBoardroom SX80: Because the Golden Gate Bridge is pretty popular so. \nBoardroom SX80: and it’d be interesting to have some of the other statistics\, too\, so we can compare them. \nBoardroom SX80: So \nBoardroom SX80: I have some other ideas of what I would like to see. But I think we’ve got a long way to go. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: I guess this is sort of an observation. Having been part of this conversation we had. Was it 2\,016 that I remember very well at the time? And it goes to\, I think\, 2 questions. It’s the the optimal or most appropriate use of the space that is currently used as the Viking pedestrian lane as opposed to alternative uses. And I remember when this first came up. \nBoardroom SX80: there was understandably a lot of advocacy by the bicycle community\, and then Abag said\, It’s gonna complete the bay trail\, which is great. But I \nBoardroom SX80: I registered a fundamental concern at that time. This is years ago\, now that this was coming to us in the complete absence of any kind of data whatsoever. \nBoardroom SX80: and some folks said\, well\, you know\, bikes are so successful on on the Golden Gate Bridge\, come on the Golden Gate Bridge and to the Presidio in San Francisco\, and at the other end is in Sausalito. \nBoardroom SX80: and it’s a major tourist destination scenic\, and I don’t think any of us would call the Bay bridge scenic\, rather the the Sandbridge scenic\, and there’s very little at either end immediately that would draw people as destinations. So you got a little pretty far away to get anywhere that’s really going to folks. A marine and Contra Costa may disagree with that. You. \nBoardroom SX80: I live in Marin County. Thank you very much\, and I ride my bike. Oh\, hundreds of miles. So anyway\, I’m a biker\, too\, so I totally get it. But I guess this goes to the question. One is\, I might use different terminology than you did\, that the upper deck bath is quite well used. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m not sure I would say that 140 bikes a day is quite well used\, it compared to the other traffic\, so I would probably use different language. But I I think the kind of. I think we have the key data that we need\, which is the number of bikes and pedestrians on the bridge during commute hours and and non-commute hours. \nBoardroom SX80: What I think would be useful \nBoardroom SX80: again when you said that the Santa Fe Bridge has the the number 2 most popular bridge for bikes after the Bay Bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: Well\, it’d be great to see what is the Pat? How many bikes to use the Bay Bridge? \nBoardroom SX80: How many bikes use other California bridges in the region\, and how many use the Golden Gate Bridge. So if we see the data Golden Gate Bridge \nBoardroom SX80: Bay Bridge\, Santa Vale Bridge\, San Mateo Bridge\, any other bridges. I think that’s the data\, I think\, telling us it’s number 2 doesn’t tell us very much at all. So anyway\, I’m I’m glad we’re having this conversation. I’m glad we have the data. \nBoardroom SX80: We could use a little bit more\, and I think anything else that you can share with us that would help us understand the \nBoardroom SX80: the benefits of \nBoardroom SX80: the shoulder that would get us\, maybe eventually\, if we go there someday to the age of Elaine. I know that’s not this permit. \nBoardroom SX80: Request! But I think anything to understand \nBoardroom SX80: the benefits of further of the of the getting the shoulder back would be very helpful. I’d love to see the data on all the bridges \nBoardroom SX80: and just to complicate it a little bit more. \nBoardroom SX80: I’d like to see data on other well used bicycle paths\, commuter and recreational\, not just limited to bridges. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay. As the Commissioner\, along with our previous Commissioner on in Marin County\, so I have some follow-up questions about the safety issues that you raised. \nBoardroom SX80: Because I I wanna understand\, we talked about the accident rates. But actually\, the impacts of accidents go to everybody else on the bridge at the time that it happens and backed up. And so I wonder if you could come back with us? You mentioned that \nBoardroom SX80: minutes of delay on the bridge\, due to incidents\, have 4 times the impact. And so I’d like to understand that better 4 times the impact of what and to whom? \nBoardroom SX80: Because we are hearing from teachers and healthcare workers who need to be to work on time\, that they’re coming across the bridge one and 2 h early. Now. \nBoardroom SX80: to offset the potential of an incident\, they need to be at their jobs on time. \nBoardroom SX80: So I’d like some better understanding of these impacts of 5 incidents may happen\, and they may affect 50\,000 people. \nBoardroom SX80: Similarly\, I wonder if you could come back to us with on your heat maps. You showed a longer period of delay in the commute in the morning\, a more lengthy period of commute time that had increased over 20 the pre covid times. \nBoardroom SX80: And if there’s any way to explain what is happening\, there are there more. You said that the total volume of traffic has not changed\, but the time duration of congestion is longer now. And so if it’s possible to understand that \nBoardroom SX80: and a related question is\, are you able to use Enrique’s data or other data to track commuters going over the bridge both by bike and by car in the morning. I know that we have origins and destination information about \nBoardroom SX80: auto commuters\, and and we know where they go. Part to Sonoma County\, part to Moran. Be good to get an update on that. \nBoardroom SX80: but also the bicycle commuters. Because I’m I’m quite certain we have a cadre of bicycle commuters who use it during the week. \nBoardroom SX80: But if if it would be possible to determine. Are these repeat users \nBoardroom SX80: going over? And of the 140 something or other each week? How many are repeaters that would just be helpful to understand. \nBoardroom SX80: then I’d also\, I agree the usership on Golden Gate Bridge would be interesting to know. \nBoardroom SX80: I can say chair Wasserman. Incidentally\, that we have some 3\,000 riders over a weekend on the North Sausalito to Mill Valley Path. \nBoardroom SX80: So we have 3\,000 riders a weekend\, which is quite different. So it’d be useful to get some comparative data on all that. \nBoardroom SX80: I think that’s my questions. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, I I would just say\, I realize we do have a serious trade off discussion of a constrained bridge. It would be nice if it was a new bridge\, and we could outfit it with bike lanes in both directions. But we we have what we have. We have to figure it out. So thank you. Those are my questions. \nBoardroom SX80: Down to my right. I see no light\, so I’m going to go to Commissioner Kashimoto. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: Okay. Yeah\, thank you very much. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: I have. I do have 5 or 6 questions. So \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: one is kind of goes back to history. But I’m just curious. Why\, that original. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: I mean\, why do we have a part time? Vehicle laying added on the \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: heading\, heading West versus East\, I mean. And \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: and why was that decision made? I guess I just curious about that. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: second is \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: I I read that I can’t deliver bike and pedestrian facility was contemplated at 1 point\, and I’d be curious to \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: here how much research was done. And is that a possibility? \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: I also had questions about the incidents per day. So that’s that and and then regarding transit. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: So so I actually\, I have to confess I don’t even know if there are any buses crossing the bridge today. So that’s kind of a basic question. There are okay. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: And \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: and is there discuss\, is there? This contemplation of HIV buses \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: or even other demand side strategies? I mean\, it might be increasing\, increasing the tolls and using\, you know\, the greater revenues\, for\, you know\, improving\, improving transit and and related to that the the the supervisor just just mentioned\, the Origin destination studies. And and I imagine that \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: that’s that. If they were\, I’m sure there were studies done at that point\, I’d I’d be carrying kind of curious to know\, you know. Quick\, some summary of that about where the you know 70\,000 vehicles are going per day. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: And does it actually\, without\, you know\, without that it’s kind of hard\, hard to make suggestions on on what would be the most effective. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: yeah\, alternative transportation. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: Let me see? Let me see\, I I guess alternatives for cyclists who want to cross the bay. I guess I you know I don’t know what has changed since that last look. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: and and then there was some discussion about the land side by connections and it wasn’t clear to me they’re still under construction. So if they are\, when are they due to be done? And \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: if so\, it does seem unfair that we’re kind of looking at this with without lands\, by connections not being completed. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: Let me see if there I think was\, and I and I suppose the last one I’ll throw out is\, you know it. It just kind of\, I mean\, if we are looking for some combination of emergency shoulder room for disabled vehicles. Is there some way to combine it with. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: you know\, kind of narrowed lanes\, and some places for either pedestrians or bicyclists who might have to dismount to pass. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: That was that might. That might be a crazy idea\, but wanted to throw that out there. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: Okay. And I think that’s that’s those are most of my questions. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Through the chair. If if I may make one clarification\, the improvements on the Marin side and the Contra Costa County side. Those are largely complete the access improvements. There is some additional work we’re doing on Marin that is\, under construction now\, but we have really completed on the Richmond side \nBoardroom SX80: those path improvements to access are complete\, and there have been substantial improvements completed already on the marine site as well. So I just want to clarify that because it’s come up a couple of times. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t see any other. \nBoardroom SX80: so we will now go to public speakers. We’re going to start with speakers in the room. \nBoardroom SX80: You have \nBoardroom SX80: 2 min\, and please try very hard not to be repetitive. \nBoardroom SX80: Bruce Baird\, and coming up behind Bruce is Rosemary Corbin. \nBoardroom SX80: There was some\, and there’s a Commission \nBoardroom SX80: Action Committee \nBoardroom SX80: and a member of the San Francisco Bay Trail Project Board of Directors. The Richmond Sandra Fell Bridge trail is a key section. \nBoardroom SX80: the multi-use San Francisco Bay Trail. \nBoardroom SX80: It should stay open 365 days per year. \nBoardroom SX80: Cyclists\, pedestrians\, joggers have enjoyed about 380\,000 trips across this bridge. This opened in November 2019. \nBoardroom SX80: There’s no justification for shutting it down 4 days a week in order to provide a vehicle. Breakdown Lane. \nBoardroom SX80: page 7 of the Caltrans Battle report in your agenda package states\, and I quote a relatively small number of incidents have occurred on the upper deck of the bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: There have been a relatively small number of incidents. Why shut down the trail for a breakdown lane? \nBoardroom SX80: My wife and I were driving across the bridge a couple of weeks ago\, and there was a car broken down with a flat tire in the left lane. \nBoardroom SX80: So what I’d like to suggest\, and some of the Board members have alluded this in their discussion today is that rather than moving ahead now\, and I’m talking to both. Cal. Transat also with shutting down the trail. 4 days a week provide a baked breakdown lane. We should wait for completion of the Richmond Santor bridge forward program. The data is carrying out now \nBoardroom SX80: the major problems\, the breakdown of delays in the bridge are the approaches. The rsa. 4 forward program will make major improvements to the Richmond Parkway Interchange approach to the bridge. It will eliminate as discussed earlier and eliminate the coal Plaza area. Going to open road tolling. It’ll extend the Hov Lane from Ricotta Boulevard to the bridge approach. It’ll make a huge difference in the traffic flow situation. \nBoardroom SX80: and at that time you’ll then have a new baseline\, and that would be the time to look at the options that are being considered closing the trail to provide a breakdown Lane\, or provide an HOV. Lane\, or whatever ideas might come up. It’s premature now\, thank you for your public comments. Your time is now complete. Thank you. Thank you\, sir. \nBoardroom SX80: Rosemary Corbin\, followed by Tom Lent \nBoardroom SX80: chair\, Wasserman and Commissioners. I’m Rosemary Corbin and I used to be a Bcdc. Commissioner and voted when we approved the recommendation to have a bay trail on the Richmond center. So here I am again\, and I am now the chair pro tem. Of the San Francisco Bay Trail Committee. \nBoardroom SX80: and I’m here to tell you. I think you all received copies of our resolution. We passed a resolution last Friday in opposition to closing the Bay trail. Across the Richmond Centre fell Bridge. 4 days a week. \nBoardroom SX80: and \nBoardroom SX80: for many reasons the Bay trail is loved. Thousands of people around the bay\, and the Commission has been supportive of it\, and the goal of the bay trail is to ring the bay\, and you can’t ring the bay if you don’t go across bridges. \nBoardroom SX80: So \nBoardroom SX80: I think we need to think about where the cause is. The congestion was there before the bay trail\, and it will be there after the bay trail. The congestion is caused by the fact that Marin County and cities don’t allow for the building of affordable housing for the people who work there. So they have to live in the East Bay\, and they cross the bridge every morning and then back at night. \nBoardroom SX80: So please keep that in mind\, and don’t make the bay trail a scapegoat. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Tom Lent\, followed by Robert. Prince \nBoardroom SX80: did it on both of the last 2 speakers. I would also suggest that you don’t really have the data you think you have yet a lot has changed. I’m Tom Lead. I come before you today as a user of the of the pathway. I live in. Berkeley\, and I use the bridge for both business purposes to attend meetings in Marin and San Francisco\, and for recreation access to a variety of locations in Marin. \nBoardroom SX80: and I come also to give a voice to another group of San Francisco commuters from Berkeley\, who I ride with regularly\, who cannot attend a Work day meeting. I’m also the Ebay Project Coordinator for a walk by Berkeley\, and this is 1 one change that is not captured in the data. Ebikes are a game changer for the practicality\, the time\, practicality of crossing that bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: I know this because I’ve tested it myself against Google against Google Crossing Times. And I don’t mean just the bridge. I mean\, going from \nBoardroom SX80: from places where people live in Richmond to places where people work in San Rafael\, and an ebay makes this practical\, and Ebikes are just taking off now\, so we don’t have a lot of data for how people with Ebikes would use this bridge. We also don’t have data for how people will use the bridge with the improvements in the access. You previously had to ride on an expressway to get on and off of this bridge\, rather intimidating \nBoardroom SX80: to a lot of people understandably. And now we have a different situation with access to the bridge\, a few more improvements still to come\, but much already there we should be looking at how it’s used now with the current conditions\, not looking back at the previous 4 years\, when it was constrained\, and when people had different technologies for crossing. It’s a really important link \nBoardroom SX80: in our transportation infrastructure that were just beginning to be understood and utilized. Don’t chop it off now. It will be a major step backwards for the Bay trail\, for active\, active transportation commuters and recreation\, and for the residents of Richmond\, who will breathe the the air in the particular matter that increased vehicle Miles traveled will put into their lungs. \nBoardroom SX80: They’re feeling your public comment. Time is now completed. Okay\, I’ve got it. I got answers on that bus that I’ll hold. Thank you. So hope someone else will pick that one up. Thank you\, Robert Prince\, followed by Sarah Benjamin. \nBoardroom SX80: Hello\, commissioners. Thank you for receiving my comment and happy bike month. I’m Robert Prince\, obviously director of Bikies Bay nonprofit\, representing contra costs in Elmia County since 1972 back\, when we were called East Bay Bike Coalition and wearing my Uvc. Hoodie today\, shortly after the Bcdc. Was formed in the late 60 S. And I mentioned that because Bikes Bay was formed as an organization\, one of the primary goals of our organization was bike access across bridges connecting between the East Bay and other regions. \nBoardroom SX80: We’re at 6 and a half bridges right now\, with bike access. We’re working on that seventh half across the West Band Bay bridge\, but we’ve never gone backwards. So I want to really stress how historic and serious this proposal is to actually go backwards for the first time ever on these connections. Yesterday our organization submitted a coalition letter to this body in support of keeping the trail open to people by king walking and rolling at all hours\, 24\, 7. \nBoardroom SX80: At the time there were 57 local\, state and national organizations that signed onto that letter focused on issues of active transportation\, sustainability environment. One of those was\, Save the Bay\, an organization that was out also foundational in the forming of Bcdc. Back in the 60 S. I’m pleased to say that since then\, even just yesterday\, more organizations have signed on a new total of at least 65 groups. There’s a huge groundswell of interest in this topic. \nBoardroom SX80: One of the purposes of converting the pathway to breakdown shoulder mentioned by Staff is the need for more experience. I’d like to remind folks here that we do have 37 years of experience with the bridge\, with a breakdown shoulder from 1 82\, when the pipeline was removed all the way up until 19. \nBoardroom SX80: So far we only have 4 years of data with the bridge with a pathway on it. So if anything\, I would encourage us to leave the pathway for there for longer\, to have even more data about how the operations are handled with the current conditions. We can compare it against that 37 years prior. \nBoardroom SX80: So also primary responsibility\, Bcdc is to maximize feasible public access to the shoreline. So closing the bridge trail 4 days a week will affect that access negatively to significant degree. I encourage you to center this in your future decision making on the issue. Thank you. Thank you\, Sir \nBoardroom SX80: Sarah Benjamin\, followed by Peter Gwynn. \nBoardroom SX80: Peter\, come on up. \nBoardroom SX80: Thanks. Like you mentioned. My name is Peter Gwynn. I’m a Berkeley resident who works in San Francisco pretty close by. Actually\, I have 2 young kids\, ages 2 and 5\, and I oppose the proposed path\, closure and support\, keeping it open. 24\, 7. \nBoardroom SX80: I first rode over the bridge back in December 2019\, to commute to my office in San Francisco via Marin. It was a beautiful way to start the day\, and I look forward to doing it more frequently. Then the pandemic hit. Like many folks during Covid\, I struggled to maintain my mental and physical health. In early 2021 I put on additional weight on top of an already unhealthy baseline. The new change was necessary. Starting a decade earlier\, I had a passion for cycling\, and renewed my interest as a way to improve my health. \nBoardroom SX80: With exercise and lifestyle changes\, I was able to drop 30 pounds\, felt better\, forever\, better than ever. Excuse me. Once Covid started to subside\, and I was expected to return to the office. Like many parents of young kids\, I faced a challenge\, trying to continue to incorporate exercise into my day\, but I was committed to find a way. My solution was to repurpose my commute into a workout\, and the key to enabling this was weekday access. The rsr. Bridge! \nBoardroom SX80: Since summer 2022\, nearly every week I’ve ridden risen early and rid my bike from Berkeley to downtown San Francisco to Marin County. It’s something I look forward to every week\, and has markedly improved my physical and mental health\, watching the sun break over Mount Tam commuting and in the fresh air beats being on elliptical machine. Any day. When I heard the pilot period was ending\, it was natural to expect that there would be a well informed discussion of what to do with the path. I think I’ve seen that here today with the committee. So thank you for that. \nBoardroom SX80: But the news that we’re going to return it to a breakdown shoulder as opposed to addressing some of the root causes of the congestion caught me totally by surprise\, and honestly\, it was a little dramatic for me\, but I was kind of depressed to hear that I might lose access to something that made my week so enjoyable. \nBoardroom SX80: I get that no one likes traffic\, however\, making a change like this\, in order to appease motorists\, who are\, you know\, seemingly angered by the mere sight of the path without solving the the root causes of traffic. Congestion seems like a step in the wrong direction. So I’d urge the Board to consider some other options\, maybe\, in timing and sequencing instead of shutting down the the bypass. Thanks. \nBoardroom SX80: Jackson Lester\, followed by \nBoardroom SX80: Terrell Calloway. \nBoardroom SX80: Hi! My name is Jackson Lester\, and I’m a resident of Oakland. \nBoardroom SX80: So about 10 years ago I had a transportation epiphany that you couldn’t exist in the society that I grew up in in Lexington\, Kentucky\, without a car\, and that led me to a career in transportation from a master’s in transportation engineering to working as a planner for a transit agency \nBoardroom SX80: to moving here to work in the transit tech space. And one of the things that I love the most about living in the Bay area is the diversity of transportation options. It’s the first place I’ve lived in America where I feel like I can live a full life without having to drive everywhere. \nBoardroom SX80: and I’ve ridden the bridge more than 40 times since it opened in 2019. It made moving to the East Bay feel like a viable option when I moved there in 2020\, because I still had access to Marin into the city by bike and this nascent connective tissue that we’ve recently grown. It would be a tragedy to sever it\, and. \nBoardroom SX80: as I see it\, this is a trade-off between short-term resiliency of travel time\, where\, you know when a vehicle breaks down or gets a flat\, making the travel time more consistent versus the long-term resiliency of our entire region in terms of allowing us to have multiple transportation options\, because across the US. And particularly California\, we have \nBoardroom SX80: hyper focus on the car as the serious way of getting around and everything else is secondary. And that’s apparent in talking about this path being only an option during weekends\, and when it’s inconvenient kind of. But if we want to have a more resilient transportation system into the future\, then we need to facilitate more real alternatives to driving everywhere. \nBoardroom SX80: And so I ask you to please consider long-term resiliency and not just day of resiliency when an incident happens. Thank you. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Terrell Calloway\, followed by Charlotte \nBoardroom SX80: Duruso. \nBoardroom SX80: Good afternoon\, Commissioners. I’m Terry Callaway. I’m the executive director for Marine County Bicycle coalition\, and I’m also the vice mayor for the lovely town of San Anselmo\, in Marine County. I’m here today to urge you to keep the Richmond San Rafael Bridge open to people who walk in bike 24\, 7 \nBoardroom SX80: in 2\,019. When the pathway opened\, I spoke at the ribbon cutting\, cutting ceremony. On that day hundreds of people\, including many in this room\, were there\, and we spoke about moving\, moving our region forward into the future. We spoke about our commitment to moving away from fossil fuels and and improved access to mobility. On both sides of the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: We talked about people from the East Bay having car free access to trails and beaches and marin\, and we also welcomed increased connectivity and relations between our communities which hasn’t always been the case. Many of us who are committed to a less car dependent lifestyle\, including my organization’s planning and policy director\, who\, many of you know. \nBoardroom SX80: took jobs across the bridge in hopes that they would be able to ride to work in the days since Mtc. Announced it would recommend closing the trail certain days a week. We’ve heard from hundreds of people who use the trail to access work in play. Aiden is just one of them. He volunteers at the San at San Quentin on Wednesday evenings\, and he uses the bridge to get there. He’s committed to a car-free lifestyle until we can \nBoardroom SX80: the climate emergency. And this would take that away from him and the people that he helps at \nBoardroom SX80: the prison. Curtailing. This path is a step in the wrong direction for our transportation system. It would roll back more bay trail. Miles in one fell swoop than have been committed in the last 6 years combined. I ask you to do the brave and right thing. Thank you. Thank you\, Charlotte Durusso\, followed by \nBoardroom SX80: Colleen Monaghan. \nBoardroom SX80: Hi\, thank you for listening. And I want to mention that so this path is very an essential and unique connection in the Bay area. How else do you cross from the East Bay to San Rafael? So I think this path should be open to all kinds of transportation mode\, especially the ones that we know are the most sustainable for our society. \nBoardroom SX80: We need to allow alternatives to cars. \nBoardroom SX80: Why only let people cross this bridge and do this essential connection by using an individual private car. \nBoardroom SX80: I think just to bounce on the study that we heard today. \nBoardroom SX80: This study is analysing little data\, and I think it’s not very conclusive. And\, on the other hand\, I think we still have enough data to conclude\, because many other studies have been conducted on this topic. This is a very classic topic of \nBoardroom SX80: the car use\, especially in urban areas. If we look at other metrics more relevant\, for example\, how many people can we get through the bridge per hour? \nBoardroom SX80: Which mode of transportation\, do you think is the most efficient to get as many people across the bridge as possible per hour. \nBoardroom SX80: a car or a bicycle. If you compare these 2\, we already have numbers. We know \nBoardroom SX80: that the space used by cars creates congestion which diminishes a lot the number of cars you can get through the bridge per hour. \nBoardroom SX80: So this is to mention that there’s more the bigger problem associated to this issue. We know and has been mentioned by other members of the public. \nBoardroom SX80: Just the car. The relies on cars in the city has limited a lot of our options and makes this whole city and friendly for people that want to use alternate modes of transportation. So this is about a human right public comment. Your time is now done. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Colleen Monaghan\, followed by dress wedding. \nBoardroom SX80: Good afternoon. Everybody knows \nBoardroom SX80: my name is Colleen Monihan. I live in Berkeley\, and I commute by bike over the Richmond San Rafael Bridge to and from my work in San Francisco. \nBoardroom SX80: My access to these bike paths is part of the reason why I live in the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: The bike pedestrian path is a critical part of the bay trail\, as has already been discussed and eliminating\, it will destroy equitable access to huge swaths of the coastline. \nBoardroom SX80: It is your Commission’s responsibility to protect that access\, and I urge you to take that responsibility seriously. \nBoardroom SX80: It feels important to note all of the people that I see on the bridge every evening. \nBoardroom SX80: I see little kids on mountain bikes. I see elders on Ebikes tourists. I see commuters and families. \nBoardroom SX80: The bike in the pedestrian path is used by everyone and should remain open and accessible to everyone. \nBoardroom SX80: Mtc’s proposal would eliminate equitable access to the Bay trail\, and it would be a regressive move to prioritize transportation choices that are actively driving climate change. \nBoardroom SX80: The congestion on the bridge is not the result of the bike path\, and it will remain if you approve the permit. \nBoardroom SX80: The congestion on the bridge is because the people who work in Marin County and in the city and county of San Francisco cannot afford to live there. \nBoardroom SX80: This is the result of decades of exclusionary housing and land use policies and eliminating weekday access to the bike path will not fix that. \nBoardroom SX80: All people should have access to the coastline\, and all people should have access to safe\, consistent\, and sustainable modes of transportation. \nBoardroom SX80: and I urge you to act in alignment with the very mission of your commission. \nBoardroom SX80: The proposal is not responsible\, it is not productive\, and it is not equitable\, and I urge you to deny the permit. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Dress wedding\, followed by Brian Culbertson. \nBoardroom SX80: Hi\, Commissioners my name is Brian Culbertson. \nBoardroom SX80: I work on art installations in Richmond. One of them\, Lava Trolla\, is installed in point San Pablo\, just off the Bay Bridge trail near the Richmond Bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: I biked law. Victroolla passed the Chevron refinery. So I want to talk to you about the air quality issues in Richmond. \nBoardroom SX80: Refinery is the largest sole emitter of greenhouse gas emissions on the West Coast\, and the largest polluter in Richmond by far air quality studies show that chevron is the number one culprit causing air quality issues in Richmond\, followed by Philip 66\, and then the landfill. \nBoardroom SX80: It is crucial that we lower greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality in Richmond. To do that\, we should follow the direction of air quality experts whose study recommends electrifying and industrial truck fleets like chevron\, because industrial trucks are the top source of vehicle emissions in Richmond \nBoardroom SX80: and expanding public transportation to reduce the number of vehicles over the bridge that releases tire and road particulates the current. Bus comes less than once an hour only operates until 10 PM. Has space for 2 bikes\, and many do not fit ebikes. It is not a viable option as a replacement\, for this path \nBoardroom SX80: removing the pathway would at best make air quality worse in the bay. Instead\, let’s deploy proven solutions to improve air\, quality and improve congestion in Richmond and direct chevron to electrify their trucks instead of getting rid of this pathway. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Kyle Brundle\, followed by Danny Lannis. \nBoardroom SX80: and then we will go to Virtual. \nBoardroom SX80: Hello! My name’s Kyle Brunel. Thank you for letting me speak today. I just want you a little bit of my personal experience with the Bike lane. I’m a long-time East Bay resident \nBoardroom SX80: long-time homeowner in El Cerrito. I make frequent use of the Bay Bridge. I’ve been across there about 400 times across the rich from Santa Fe bridge by bike. That’s 400 automobile trips I didn’t take because I was able to ride my bike across there. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m here obviously to urge you to \nBoardroom SX80: keep the bridge open. 24\, 7 for bicycle and pedestrian and jogger use. \nBoardroom SX80: Tom. \nBoardroom SX80: as a longtime resident. I’ve waited over 30 years for \nBoardroom SX80: access from the East Bay tumor in without having to climb into my car and the opening of this bay trail finally. \nBoardroom SX80: provided that I’m disappointed to hear that that that’s potentially in jeopardy now. So \nBoardroom SX80: and this would again force myself and anyone else who wants to go between the East Bay and Marin to climb back in our cars and to add another car to the road. \nBoardroom SX80: Hum! \nBoardroom SX80: One thing I want to know\, I’ve since this has \nBoardroom SX80: become a discussion again. I’ve I’ve started making a personal observation to look at cars as I’m heading eastbound on the bridge and look at cars heading westbound and looking in a windshield. I notice that 95% of them are single occupant vehicles. And I think \nBoardroom SX80: if we are going to do anything about congestion\, we possibly need to do something about urging people to \nBoardroom SX80: not drive their own car to somehow \nBoardroom SX80: get better usage of these available space on a bridge than just single occupant vehicles. \nBoardroom SX80: I also think that if there are that many incidents on the bridge\, perhaps the traffic speed is too fast\, and it should be lowered to accommodate the lowest common denominator of driver skills that are using the bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: I see a lot of time. Thank you. Thank you\, Sir \nBoardroom SX80: Danny Lannis. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning\, Daniel\, Resident of Richmond. \nBoardroom SX80: I would like to mention that this past Monday\, April thirtieth\, the city of Richmond\, passed a resolution in support of 24\, 7. Access to the Richmond from Raphael Bridge Trail. \nBoardroom SX80: Thanks to Council\, Member Dorie Robinson and Mayor Eduardo Martinez\, who co-sponsored the resolution \nBoardroom SX80: Sean and all Commissioners I’ve led dozens of rides\, including the Richmond Summerfield Trail. I would love to invite you to go on a ride with me and show you how fantastic of an experience it is \nBoardroom SX80: I have some others have mentioned\, gone through the bridge to \nBoardroom SX80: for mental health\, especially during Covid\, and partially thanks to that\, I’m here. \nBoardroom SX80: I won’t need to also show you this picture of my daughter being one of the first trailer bike bikes to cross through the original bridge trail. When she was about 5\, 6 years old. \nBoardroom SX80: and the whole poster here depicts her\, and it tells you that she is invited and actually leading. 2 years later she was invited to lead a ride with a community organization called Re City Rise\, that is\, empowering her and brought community together through bikes. \nBoardroom SX80: In addition to that I would like to point out that the data is very important. But the world shaped the Bay Area Bay Area and then \nBoardroom SX80: the Bay Area shaped the world. \nBoardroom SX80: What do? What is the message that we want to send? Where do we want to go? Do we want to increase vehicle miles traveled? \nBoardroom SX80: Are we increasing public access to the bay and the shoreline? \nBoardroom SX80: That was the question. Thank you so much. Thank you. I do have 2 more speakers\, and then I’m cutting it off for the people\, and you’ve had your opportunity. \nBoardroom SX80: Herb Castillo\, followed by. \nBoardroom SX80: I think it’s Jason Vargas. \nBoardroom SX80: Everybody. I’d like to cede 10 s of this\, for everybody who has passed who has been a part of helping people around the bay mobilize around the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: receding 10 s. \nBoardroom SX80: But there’s Highland. \nBoardroom SX80: I wanna say\, thank you. And I think that we have a lot more tools like Kamu and Strava. And I wanted to come up here because I I did have this ride\, and I grew up in Redwood City and right in the bay lands which almost don’t exist anymore. But most of my experience biking is on those bay trails\, and what I remember is marshes. I remember the birds. I remember being able to bike around and seeing that there’s wilderness around you. And when I think about this room \nBoardroom SX80: there’s a reason that it’s so beautiful \nBoardroom SX80: it changes our minds\, it changes the way that we view our perceptions and that we’re in a \nBoardroom SX80: a \nBoardroom SX80: we’re in a difficult moment for young people across the world. \nBoardroom SX80: What we fail to understand is that the Bay Area could really lead for what is essentially touring. So\, to give you an example of a ride that I do is from Hayward up to Tamales Bay. \nBoardroom SX80: something that I think growing up\, I didn’t imagine was possible\, but having lived in San Francisco around the city. And now\, Oakland\, I get to imagine what the world would look like in a different way. If we really want to address climate change and these rising levels you’re talking about\, we may as well\, just put gondolas all over. Why are we even talking about a side of a bridge? Build a whole lane? We have so much infrastructure. And we’re talking about municipal things. But \nBoardroom SX80: the other thing I wanted to say is\, let’s just get rid of the Bike lane and make it just a private lane for side shows. So instead\, on Saturday nights and Sunday nights\, it could just be used for people to do side shows and fun events. And then that way\, there’d be no bicyclist either. So I just wanted to say\, thanks and \nBoardroom SX80: there’s a potential here to view\, and and I can show you to my heart rate data\, there’s a difference. Thank you. Your time is now complete for public comment. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: James Vargas. \nBoardroom SX80: Hi! My name is neither James nor Vargas. It’s Jason Vargo. Sorry about that good start good afternoon\, Commission. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you. I came here today to support keeping the bridge path open. 24\, 7 to walking and biking. I live in Albany\, California. I work in San Francisco. I frequently go to Moran. I use the bridge as a motorist and as a cyclist on weekdays and on weekends. \nBoardroom SX80: The multipurpose lane is a necessary accessibility feature on this important regional infrastructure. \nBoardroom SX80: approving the proposal\, takes away the option from some people to use that bridge in the interest of reducing congestion times. \nBoardroom SX80: The proposal to close the path on weekdays restricts access accessibility. And there’s a large body of research that infrastructure with less inclusive design fosters and maintains societal inequities\, including disparate access to jobs\, housing\, and healthy lifestyles. \nBoardroom SX80: preserving multi-use path like this is in the interest of eliminating those inequities\, and that is in line with many of the general plans\, transportation plans\, and economic development plans of the region. Certainly it’s a chief concern of this commission. \nBoardroom SX80: and this is a crucial reason for preserving ubiquitous access to the multipurpose lane as a highly visible and connected piece of the regional transportation network. \nBoardroom SX80: maintaining round the clock accessibility prioritizes public safety\, encourages active lifestyles and supports local economies. It also upholds environmental stewardship. It makes our region more vibrant\, connected\, and liveable for everyone. Again\, I oppose the proposed Weekday Bridge path\, Closure\, and thank you for your time. \nBoardroom SX80: I apologize. \nBoardroom SX80: That did it. There you go. So there\, please start with the virtual speakers. \nBoardroom SX80: and again you have 2 min. If you want your face shown\, we will do that and give you verbal warnings. \nBoardroom SX80: John Spangler\, you’re up first with Roland cats on deck next \nBoardroom SX80: go. \nJon Spangler: Thank you very much. President Wasserman and members of the Commission. First\, I want to thank you \nJon Spangler: because for your advocacy for the Bay\, I grew up in Redwood City. I’m a second generation Nor Northern California\, and I love the bay. \nJon Spangler: and I appreciate everything you do for the bay \nJon Spangler: and the staff as well\, and I want to commend Lisa Klein for her wonderful staff report \nJon Spangler: recently. \nJon Spangler: It may help the rest of us who are commenting to have up the questions that she posed to the Commission. \nJon Spangler: And I wanna add to that in addition to the letter that I signed from the Bart Bike Advisory task force that you have received \nJon Spangler: electronically \nJon Spangler: as to the questions you should be asking. \nJon Spangler: concurrence is not causality. \nJon Spangler: and I believe that the increased incidence of collisions and collisions are the result of deliberate driver choices. \nJon Spangler: whether to drive distracted\, to drive under the influence or to not pay adequate attention to what you’re doing. \nJon Spangler: Collisions \nJon Spangler: have gone up. \nJon Spangler: and my question \nJon Spangler: to the Bata Staff Uc. Berkeley \nJon Spangler: Group and to the Commission is how much of the increase in collisions\, side swipes and rear enders \nJon Spangler: have been as a result of covid-related changes in driver behavior and emotions. \nJon Spangler: This is not mentioned in the staff report\, and I believe that should be covered. \nJon Spangler: and I thank you very much for your time and your efforts. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Roland Katz. \nBoardroom SX80: You are now up with Tomasso. Wanda. \nRoland Katz: Share my share. My video\, please. I’m Raleigh Katz. I’m the executive director of the Marine Association of Public Employees. We’re the union that represents the overwhelming majority of \nRoland Katz: employees of the county of Marin. \nRoland Katz: We have advocated for years that there be a \nRoland Katz: third lane in the rush hour. Westbound as well as eastbound. I understand that’s not before you today\, but we would support the proposal to \nRoland Katz: the lane for 4 days a week. \nRoland Katz: Yes\, affordable housing is a significant cause of the traffic \nRoland Katz: problem. But that’s not going to get solved tomorrow very simply. If there’s a stall or an accident. \nRoland Katz: The bridge without a shoulder. \nRoland Katz: You get one lane or no lanes. Emergency vehicles can’t get there on a shoulder. Cars cannot avoid the accident without a shoulder\, so we think that having a shoulder \nRoland Katz: will improve traffic time and congestion. \nRoland Katz: and very simply put \nRoland Katz: almost all of our members \nRoland Katz: riding a bicycle to work from the East Bay is simply not a viable alternative. \nRoland Katz: Thank you very much. If we build a new bridge\, as Commissioner Peter suggested\, it should have a bike lane. It should have a pedestrian lane and a \nRoland Katz: rail lane\, but we don’t have a new bridge\, so it’s a matter of balancing the competing interest. \nRoland Katz: and there are far more people driving across the bridge than are riding across the bridge. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Tomasso. You’re up next with Kristen Denver on deck. \nTommaso (he/him): Thank you\, guys\, thank you so much for your time. And\, Mr. Mazubaja\, I’m a resident in Oakland. \nTommaso (he/him): I do not own a car. And I don’t need to remind you\, Commissioners\, that your mandate is to expand access to the Bay. \nTommaso (he/him): You’re not the Metropolitan Transportation Transportation commission. You’re not the Bay Area quality district not making commutes maybe 10 min shorter\, based on data that actually would fail. A stats class is not your mandate. This is one of our decisions that in front of you that you need to apply a class angle to the poorer the household\, the least likely they are to have a car available. \nTommaso (he/him): You have the choice now to marginally improve access to cars\, maybe once again based on questionable data\, while severely restricting access to people who do not. This is in direct opposition to your mandate\, as they are but very Development Commission. I’ve enjoyed riding the bridge to visit family and friends in Marin and Sonoma \nTommaso (he/him): and to recreate a China Camp State Park. But I honestly hesitate to do so every single time\, because the noncar infrastructure in Marin is so hostile. I was kind of shocked by the questions from the Marin representative here \nTommaso (he/him): Marin County has been sabotaging this bike lane from Day one\, and the connection between the path and destinations like China Camp\, or even the further connections to the to the North Bay\, like the smart train\, are absolutely terrifying. I would like to encourage the representative on this board to ride that path. It\, like \nTommaso (he/him): it\, was one of the scariest right I’ve done. \nTommaso (he/him): Please do not use your commissions power \nTommaso (he/him): to restrict access to noncarning households. That is essential through this bridge. Thank you so much. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Kristen Denver. You’re up next with John Shorba on deck afterwards. \nKristin Denver: Hello! And thank you. First commission. Thank you for your time. I would like to endorse a lot of what rolling cats the Speaker\, 2 speakers ago just said that was very well said. My name is Dr. Kristen Denver\, and I’m here to express my support for the recommendations presented today with regard to keeping the limited availability lane on the bottom deck of the bridge and piloting a part time shoulder during higher commute times during the work week days. \nKristin Denver: My husband and I have lived in Richmond for over 20 years\, and we have both worked in Sonoma County for that long as well. Additionally\, our son attends school in Sonoma County\, so we are an active commuting family\, who crosses the bridge with 2 vehicles daily\, 6 days a week\, often crossing the bridge in both directions twice a day. \nKristin Denver: I’d like to thank the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the other cohorts who are involved for thinking creatively and facilitating changes to the lower deck and allowance. Limited use of the third lane\, because that was an absolute game changer for our family\, often cutting commute times up to 30 min daily. \nKristin Denver: With regard to the current proposal for the upper deck\, similar to the information shared by Commissioner multimolars. We are among the daily commuters who leave home nearly 2 h in advance to ensure we reach work and school on time. \nKristin Denver: Please note that without traffic. It’s actually only a 45 min drive\, and the majority of our commute time is spent approaching and crossing the bridge \nKristin Denver: in order to ensure that all 3 of us arrive to school and work on time. We have to account for the expanded and extended commute times that are caused by incidents with no access to an emergency shoulder \nKristin Denver: in summary. I’m here in support of a solution that provides continuing access for bikers and pedestrians during the times that the data shows they’re using it the most. \nKristin Denver: However\, I’m an absolute support of a solution that will improve the flow of traffic for the thousands and thousands of daily commuters during the times when the bike and pedestrian lane is highly under utilized. Thank you all for your hard work\, for your time and for your consideration. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: John Charba. You’re up next with Dwayne on deck. \nJohn Chorba: Hi! Thank you so much for allowing me the chance to speak just in the in the nature of of being timely. I did submit my comments to the to the public information\, so I won’t go through all of them here my name is Dr. Shawn\, sure\, but I’m a cardiologist and also a Marin County Resident and I I now work in North Oakland\, and I commute my butt by bike. pretty much every day. \nJohn Chorba: So I’m here to support the the 24 7 opening of the path 3 quick points I want to make one. I think you’ve heard many people say that place called commuting is good for personal health. I want to echo\, that I think as a cardiologist\, I can tell you that from first hand knowledge the second thing is that I I did hear some \nJohn Chorba: concerns or requests\, perhaps\, for more data on what the benefit of the bicycle of of commuting would be in terms of numbers. I had just put my information in through \nJohn Chorba: we’re in commutes.org. And I was pleased to see that over the past month I’ve reduced about \nJohn Chorba: 789 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions. So I just want\, you know the commissioners\, to understand what the benefits of having commuters going across the bridge as bicyclists would be. \nJohn Chorba: And the last thing that I wanna mention is\, it seems there’s a big question on you know how to best use the next period of time to get more data\, and I would argue that perhaps the better question is not what would happen\, what we should understand if the bike path were to go away\, but perhaps to keep the bike path open\, and then better understand what we could do with it. \nJohn Chorba: For example\, You know\, I’ve learned from my commuting that the area of Point Richmond is really quite beautiful. And had I known that before\, maybe I would spend more time there. Or might there be a way for us to decadest the bridge by putting in ebay or school rental depos on either side. Those are just some thoughts\, and I I think I would leave you with those. So thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: You \nBoardroom SX80: left \nBoardroom SX80: Dwayne. You’re up now. \nBoardroom SX80: John Grubb\, you’ll be next \nBoardroom SX80: Dwayne. Can you go ahead and talk into your mic for us? We show that you’re unmuted. \nBoardroom SX80: Go to John and come back. \nBoardroom SX80: Dwayne will come back to you. John Grubb\, go ahead and unmute yourself. \nJohn Grubb: Thanks\, John Grubb\, thank you. Chair Wasserman and and Commissioners John Grubb. Coo of the Bay Area Council. \nJohn Grubb: the pandemic and the rise of remote work has laid bare and sometimes conflicting public policy goals in the Bay area. Policy. Makers like yourselves must balance a desire to promote active transportation\, such as walking and biking\, while also working hard on social equity goals\, making life and economic opportunity easier for historically disadvantaged places and people. \nJohn Grubb: Perhaps nowhere in the Bay Area is that conflict more obvious or more raw than on the Richmond Santa Fe Bridge. \nJohn Grubb: The bike pilot\, at least during the commute hours\, has not succeeded with 140 bikers on average a day\, and 80\,000 drivers. \nJohn Grubb: We need to recognize that and correct it. \nJohn Grubb: Who are the people in the backup\, the vast majority of them 63% are people of color. 69% of them do not have a college degree\, and the majority of them make 60% make less than the Bay area is Median income. \nJohn Grubb: We argue that the Richmond side of the bridge preserves deserves the same relief that the Marin side got. We’ve pulled the residents of Richmond and 80% of them favor opening the lane to carpools in transit. Bcdc. Has a mandate to provide public access\, and we would argue that in this case the weekend recreation on the bridge\, and the numerous spike and pedestrian improvements that have been made on both sides of the bridge in recent years. \nJohn Grubb: All satisfy the in lieu access requirement. We would ask you to please amend the permits for the Richmond Center Bridge to restore the historic third lane on the upper deck and dedicate it during commute hours to carpools and transit. \nJohn Grubb: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: We’ll try and circle back. Dwayne. Go ahead and unmute \nBoardroom SX80: showing is unmuted. \nBoardroom SX80: Dwayne. We show you as unmuted. Go ahead and try and talk into your mic for us. \nBoardroom SX80: Are there any speakers after Dwayne? Let’s go to them. We’ll try and circle back David Reynolds. You’re up next with Dave H. After that. \nDavid Reynolds: Hello\, members of the Commission. \nDavid Reynolds: Are you able to hear me? Excellent! So I am a resident of Oakland\, and I am an educator in the mission in San Francisco. \nDavid Reynolds: I am committed to a No car lifestyle\, and have been my entire life. I do this because of our looming climate crisis. \nDavid Reynolds: I do it to live a healthful lifestyle\, and I do it because of the financial constraints that have been placed upon me in my career \nDavid Reynolds: I commute across the Richmond Bridge twice per week \nDavid Reynolds: and 3 weeks ago my friends and I did it 5 days. We did it every single morning. \nDavid Reynolds: It is a pleasurable experience to arrive at work\, having already gotten a workout and to do so in a way that is environmentally sustainable and physically healthy \nDavid Reynolds: many of the points I was going to raise have already been covered\, so I wanted to just share a little bit of napkin math with you. I did some research on Strava. I looked up. How many riders have crossed the bridge \nDavid Reynolds: in the past 90 days \nDavid Reynolds: and assuming 33 grands of carbon dioxide saved per mile on bicycles. \nDavid Reynolds: Richmond Bridge cyclists saved 18\,422 pounds of carbon dioxide in the last 90 days alone. \nDavid Reynolds: It’s a small step\, but it is an important one\, and one that we must make in this day and age\, with a climate crisis crisis all around us. \nDavid Reynolds: Looking at Bcdc’s mandate on your website\, it says that the Commission is intended to forward the protection and enhancement of the Sfa. And the encouragement of the base\, responsible use. \nDavid Reynolds: I hope that you consider the health of our region and the health of our people when you make your final decision. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: David Reynolds. You’re now up with David S. To follow. I think we just did. David Reynolds. \nDavid Reynolds: I will gladly speak for another 2 min. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Hard side. Thank you. Pardon me\, Dave H. Several days. \nDave H.: Good afternoon. My name’s Dave. Morning over the past safe. 8 years I’ve lived in the East Bay\, in Oakland\, in the city\, and I now reside in Sonoma County. I’m a frequent bike commuter. I’m a avid touring cyclist and a transit and urbanism enthusiast \nDave H.: data from the urban planners. Much smarter on science behind the traffic engineering than I is quite conclusive that an additional lane for cars does not alleviate traffic on a long term scale. \nDave H.: The the fact that we have traffic across the Richmond Santa Fe Bridge is actually a lever that can be used to adjust the behaviors of people who are stuck in that traffic to instead use public transit or use HIV vehicles. \nDave H.: The transition to returning this to a non bike lane or an Hov lane \nDave H.: will not alleviate traffic\, it will worsen community resiliency and equity. It will increase carbon emissions\, even if this were made into an Hov lane. This is a massive step backward\, and it is not based on data and facts that have been a scientific consensus for decades. I strongly oppose this measure and ask the commission to advocate against this motion. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: I believe we have David S. Up next \nBoardroom SX80: with Maureen Gaffney to follow. \nDavid S: Hey? Now I’m muted\, I guess. \nDavid S: Thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is David Shreeman\, and I’ve lived in the East Bay for 8 years\, and I have a degree in applied physics. \nDavid S: First\, I am for the bike path as long as it doesn’t affect the equal nature of lanes in both directions. That doesn’t appear to be the approach that is being taken. \nDavid S: 2 lanes\, one direction\, and 3. The other direction is illogical. Cars have to come back. There is no argument that makes 2 equal\, 3 \nDavid S: 3 lanes westbound on the Richmond bridge until the south one on one interchange\, is the only logical solution. \nDavid S: Only 4.9% of bikes. Slash pedestrians use the bridge to commute to work as seen on page 132 of the report. The path is overwhelmingly for recreation\, which is optional and should not be prioritized above low income workers from the East Bay. \nDavid S: I would encourage the Commission to conduct a poll to look at the relative income levels of who supports the bike lane and who opposes it. \nDavid S: I support a bike lane\, in addition to 3 permanent lanes\, both directions 7 days a week\, and to increase taxes on the wealthy\, to make this possible and to not punish low income workers who are forced to commute to where the job where the jobs are in Marin. \nDavid S: Thank you very much for your time. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: We have Maureen Gaffney with Barry \nBoardroom SX80: Tarantino to follow. \nMaureen Gaffney: Good afternoon\, Commissioners. My name is Maureen Gaffney. A huge part of Bcdc’s mission is public access to the bay\, and this has historically included unwavering support for the San Francisco Bay trail. I would posit that. The current condition is the maximum feasible public access. As you know\, many people have worked for many years to secure this pathway\, and the low hanging fruit on the bay trail has been picked. \nMaureen Gaffney: Removing this pathway will be a first for the Bay trail\, going backwards\, removing public access\, removing 4 miles of bay trail. As has been stated\, the upper deck has never had a third Lane. It’s not proposed to be a third lane here\, so it will not help traffic. Yes\, this pathway is under utilized on weekdays\, and that is\, in fact\, in large part\, because the infrastructure on the marine side is incomplete and inadequate. \nMaureen Gaffney: We need more transportation choices and options not less. This path is not a silver bullet for sea level rise\, Vmt. And climate change\, but removing it is a clear and definitive step backwards for all of these things\, for the Bay trail for public access to the bay and the shoreline that is\, this commission is tasked to protect. \nMaureen Gaffney: Shuttles are notoriously unreliable and do not provide maximum feasible public access. Again\, maximum feasible public access is the current condition on the bridge. I would like to second the notion about Ebikes. We they’re they’re really just taking off now. And and they are a great \nMaureen Gaffney: a great option for people to to be outside of cars to use this pathway. And we really haven’t seen their their full deployment yet. And we should definitely keep this pathway open so that we can continue to get to gather the information that we need\, and that will be done by retaining the path\, not by going back to the previous condition. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Barry. You are next with Nick Sweeting to follow. \nBarry Taranto: Good more. Good evening. Good afternoon. Excuse me. So I am calling as a long time resident of San Rafael. \nBarry Taranto: and and I want to support the marin position on this. The thing is\, though\, is\, I think\, you should look at a permit \nBarry Taranto: on a limited timeframe until they build more affordable housing\, as as was reported by John Grubb\, that the the type of people who use their cars to commute into marin are people of color and of minorities\, and I think you’re not gonna expect them with their families in the East Bay\, and and they afford to Bill and a second jobs to be able to ride a bicycle across the bridge to get to and from their jobs. \nBarry Taranto: And we need these these employees and workers in Marin in order for the county to function just as valuable as other workers. So I wanna say that I think that \nBarry Taranto: the proposal put before you to to have a a a curb\, a curb lane\, \nBarry Taranto: and a a shoulder\, and then to also have h ov Lane would be the best alternative\, and a compromise to what would be having a third lane for all traffic. \nBarry Taranto: I it. It doesn’t need to be third lane for all traffic all the time. But I think there has to be some type of change\, because people’s lives are changed in different ways and and income income and wages have not met up with the changing economy. So I beg you\, and when you do have come this before you that you look at creating a permit \nBarry Taranto: that deals with this issue\, and yet is limited to allow for the creation of more housing and more affordable housing in Marin County. Thank you for allowing me to speak today\, and great questions from the Commissioners to the presenters. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Nick Sweden. You’re up with Lucas to follow. \nNick Sweeting: Hello! I’m a Emoryville resident and Long Time Bay resident. I oppose the path\, closure and support\, keeping it open. 24\, 7 in particular. Uniquely for me weekday nights \nNick Sweeting: in the spirit of maximum feasible public access. Night access is critical to my ability to use the Bay trail for transit and exercise. \nNick Sweeting: Without the path. There’s no way to get to Marin back at night without a car\, as the soonest bus is 6 in the morning. \nNick Sweeting: I have been stuck on the wrong side at night before the path existed\, and it really sucks \nNick Sweeting: I asked the Commission to seriously consider freedom of movement for all citizens. Not just during the day\, but also for people who work and exercise at night. \nNick Sweeting: Also regarding the usage of a shuttle. I\, personally\, would not use a shuttle much. But I do. I would. I do currently use the path about once a week. The shuttle sort of defeats the purpose of having the bridge as a destination for exercise\, and it makes me dependent on a service that’s likely not going to be offered at night. \nNick Sweeting: Regarding benchmarks to judge the success of the path I recommend everyone. Take a look at Terry Town in New York city. They have a similar situation where they started with no bike path. They added a shuttle service on an existing bridge. It wasn’t used much\, and then eventually\, when there finally was a a bike path solution going across \nNick Sweeting: induced demand gradually brought more ridership\, so induced demand teaches us that adding a new lean doesn’t necessarily reduce traffic\, but it cuts both ways. \nNick Sweeting: adding a lane\, for bicyclists \nNick Sweeting: will eventually induce demand for more cyclists and pedestrians across that way. \nNick Sweeting: Thank you for your time. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Lucas. You’re up with Jan Shiller to follow. \nLucas: Hi commission. My name’s Lucas. I experience the bike lane every single day. By looking out of my car window and seeing almost nobody in it\, along with thousands of other people moving very\, very slowly\, just trying to get to work. \nLucas: I don’t think we need more data. It shows that\, like maybe 20 people are commuting with it every day\, the rest is recreational. \nLucas: And so I think this is really a fair proposal that when most people are using it\, they get to use it for biking\, or walking\, or running\, or whatever on the weekends and Friday. \nLucas: but otherwise\, like \nLucas: thousands of us are just trying to get to work. \nLucas: and it really sucks. I have a kid I’d rather be hanging out with instead of getting up early and leaving so that I don’t lose my job. \nLucas: There are more people advocating for the bike lane in this meeting than are using it to commute. \nLucas: I think this is sort of ridiculous that we are equivocating like this. \nLucas: that’s it. Thank you. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Chan Chiller. You’re up next with Drew Levitt to follow. \nJan Schiller: Can you hear me? \nJan Schiller: Okay. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes. \nJan Schiller: Great. Thank you. \nJan Schiller: Thank you. I really appreciate being here. I’m a resident of Sonoma County. \nJan Schiller: and I serve on the Advisory Board for in-home supportive services\, representing people with disabilities. \nJan Schiller: and my caregiver is my sister. She lives in the East Bay\, and she drives over here quite often\, and it’s very difficult for her\, with the congestion that it is now \nJan Schiller: in Urban. \nJan Schiller: We would really appreciate having this third lane. \nJan Schiller: so not just her\, but \nJan Schiller: but other caregivers would have an easier time coming over to the North Bay and also I’d like to suggest as alternatives before I became physically disabled. I used to ride my bike and I I noticed they’re making improvements now in Highway 37\, and it’s a beautiful scenic route. \nJan Schiller: and also I’d like to suggest that carpools that there’d be an easier system for people to connect with carpools\, because that’s been very difficult to to get to the North Bay with Carpool. So thank you so much for all the good work you do\, and I appreciate this opportunity. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you \nBoardroom SX80: and Drew Levitt. You may unmute Patrick Lake. You’ll be up next. \nBoardroom SX80: Drew. \nBoardroom SX80: Can you unmute. \nDrew Levitt: There we go! Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nDrew Levitt: Thank you. Chair Wasserman. Thank you\, Commissioners. My name is Drew Levitt. I live in Oakland. I work for Mtc. But I’m speaking solely in my capacity as a private citizen. Today. I am a travel demand modeler. So I think a lot about self fulfilling prophecies. And it turns out that if you make it easy to do something and give people long enough to adapt their lifestyles accordingly\, more of that thing tends to happen\, and if you make it hard to do something\, people tend to stop doing that thing\, whether they want to or not. \nDrew Levitt: A hypothetical question to consider how many people might walk or bike over the Golden Gate bridge a popular bridge if there weren’t a bike path on that bridge. 0 obviously \nDrew Levitt: travel outcomes take many\, many years to emerge. Land\, use changes. People change their houses in their jobs. People make sticky decisions based on what they believe and will remain available. \nDrew Levitt: So the choice\, as I see it\, is that we can keep making easier to drive\, and harder\, or sometimes impossible to do anything else. And then\, many years from now we can wonder\, while we’re all S sitting in car traffic\, why everyone drives everywhere and nobody walks or bikes\, or we can make important decisions\, large and small\, that may be frustrating this year. But what we remembered is visionary in decades to come. \nDrew Levitt: A few concrete points for the Commission. Please consider how keeping or removing the Richmond S. Nfl. Bridge\, bike path would align with regional plans and policies\, such as our stated commitments to reduce vehicle miles of travel and greenhouse gas emissions\, the incredibly important San Francisco Bay Trail\, as has been discussed\, as well as smaller efforts like Mtc’s Ebake subsidy program. \nDrew Levitt: Frankly\, the proposal before you. I\, in my opinion\, personal opinion is so at odds with these efforts that it feels a little like the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing\, and perhaps Bcdc. Can help get the 2 hands on the same page. Specifically. But for question 2. I would urge the Commission to request an analysis of the changes in walk sheds and bike sheds and land use accessibility for non motorized travelers with and without the path. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Patrick Lake. You’re up next with Bruce to follow. \nPatrick Lake: Hi! Getting audio! Here! \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, we can hear you. \nPatrick Lake: Hi! I’m Patrick Lake in Point Richmond\, and I’m lucky to have the bridge in my backyard. \nPatrick Lake: I ride a bike on it many days a week. My favorite ride in the world is a double bridge ride to Sf. Of my dog in a backpack. \nPatrick Lake: This access lets me thrive. \nPatrick Lake: If here as a neural diverse. \nPatrick Lake: So at all the hours of day and night. \nPatrick Lake: My city counselors\, Bcdc. Commissioner\, is a Paida\, and Commissioner Joya appointed me to the contract. Costa County Bicycle Advisory Committee. \nPatrick Lake: I’m a bike instructor with Bike East Bay. I organize events\, and this week I’m joining 1\,000 people for a hundred mile bike ride with the Grizzly Peak cyclists. \nPatrick Lake: We ride for all the reasons that drivers drive\, but we also have a community for all ages and and identities\, and we deserve equity. \nPatrick Lake: I oppose closing the bridge path because the data says there’s nothing to gain. Let’s keep it open. Opponents of the path. Say they want to relieve congestion\, but they’re making it worse. \nPatrick Lake: The real impact of more car space isn’t less congestion. It’s induced demand\, more cars\, more miles more\, pollution\, more parking. It’s choking. Living space out of our cities. \nPatrick Lake: Opponents exaggerate where issues like crashes once in a million miles\, but working cars jam the bridge every day\, just like the Bay bridge gets jammed with 5 full lanes. Extra space doesn’t solve this. If people really care\, the only solution is alternatives\, more rail\, bus and bike instead of a car per person. \nPatrick Lake: Many cyclists are also drivers\, but the less we rely on cars the more we solve the problem. There’s no going back. If we want a working system\, don’t roll back the access to the bay. It can’t be an afterthought just on weekends or somewhere else. After we get out of the way of cars we need reliable 24 7. Access to end car reliance. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m going to interrupt. \nPatrick Lake: Going to interrupt. \nBoardroom SX80: We have. \nBoardroom SX80: Hip! \nBoardroom SX80: The echo stopped. \nBoardroom SX80: 22 more speakers. We have an additional\, also very important item on this agenda. We are not making a decision today. \nBoardroom SX80: Assuming that Caltrans and Bata wish to proceed with this proposal. \nBoardroom SX80: we don’t know that they will or not. This will come back to us for a permit. \nBoardroom SX80: So I’m going to cut. I’m going to stop the public speaking. But any of you who have not spoken\, and for that matter\, any of you who have \nBoardroom SX80: are absolutely free to submit to us through our portal comments\, whether by email or by letter\, and those will be distributed to the Commissioners\, and this will come back to us if it’s going forward. So I thank all of you for your attention and your patience. And we’re now going to move on to the next item. \nBoardroom SX80: Out of respect to the Dean of our commission. I’m going to give him one last short comment. I just want to make sure\, since we’re asking questions. And I think I just want to reset it at the beginning. \nBoardroom SX80: because this has come up and as well in the speaking is is collecting more granular data on the incidents that you do have. And I realize you don’t have the best data \nBoardroom SX80: that any information you have in the pilot period regarding the number frequency of incidents we’re talking going westbound now. \nBoardroom SX80: during the peak hour\, right? During the specifically\, I mean at all times\, but specifically during the peak hour. So that getting more\, I think I’ve heard from several Commissioners\, we need more of that. \nBoardroom SX80: How much the delay was. You know what type of incident you have some of that in there. But putting it all together and summarizing. \nBoardroom SX80: thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: We are now going to Item 9\, which is a briefing on the San Mateo County. Flood and sea level Rise resiliency district. \nBoardroom SX80: commonly known as one shoreline \nBoardroom SX80: representatives of one shoreline working throughout San Mateo County\, will brief the Commission on the vision and plan for the future to build resilience to rising sea level. \nBoardroom SX80: Regulatory director\, Harriet Ross\, will introduce the briefing \nBoardroom SX80: once again I would ask Sarah to keep a close eye on the number of hands that pop up\, and if you do want to public. Speak \nBoardroom SX80: on this. You’re a member of the public. Be sure to submit a card. If you’re in the room and raise your hand. If you are participating virtually. \nBoardroom SX80: Director Ross\, you’re gonna start. Thank you. Chair Wasserman. Good afternoon\, Commissioners. I’m happy to introduce the next item. BC. DC\, staff have been working with one shoreline over the last several months\, as we both share common goals of protecting the Bay’s development and resources while creating resilience to climate change. Much of one shorelines. Projects are located within Bcdc’s jurisdiction. \nBoardroom SX80: There’s much to learn from each other. One shoreline was established to address all water related impacts of climate change\, including the most significant long-term impact of sea level rise. They were ahead of the curve in addressing climate impacts in San Mateo county across jurisdictional boundaries much like Bcdc. Was ahead of the game in tackling sea level rise on a regional basis here in the Bay area \nBoardroom SX80: I would like to acknowledge Commissioner Pine\, who has been on BC. DC’s commission since 2011\, and he was the driving force for creation of one shoreline for almost a decade\, and has served as one shoreline board chair since its inception in 2020. So with that\, I’m going to go ahead and turn it over to Lenderman\, chief executive officer of one shoreline to brief the Commission. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, thank you\, Mr. Chair and Commissioners. It’s good to see you. Thank you for the introduction. Harriet\, appreciate that. And\, thanks to Commissioner Pine\, who’s the chair of our board as well as others in Bcdc. Who have been so actively involved in our efforts at the staff level and at the Commissioner level over the years. \nBoardroom SX80: Including Commissioner Showalter. Good to see you. \nBoardroom SX80: So maybe what I will do is is first invite one of one Shorelines Board members\, and the Mayor of Burlingame\, who\, I know\, has to leave the meeting shortly. She. She signed on to make a few comments\, in part because of her service\, and one Shorelines board since our inception\, also\, in part because one of \nBoardroom SX80: things I’m going to dive into a little bit is a project that we have on the Millbrain and Burlingame shoreline\, and she’s the mayor of that city. So if I could invite her to say a couple words\, and then I’ll proceed with the presentation. \n_Donna Colson: Thank you very much. Mr. Maderman\, I appreciate this. My name\, and thank you. Chair and commissioners for entertaining this conversation today. My name is Donna Coulson. I’m the Mayor Burlingame\, A. Re. And a regional director of one shoreline. I am grateful that you have added this topic to your busy agenda today. Sea Level rise is a critical concern to Burlingame. Our businesses\, residents\, and visitors. \n_Donna Colson: For the last 4 years we have worked to develop the first in the Bay area and possibly even in the nation. 100 years. Sea level rise\, resilience\, zoning code. And just last week\, with the support of environmental advocates and our community. We approved a new biotech development of approximately 13 acres \n_Donna Colson: that will provide a nature base and other pre protections as well as complete our bay trail and add stream and other habitat restoration to about 13 acres of the shoreline. \n_Donna Colson: This this result. This result protects inland businesses\, residents\, and our vulnerable infrastructure\, which includes highway 101\, at no expense to the tax pair. \n_Donna Colson: This is a feasible model that is being shared with other communities. I’ve done a lot of work with Sausalito as well\, and our leadership up there in in in the city and the county to share all the work we’re doing\, and I’m grateful for their openness. To receive information that is based on what we’ve already done. \n_Donna Colson: The Bay front is a large part of our economic engine in Burlingame. \n_Donna Colson: It provides almost 30% of our budget \n_Donna Colson: resources\, and it hosts critical recreation\, infrastructure\, including parks and fields as well as our wastewater treatment center\, which is quite literally 10 feet away from the bay \n_Donna Colson: protecting these assets has been a priority for my generation of leadership. Here in Burlingame one shoreline has proven indispensable in our efforts to protect our city from rising seas. \n_Donna Colson: We wanna thank CEO Matterman\, and of course\, Supervisor Pine\, my colleagues on one shoreline and all of the regional agencies that have expressed interest and support for the work we’re doing. \n_Donna Colson: Mr. Maderman’s outstanding staff has really led the way on this\, and we appreciate our collaboration with the agencies like Bcdc. \n_Donna Colson: We look forward to continued collaboration and mutual support. I am so sorry I have to leave to go to another meeting at about 4 30\, but I’ll stay on until then and again\, just wanna thank you and tell you how important this work is for our city. \n_Donna Colson: All done. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay. \nBoardroom SX80: thank you\, Mayor Coulson. \nBoardroom SX80: so I will share screen \nBoardroom SX80: and begin a presentation \nBoardroom SX80: and given the the \nBoardroom SX80: the time we’re at\, I will try to make this as \nBoardroom SX80: efficient as possible. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, so my name is Len Matterman. The name of our agency. We go by one shoreline\, and you’ll understand why\, once\, I say\, our full name is San Mateo County. Flood and sea level rise resiliency district and we also one shoreline also kind of expresses the the sentiment and ethos of our of our efforts. It was created with the mentality. By this all the 20 cities in San Mateo County\, as well as the county itself\, thinking that we’re all in this together. \nBoardroom SX80: Bit of background. On one shoreline\, 65 years ago\, a flood control district was created in San Mateo County. Like many other counties in the Bay area and around the nation\, it only worked in 10% of our county. In the areas that are shown in various colors here watersheds. \nBoardroom SX80: and meanwhile\, over the past about 10 years\, many studies done by the county or Caltrans\, or Mtc. A bag or Scripts Institute or Stanford or Berkeley. They pointed to the San Mateo County’s all too common vulnerability to wildfire and drought \nBoardroom SX80: increased vulnerability compared to others in relation to groundwater and and just unique vulnerability to sea level rise around California. \nBoardroom SX80: So there was a realization\, after all\, that that climate change is transformative for our county\, and that no one jurisdiction can do it together. \nBoardroom SX80: In 1919 Assembly Member Kevin Mullen authored a bill in the State House to create one shoreline out of this former flood control district\, and it was established on January 1\, 2020\, to address the climate\, related impacts of the water\, related impacts of climate change. \nBoardroom SX80: We take a holistic view to threats\, geography\, and objectives. What that means is we work multi-jurisdictional. That’s in our DNA. Let’s say in terms of threats. We’re not just looking at a historic flood event that was modeled by Fema in the 1980 s. Or 90 S. We’re looking forward to extreme storms\, and of course\, sea level rise. \nBoardroom SX80: we think\, in terms of objectives holistically \nBoardroom SX80: cross sector governmental schools\, private sector\, community based organizations and also cross disciplinary climate affects everything\, it affects housing\, transportation\, utilities\, everything that is related to our society\, and so our objective is to have housing advocates or utilities advocates also see climate as their issue\, because it’s important to the resilience \nBoardroom SX80: of their interests. We take a quick look at our priorities. Land use. I show these 2 pictures. One is is a housing project in our county\, and you can see the the bay water level today is quite high compared to the front door and and first floor windows of this housing development\, and then\, of course\, an underground parking garage that has water after a major storm event. During a high tide. \nBoardroom SX80: I bring these up \nBoardroom SX80: to say that that these are these pictures are from developments from about 10 years ago\, but these are also developments that are coming to BC. DC. In 2024\, with underground parking and with front doors right next to the bay\, without any back\, without any setback. And so these are not just issues that we face 10 years ago. These are issues we face today. And it’s important for all of us to work together so that Bcdc. Has the authorities to create resilience beyond its important mission of public access. \nBoardroom SX80: so we’re interested in land use. We want any project\, whether it’s public infrastructure or private development to function for its lifespan. That’s really what this is about. Can it function for the for its intended lifespan\, based on our changing climate. So we’re creating policy guidance around. We already created one related to private development that was approved by the one shoreline board last year. \nBoardroom SX80: and next year we’re focused on public infrastructure. So that’s things like pump stations. You see a picture here of a pump station on a sunny day. No rain across from a private development. And of course\, you see the effects that we’ve seen in other parts of the Bay area as well\, where on the sunny days. There’s quite a bit of water. This picture\, with at Highway 380. This is west of Highway 101. It’s about a mile upstream in San Bruno \nBoardroom SX80: Creek\, and this is again with no rain. Of course this is Highway 101. The public access trails also have substantial resiliency issues. And then here is a picture of a Pg. And E. Tower that won’t have to worry about its No Trespassing Sign much longer. And so we are creating a public infrastructure. Guidance in 2024 to 2025\, and working with Pcdc. Staff on both of those efforts which is. \nBoardroom SX80: are helpful. \nBoardroom SX80: As part of this planning guidance. We have what we call a map of future conditions. And this shows the whole county. Basically\, we look at both effects of sea level rise water coming over the edge of of our shoreline\, but also groundwater rise. And that’s a emerging field with data is\, is improving on that quite a bit as as time goes by. There’s a lot of work being done. \nBoardroom SX80: On that in at Uc. Berkeley\, and one of our fellows\, the Stanford Ph. D. Student\, is specializing in groundwater\, and we’re trying to kind of fine tune our understanding of the effects of groundwater in the shoreline area. \nBoardroom SX80: zeroing in on the area I’m gonna talk a little bit about in a few minutes. This is San Francisco International Airport\, just south of. There is city of Millbury\, and just south of there is city of Burlingame. This area is impacted\, you see\, in in kind of blue green the fema flood zone. And then \nBoardroom SX80: in that area\, plus is the yellow area which is the sea level\, rise overlay district\, and then beyond that is groundwater. So groundwater actually goes farther inland than the effects of anticipated sea level rise. And I need to stop you for one quick moment for procedural action. \nBoardroom SX80: We have lost our quorum\, not your fault. And we’re going to move to a committee of the whole and proceed that way to receive your very important information. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: You can just continue. Okay\, okay\, I will not lose a beat and go to the wrap up of our other priorities. Wanted to say\, we were created as a long-term resiliency agency. That was the intent\, in 2015\, 2016\, etc\, all the way through our legislation\, signed by the Governor in 2019. What quickly became apparent in the fall of 2021 to all of us. \nBoardroom SX80: as well as 22\, the winter of 2223 is the atmospheric rivers that we see\, and we \nBoardroom SX80: at one shoreline believe are fueled by climate change. That’s an impact of climate change now. \nBoardroom SX80: and it was not sufficient for us to just focus on thinking about long term resilience when the the greatest impact of climate is happening today. And so we spend a lot of time on alerting people\, too\, and reducing the impacts of extreme storms. Many of those impacts are exacerbated by high tides\, as you know\, and in a low lying area like the bay shoreline of San Mateo County. That’s a huge issue. \nBoardroom SX80: Where we have storm surge and extreme tides coincident with a big storm. And that’s what creates problems. We don’t have a long-term stable source of funding. That’s a high priority for us as well\, and then finally projects\, and this will transition to zeroing in on this Millbrey Berlin game shoreline. But this is a snapshot of the 53 miles of San Mateo County shoreline. We have 12 cities impacted by the bay\, 11 that touch the bay\, and within those 53 miles and 12 cities there are 10 distinct \nBoardroom SX80: efforts that are looking at long term resilience on our shoreline\, and they range from early early planning to completed construction. Completed construction has been Foster City\, and that was a project really focused on the current fema flood plain\, and our work at one shoreline is to align as much as possible all of these efforts that you see in different colors throughout the shoreline\, so that they are substantial and that they complement one another. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, zeroing in on one aspect of our shoreline\, San Francisco Airport \nBoardroom SX80: course\, a major important facility\, very large\, and they also have a project they call it their shoreline protection programme. You see in yellow the outline there\, and \nBoardroom SX80: what’s interesting to me is when the airport was developed\, not surprisingly\, the creeks were rerouted around the airport\, and the impacts of that are partially shown in in the pictures that we see of the areas around the airport. So on the right. That’s Colma Creek during the king tide\, and then below that is the city of San Bruno during a storm and and high tide. \nBoardroom SX80: And then the city of Bill Bray\, with the flooding scene. This is all areas west of Highway 101 along the creeks and then to the south of there. It’s really just a shoreline shot of the city of Burlingame. So our job with these dashed lines and arrows in green\, extending north from the airport and south from the airport is to leverage the work of San Francisco airport to create greater \nBoardroom SX80: section to the north and south within San Mateo County. \nBoardroom SX80: So it’s important to talk about kind of what our objectives are. Our objective is really one objective. And that’s climate resilience for areas with existing or potential development. You see\, appear a picture during during a high tide\, but not extreme tide of a walkway. Alongside a hotel in Berlin game. So resilience for development\, resilience for trails. \nBoardroom SX80: There’s bay trails here in in this area\, like there are in many areas\, most areas thankfully\, of San Francisco Bay. But those trails\, even where they exist\, may not be terribly attractive\, or may not be resilient to climate change\, and so our project is also about creating resilience for public access\, and then resilience for habitat. These are also images from this part of the shoreline. \nBoardroom SX80: So it’s it’s not so much in my mind about just building habitat for today. It’s about\, what can we build today? That’s not gonna be washed away when the bay expands in in 10 years\, 15 years\, 20 years\, it’s about resilience for development\, public access\, and habitat. \nBoardroom SX80: So we have a project that is in large part at this moment funded by the State of California\, and that is to look at the shoreline of Bill Bray\, which is just next to Sfo\, and then Burlingame\, with the potential to extend it to the city of San Mateo and the fundamental alternatives of this project are shoreline and creek flood protection. We have 6 creeks or channels that flow into San Francisco Bay. You can see that \nBoardroom SX80: kind of purple lines that extend outward from the bay here. And and so this project looks like a very traditional approach of building a levee or wall on the shoreline\, and then building. In this case walls not so much levees along these creeks. I’ll talk about some of those constraints in a second. The other option is\, we stay away from working in the creeks because of land rights\, concerns riparian issues of concerns about environment. \nBoardroom SX80: and cost and working with highway 101\, which is very complicated when all these creeks go under Highway 101 and flood the highway today\, and instead we put tide gates and pump stations on the mouth of these creeks that has opportunities and constraints like all of these. And so we could talk about that \nBoardroom SX80: third fundamental alternative is to put some sort of of a wave break offshore. And this has been done in San Francisco Bay\, and it’s essentially putting a hardened structure that you put some habitat on top of\, and you put these out in the bay\, and they break the waves\, and that reduces the wave height and wave energy which allows for a slightly smaller shoreline protection. But at the end of the day you still need \nBoardroom SX80: shoreline protection. If you’re talking about sea level rise\, because you’re trying to address the water level at some point. \nBoardroom SX80: and then the fourth one is an offshore barrier\, with doors and as well as a pump station and shoreline enhancement for access and for habitat. And this sense is that now today\, if if this were put in\, these doors would basically remain open at all times\, except for during a atmospheric river\, when you need the \nBoardroom SX80: offshore to collect that water to reduce flooding on shore\, so that would be a few times a year\, and then also during king tides\, on whatever 4 days a year. So the doors would be closed for those half dozen days a year\, otherwise they would remain open to allow for \nBoardroom SX80: Riparian Creek flow and tidal action\, and as sea level rises the doors would be closed more so. What our engineers estimate is that after a foot and a half of sea level rise from today the doors would be closed. A total of 1 h per day\, basically 30 min at each high tide. \nBoardroom SX80: and then\, after 3 feet of sea level rise\, they would be closed about 6 HA day\, so they would be closed more and more as time goes on\, and whenever we reach a foot and a half sea level rise\, that’s kind of what the scenario would be\, but for today we can also provide the protection of against allowing these these during the storms the creeks to flow into the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: So those are our options where look at the constraints in the area\, and the number one is that this area is heavily urbanized. You see here a picture of of a building in Burlingame\, right alongside the bay shoreline. Not a lot of room to build protection for this area unless you go into the bay or you take out the building. And so those are your fundamental options. If you have this. And this is not just at this site so \nBoardroom SX80: a concern. And then this is on a creek channel. You see the building on one side\, the parking on the other\, and utilities. And so we have constrained Creek channels as well. Other constraints are. Our goal is to get people out of the fema flood plain\, in part because it’s a certain means as a certifiable project that will last\, and in part\, of course\, because of the financial benefits for the property owners in the area. \nBoardroom SX80: And then this is just adjacent to San Francisco airport\, which has a lot of concerns about birds\, not surprisingly. And so building habitats that attract flying birds is something that they’re they’ve expressed a great concern about \nBoardroom SX80: and and something I wanted to. Highlight is we don’t have a lot of room here\, basically\, the areas that you see in pink are the only areas that either don’t involve private taking or going into the bay. Those are the only areas that we have for actually building resilience. And we have a concern that as the bay shoreline is developed or the creeks are developed in the shoreline area. \nBoardroom SX80: that those projects that are being currently approved by the cities and by regulatory agencies\, are limiting our ability to do natural solutions do resilience period\, but including natural solutions into those projects. It makes it more difficult as the buildings get developed closer and closer to the bay\, like you see in that picture on the left. \nBoardroom SX80: So we’re left with 2 alternatives that we’re currently analyzing. One is onshore fundamentally\, and one is offshore fundamentally. And and our status right now\, on this project is we put out a notice of preparation. We’ve got a lot of comments. They were very robust comments\, mostly on our offshore idea\, and we’re taking those comments in. We’ve learned from them quite a bit. \nBoardroom SX80: and we are beginning analysis! It’s called a leadpa analysis\, which is required by both feet\, both the core and the water board\, and that’s defined the least environmentally damaging practical alternative. We’re also this month hiring an outreach consultant to enhance our outreach efforts. And and after all of that\, and meeting with regulatory agencies. In fact\, next week. And after all of that\, we will begin the environmental process. \nBoardroom SX80: So we’re at early\, so early days on this. But it’s an important project\, and it’s one that’s gotten a lot of attention. And BCC. Bccdc. Staff have asked me to to \nBoardroom SX80: speak on it\, and I’m happy to do so because it just presents all of us with a lot of questions about what is this place gonna look like\, if we’re really serious about about becoming resilient. And we are we in San Mateo\, Caron County are serious about becoming resilient\, and that poses a lot of opportunities and a lot of constraints. So with that\, I thank you. And I’m happy to answer questions. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: How many public speakers do we have \nBoardroom SX80: currently \nBoardroom SX80: through \nBoardroom SX80: 4. Chair Wasserman 4 4. \nBoardroom SX80: Alright. I’m gonna \nBoardroom SX80: as I did in the last item. \nBoardroom SX80: Give the Commissioners the opportunity to ask questions. \nBoardroom SX80: and then we’ll turn to the Public \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Nelson. \nBoardroom SX80: Just one quick question. One of your earlier graphics showed that you were looking at the potential for walls along some of the creeks that lead out to the bay between one and one in the bay\, and your discussion at the end showed that you’d apparently screen those out. And I’m just hoping you can help me understand why? Why you made that decision. Yeah\, we\, the \nBoardroom SX80: basically going up the creeks. We would have to. If under our sea level rise assumptions we’d have to go all the way up to the caltrain tracks. So it’s beyond highway 101. So the combination of \nBoardroom SX80: of all of that work which is costly and and has environmental impacts. All of the land rights that would be needed to be acquired as part of that\, because a lot of those properties they don’t just end at the edge of the parking lot. They go into the mid center line of the creek\, and so all of the land rights that would have to be involved in building that \nBoardroom SX80: also\, as I mentioned\, the complications of integrating that with highway 101 at 6 different crossings just made it infeasible to us and and the trade-off\, for though all of that is the tie gate and pump station approach at the creek mouse. \nBoardroom SX80: There may be ways to limit that slightly but fundamentally. That’s that’s the alternative. So the the shoreline based alternative that you were looking at includes those tide gates about stations. That’s right\, exactly. I appreciate that. \nBoardroom SX80: Mr. Gunther Lynn. Thanks so much for this. It’s \nBoardroom SX80: it’s really great to see somebody putting pencil and paper to like\, okay\, so what do we actually do? I wanted to ask you first of all\, when we had our South Bay Shoreline Conference in 2\,017 and created a map just by asking people\, Are you thinking about something? Are you thinking about something? There were lots of holes. \nBoardroom SX80: There was a project\, and then there was no project. Then there was another project. You presented us a. \nBoardroom SX80: Obviously\, there are very different stages of these things. But now everybody that’s got shoreline in San Mateo County is thinking about this issue \nBoardroom SX80: collectively. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, that’s that’s well\, I mean congratulations. I mean\, that’s a great\, that’s a really a really great achievement. I also wanted warm to my heart as a Water Board member to hear you talking about thinking about groundwater and I assume you’re in communication with staff at the waterboard \nBoardroom SX80: on this issue. And that’s gonna be a challenge\, no matter what alternative\, right that you you select. And then\, lastly\, obviously\, you’re gonna eventually get into the dollars and cents of all this\, and I\, unless I missed it\, and sorry \nBoardroom SX80: there’s been a lot coming at us today. But there\, you didn’t seem to have an alternative in which some kind of retreat is mixed in with everything else. That is the assumption is every building that’s there is gonna be protected. \nBoardroom SX80: Do you want me to address that. Well\, I just want it if they do. Yeah\, yeah\, no\, I would like to hear\, cause I know that’s that. That is an alternative that is bandied about. But of course\, you know\, every every place is gonna be a little different. But I just wondered if that was thought of at all\, and and and then how that compares to to the idea of areas getting wet\, bringing more birds near the airport. I didn’t know if that was part of the thinking. \nBoardroom SX80: If I could comment on the retreat question because it is an important one that we hear often. \nBoardroom SX80: there are really 2 parts of my response to that. And one is \nBoardroom SX80: We have put out this planning policy guidance that I discussed about land use policies that we recommend that cities adopt and the county adopts\, and many cities have\, and Burling\, as Mayor Colson mentioned\, Burlingame has taken lead on that the first one in our county to do that\, and in the area generally. \nBoardroom SX80: that planning policy guidance calls for setbacks from the shoreline. It’s not a wholesale retreat of a community or a neighborhood\, but it’s retreat from water to enable us to do \nBoardroom SX80: resilience measures\, including natural features\, within those resilience measures rather than just a wall. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s the part. One of my answer. \nBoardroom SX80: which yeah\, part 2 is as one shorelines does in very specific areas of the county. Do we have land use authority. We don’t really have land use authority. We have land rights in certain areas\, and and none of those areas are on the shoreline \nBoardroom SX80: except for creek mouths in 2 locations \nBoardroom SX80: as long as these projects are\, and I’m not picking on this area at all. I’m talking about Bay Area wide as long as these projects \nBoardroom SX80: are debt buildings right along the shoreline are being approved by environmental regulatory agencies. \nBoardroom SX80: and as long as they’re being approved by local governments\, cities\, and counties. \nBoardroom SX80: Our job is not to say that project you approved last year\, or the one you’re considering in 2\,024 \nBoardroom SX80: has to move. Our job is to say\, how do we take the context of our environment? \nBoardroom SX80: Not just on these development projects on Sfo as as an entity right? How do we take the context of how\, of the and of the \nBoardroom SX80: environment\, small E that we inherit and turn that into the most resilient environment that we can. So I am not an advocate. \nBoardroom SX80: and I’m not talking about me. Personally\, I’m just saying organizationally\, I’m not an advocate for large scale retreat\, because that’s not where our community or governments are\, and bodies like Bcdc. And the water board and other bodies\, they are not at a place to compel that. \nBoardroom SX80: and I think that should change personally\, but until that does\, my job is to take the most vulnerable county and make it the most resilient county. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s all I can do \nBoardroom SX80: well\, I really appreciate that. I I certainly didn’t. Imp! I’m not \nBoardroom SX80: in asking this question \nBoardroom SX80: suggesting that \nBoardroom SX80: retreat is actually the preferred alternative. However\, there’s \nBoardroom SX80: we\, you know\, people say there’s gonna be either managed retreat or chaotic retreat. And and or there’s gonna be more hardening of the shore in the area like you’re talking about. So so and and I think this will come out a little. These alternatives will become clarified. Once we start talking about \nBoardroom SX80: how much these things cost\, and who’s going to pay for them? And then what are other cheaper alternatives? \nBoardroom SX80: And and that’ll also be influenced by our sea level rise projections changing over the next few years. But I really I just really appreciate the way you guys are thinking about this I I mean. And and Dave is\, is there? Is my last question. Is there? \nBoardroom SX80: Is there an analogous \nBoardroom SX80: public institution \nBoardroom SX80: anywhere else? I mean the the way that you guys went and had your. You know\, the legislation rewritten that I don’t know of anyone else in the Bay area. No\, I don’t think so I mean\, we spent a better part of 5 years putting this together. Right? So. But I mean\, so this is you. This is a an approach of national significance. I would think \nBoardroom SX80: I I know you don’t. Guys don’t think about spend time thinking about yourself that way. But but the integrated way that you’re you’re doing this on both shorelines. I mean\, you’re only talking about the bay shoreline now is is something that is\, I think\, worth just remembering that this is really the you know\, you guys are on the cutting edge of of what’s gonna have to happen. \nBoardroom SX80: Anybody else \nBoardroom SX80: you have your light on\, but that was just to answer that \nBoardroom SX80: couple of comments. One question. \nBoardroom SX80: terrific\, is the major comment. I know there’s a lot and a lot and a lot of work to go\, and a lot of problems. What you’ve done over the 5 years and beyond is is terrific. And I I think. \nBoardroom SX80: so I’m sorry. Let me ask my question first. \nBoardroom SX80: Here’s state legislation that \nBoardroom SX80: created you or structured it to create you with the approval of the local agencies \nBoardroom SX80: does give you specifically taxing powers. \nBoardroom SX80: Am I correct in assuming that those taxing powers under the authority given still requires a two-thirds vote. \nBoardroom SX80: I’ll just say they record our voting thresholds are the same as any other public entities. \nBoardroom SX80: Right? \nBoardroom SX80: I would add that we \nBoardroom SX80: made sure that the legislation provided us with all the tools\, revenue raising tools \nBoardroom SX80: that are available. \nBoardroom SX80: and one shoreline did spend an extended amount of time looking at a potential parcel tax \nBoardroom SX80: combined with fire\, the combined fire and sea level rise\, flooding measure. And the sport just wasn’t\, wasn’t there? Yeah. \nBoardroom SX80: One of the issues that I know has been talked about in the past. I don’t know if there’s any current discussion about it is \nBoardroom SX80: changing the law for flood control districts to make them more like the utilities in imposing fees which do not require 2 thirds do require a majority. \nBoardroom SX80: So I\, as we are looking at our financing the future issues. That’s one of the vehicles I I think we wanna look at. \nBoardroom SX80: if I may comment on that extremely briefly. There is a measure. On the November 2024 ballot to lower the threshold for bonding \nBoardroom SX80: from 2\, 3 to 55. Right now that lower authority\, or that that lower threshold rests with school districts\, but not with climate\, resilience\, projects\, or housing projects\, and the legislation in November\, just for the general public\, and others who may not be aware\, or anyone not aware is is to lower that for those types of projects. So \nBoardroom SX80: one of the things that we’re waiting on to think about\, do we go back. Go to the voters in our county is what happens this November in regards to that and other measures that that makes absolute sense. Our our funding\, simply put. \nBoardroom SX80: is half funded by the county and half funded by the cities. Each of the 20 cities put in puts in very modest amount\, but they all contribute towards the towards the operation. \nBoardroom SX80: most of the staff I’m talking to no disrespect\, Harriet\, are not present for a variety of reasons. I think it would be useful\, not necessarily at a commission hearing\, but perhaps in in one of our workshop formats\, to have a more detailed presentation and and interaction\, and we might want to include Sonoma in that\, because\, although they have not done what you have done\, they have done some interesting and different things. \nBoardroom SX80: And I think the one shoreline in Sonoma are the 2 \nBoardroom SX80: most progressive\, and in in thinking of holistic changes within government agencies to address the issues that we are addressing. \nBoardroom SX80: I thank you very much for the work in the presentation\, of course. \nBoardroom SX80: Oh\, sorry. Public comment is there. We do have public comment. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Sometimes you get wrapped up in your own thoughts. Please call the public speakers \nBoardroom SX80: Arthur Feinstein\, your first up. \nArthur Feinstein: Whoops unmute chair Wassman and Commissioners. Thanks for the opportunity to talk on this. \nArthur Feinstein: I first recommend that all of you look at this \nArthur Feinstein: scientific article published in urban sustainability in 2\,022 \nArthur Feinstein: I hope Staff can tell me whether you can distribute it to all of the Commissioners. Protection and restoration of coastal habitat \nArthur Feinstein: yield multiple benefits for urban residents. As sea levels rise. Now this is 2\,022. \nArthur Feinstein: Many of the scientists working on this\, and there were like 10 are local ones working for agencies and for Sfei \nArthur Feinstein: and their conclusion. And \nArthur Feinstein: they studied specifically the San Mateo coast \nArthur Feinstein: to look at what were the problems and what could be the solutions? \nArthur Feinstein: Their conclusion\, this work\, as to the growing body of research from around the world\, demonstrating that nature-based solutions help protect coastlines and yield diverse ecosystem services. \nArthur Feinstein: The issue that I’m pointing to. They also recommend and \nArthur Feinstein: not recommended already existed\, but they point to one shoreline as an excellent way of bringing a regional perspective to a shoreline. So you can address all the issues along that shoreline very simple\, similar to what the Rsap and the sub regional sap are doing. \nArthur Feinstein: The problem but run out of time very quickly. Is that what Len is proposing for the shoreline\, the off shoreline gates? It’s already been proposed for the whole bay. You put a gate across the Golden Gate \nArthur Feinstein: and just stop the water\, and then we don’t have to worry about any of this. Well\, his. \nBoardroom SX80: Exactly. \nArthur Feinstein: Well\, it got shot down I’m similarly hoping that this gets shot down \nArthur Feinstein: because it proposes the same reason. Every agency that’s examined it has had. Thank you for. \nBoardroom SX80: Like comment. Your time is now complete. Moving on to Michael Browning. \nMichael Brownrigg: Thanks very much. I’m Michael Brown Rigg. I am a long time council member for the city of Burlingame\, and I really just am here in solidarity for the inquiry in gratitude to one shoreline into Supervisor Pine for creating it. This is\, as Mayor Colson pointed out\, a vital piece of our own economy\, and without \nMichael Brownrigg: a healthy shoreline that allows to allows businesses and recreational use\, our city would be devastated. So this is us a very serious matter for us\, and we appreciate bcdc’s willingness to explore all potential options. In my view\, retreat is not an option. \nMichael Brownrigg: I think the good news is\, you know\, back in Paris in 2\,015\, we thought the world was on path to a 4 to 5 degree warming. Now we’re down to 2 and a half to 3\, which is still unacceptable\, but we’re going in the right direction. \nMichael Brownrigg: so I have hope that we will\, as a planet\, figure this out\, but not before a wall of water comes at us\, and that’s what we need to defend. So I thank Len for his work and his team’s work\, and I appreciate Bcdc. In the spirit of inquiry. That\, you guys are adopting towards this work. I think the only thing that is less sensible than a bad answer is not doing the exploration and research at all. \nMichael Brownrigg: And I think that’s you know that’s the Dark Ages versus the Enlightenment. So thank you very much. I’m done. I’ll give you the balance of my time. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Thank you. Moving to Eileen Mclaughlin. \nEileen McLaughlin: Good afternoon. Chair\, mosterman and commissioners. Thank you for this these few minutes. Here. I’m Eileen Mclaughlin\, with Citizens committee to complete\, direct. \nEileen McLaughlin: and have been \nEileen McLaughlin: studying and following the the one shoreline project and Millbrand rolling game\, for since last fall\, when it was first \nEileen McLaughlin: announced to the public. \nEileen McLaughlin: I want to take a focus on the habitat issues here one that that would be affected by the barrier particularly. This is a place\, Hannah\, 2 mile barrier \nEileen McLaughlin: they want to have at one area. They have tidal marsh at one end\, which is marsh that Sfo must protect for the Ridgeway rails that moves on down southward onto beach and \nEileen McLaughlin: broad mud flats that are have waves coming back and forth them and the shore birds all winter long. Thousands and thousands just use that thoroughly\, and then down further to it\, where the water gets deeper at the shoreline\, and every single day recreational fishermen or women or children \nEileen McLaughlin: are out there catching fish. \nEileen McLaughlin: because the hydrology of idle action serves all of those different kinds of habitats\, and underneath the waters there’s eel grass\, which is also known as something that inhibits and cleans fresh water. \nEileen McLaughlin: This is an area that the project\, says one of its threats and and and opportunities or objectives is habitat\, but that barrier\, even with all its breaks\, is going to completely destroy the hydrological flow of this cove\, and all of the habitats and wildlife \nEileen McLaughlin: that use it today. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Kita Dev is our last public commenter. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: Good afternoon chair\, Washington and Commissioners. I know it’s getting late. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: I wanna thank once your line for a lot of good work that they’ve done in San Mateo County\, which is part of our our Sierra Club’s chapter. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: However\, I have to tell you\, right upfront that every single agency\, and also the airport has taken rather violent exception to filling in the bay with a lagoon. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: and it’s clear to us that while this may seem like an easy solution. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: and we always appreciate research. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: But the scientific community \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: has weighed in on the side of nature \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: and using nature-based solutions which they believe \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: will help not only the land\, but also the bay. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: and we’ll keep costs down. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: I do want to point out that \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: since one shoreline worked on its guidelines\, which we were very involved with\, and which we very much appreciate. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: Sb. 2\, 72 has passed. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: which requires all cities to follow be adapts \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: 6 goals\, the second of which is to put nature first whenever possible. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: but that is because \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: it recognizes that the bay itself. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: its living shorelines\, and its ecosystems are as much at risk \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: with sea level rise as the shoreline and the buildings and the infrastructure around it. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: Therefore\, to fulfill the obligations of that law. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: We need Bcdc. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: Policy makers to make sure that the public staff and the consultant teams that work on it \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: to extend their adaptation plans \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: to include integrating nature into their plants\, not just as vegetation on levees. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: but with some of the other elements that the scientific community in the paper that Arthur Feinstein mentioned includes. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: That concludes our published research. \nBoardroom SX80: One more. You’re Mike\, David. \nBoardroom SX80: any Commissioner want a final comment on this? \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah. Hi\, Lynn\, it’s great to see you and I want to compliment you on this wonderful agency that you’ve created\, and in particular\, I’m delighted to see how you are looking at the protections \nBoardroom SX80: as a continuum all along the shoreline\, because one of the things we learned in Katrina was that those touch points\, those connection points between projects were where things typically broke down. And if that happened\, you had a big flood. \nBoardroom SX80: So we don’t want to do that anymore. And having you look at it all as a system\, is the best way to avoid that. So I’m really delighted to see that this has gone so well\, and so far\, and I’m bringing you greetings from Santa Claire County\, where we are blessed with being ringed by old salt ponds. That can be\, you know that can be restored to marshes. \nBoardroom SX80: But I just want to say that we’re delighted to see that you’re working with that. And I as both A. BC. Commissioner\, as the Mayor of Mountain View\, will do whatever I can to make sure that that connection between your county and my county \nBoardroom SX80: works beautifully\, even though I know that the methodologies there will be different from time to time. But thanks and thanks for this wonderful work\, and keep it up. Let me know how I can help. Thank you very much. Lynn and David. \nBoardroom SX80: I would entertain a motion to adjourn. \nBoardroom SX80: so moved. We have a motion sorry by Commissioner Cheryl Alter\, and I think a second by Commissioner Randolph. Although there were a number of offered seconds\, we are adjourned.\n \n\n \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs 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. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant 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. \nIf 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. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf 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. \nCampaign Contributions\nState 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. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings 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.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/may-2-2024-commission-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240418T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240418T170000
DTSTAMP:20240627T200355Z
CREATED:20240118T072902Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240627T200355Z
UID:10000095-1713445200-1713459600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:April 18\, 2024 Commission Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Commissioners are located at the primary physical location and may be located at the teleconference locations specified below\, all of which are publicly accessible. The Zoom video-conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually is also specified below. \nMeeting starting time 1:00 P.M. \nPrimary Physical Meeting LocationMetro Center375 Beale Street\, First FloorTemazcal ConferenceSan Francisco(415) 352-3600 \nTeleconference Locations \n\n1028A Howard St.\, San Francisco\, CA 94103\nSan Francisco City Hall\, 1 Dr Carlton B Goodlett Pl\, Room 268\, San Francisco\, CA 94102\nVTA Headquarters\, 3331 N First St.\, San Jose\, CA 95134\nSPUR Urban Center\, 654 Mission St.\, San Francisco\, CA 94105\nCALTRANS District 4\, 111 Grand Ave.\, #300\, Oakland\, CA 94612\n14265 Highway 128\, Boonville\, CA 95415\nCNRA Building\, 715 P St.\, Sacramento\, CA 95814\n400 County Center\, Redwood City\, CA 94063\nFront Porch at 112 Trellis Dr.\, San Rafael\, CA 94903\n111 Grand Ave.\, RM 15-220\, Mountain View Conf Rm.\, Oakland\, CA 94612\n3833 Lakeshore Ave.\, Oakland\, CA 94610\nMountain View City Hall\, 500 Castro St.\, Mountain View\, CA 94041\n360 Alcatraz Ave.\, Oakland\, CA 94618\n2379 Sheffield Dr.\, Livermore\, CA 94550\nMarin County Civic Center\, 3501 Civic Center Dr.\, Ste 326\, San Rafael\, CA 94903\n1415 L St.\, Suite 1000\, Sacramento\, CA 95814\n890 Osos St.\, Suite H\, San Luis Obispo\, CA 93401\nSouth San Francisco City Hall\, 400 Grand Ave.\, Mayor’s Office 2nd floor\, South\, San Francisco\, CA 94080\n675 Texas St.\, Suite 6500\, Fairfield\, CA 94533-6342\n2500 Acton St.\, Berkeley\, CA 94704\nSafe Credit Union Convention Center\, 1401 K St.\, Sacramento\, CA 95814\n\nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/82729378498?pwd=WFQzdtfdf6uNAGbQ2ZDgzBH5a2dPzw.0ti0hTquvstHm9Eu \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID827 2937 8498 \nPasscode190155 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic 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.\n(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nApproval of Minutes for April 4\, 2024 Meeting\n(Sierra Peterson) [415/352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters\nThere is no administrative listing\n(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing on 505 East Bayshore – POSTPONED\nThe Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote on an application by Regis Homes Bay Area\, LLC\, to redevelop an approximately 2.54-acre industrial parcel with a new residential project consisting of 56 for-sale townhouses\, as well as shoreline public access and open space areas\, within the Bay and 100-foot shoreline band at 505 East Bayshore Road in the City of Redwood City\, San Mateo County.\n(Jessica Finkel) [415-352-3614; jessica.finkel@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing on Enforcement Case ER2015.024.00 – City of San Rafael\nThe Commission will consider a Recommended Enforcement Decision and Proposed Settlement Agreement to cause the City of San Rafael by May 10\, 2024\, to re-open a closed public restroom and pay an administrative civil penalty of $30\,000\, half of which may be stayed if it complies with certain conditions as enumerated in the agreement.\n(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPresentation // Public comment letter\nBriefing on RSAP Subregional Adaptation Plans\nThe Commission will have a briefing and a discussion regarding BCDC development of guidelines that local jurisdictions will use as they develop their subregional adaptation required by SB 272’s Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan mandate\, particularly about what elements those plans should contain and how they should be developed.\n(Dana Brechwald) [415/352-3656; dana.brechwald@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing Ben Hamlington SLR Science\nDr. Ben Hamlington of NASA will brief the Commission on the science underpinning the recently released draft California 2024 Sea Level Rise Guidance.\n(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3653]\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				 \nAudio transcript \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: good afternoon all. welcome to our almost fully hybrid bcdc commission meeting. my name is zach wasserman. our first order of business is to call the role. commissioners please unmute yourself to answer the roll and then mute after responding. sierra\, please call the roll. [ roll called ] \n>>Sierra Peterson: did i forget anyone? \n>>David Ambuehl: ambuehl. \n>>Sierra Peterson: thank you. \n>>Sheri Pemberton: pemberton. \n>>Sierra Peterson: 20 commissioners present. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: we have a quorum and so we’re duly ready to conduct business. are we not showing the video or are we showing the video? we are showing the video. let’s roll the video. \n>>speaker: welcome to this meeting of the san francisco bay conservation and development commission. this commission meeting will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the bagley-keene open meeting act. commissioners are located both at metro center and at publicly accessible venues throughout the bay area as specified on the meeting notice. commissioners who participate virtually will keep their cameras on throughout the meeting so that they will be visible for the public. for members of the public attending virtually\, if you would like to speak either during the public comment period\, which is item 3 on the agenda\, or during a period received for public comment during another agenda item\, you will need to do so in one of two ways. first\, if you’re attending virtually on zoom\, please raise your hand in zoom. to do so\, click the participant’s icon at the bottom of your screen. find your name and the small hand to the left and click on that hand. if you’re joining our meeting via phone\, you must press star 6 on your keypad to unmute your phone to make a comment. individuals who have raised their hands will be called in the order that they have been raised and they will be unmuted. those attending this meeting in person\, either at metro center or at a publicly noticed teleconference location who want to address the commission should follow the protocol at your location. those attending the meeting in person at metro center will use the podium on their right. wherever you choose to attend from\, please state your name prior to providing your comments. all members of the public will be allowed three minutes to address the commission at the discretion of the chair. comments must be respectful and focused and each individual has the responsibility to act in a civil manner without using hate speech\, direct or indirect threats\, and/or abusive language. bcdc has also established an email address to address public comments. its address is publiccomment@bcdc.ca.gov. emails received before 10:00 this morning have been shared with the commissioners and any received since then will also be shared with the commissioners and the public. welcome to this meeting of the san francisco bay conservation & development commission. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: i do want to note that today all but one of our commissioners are participating remotely due to construction in the yerba buena room on the first floor of the metro center. under the bagley-keene rules\, we need to have at least one commissioner present at metro center which is deemed bcdc’s primary physical location. i want to thank commissioner Karl Hasz for coming into the city today to represent all of us here — all of us there in the temzacal room. also for agenda purposes\, we have postponed our discussion of item 8\, the permit application relating to 505 east bayshore in redwood city. we plan to take that up at our next meeting. that brings us to item 3\, public comment period. if anyone wishes to address the commission on an item not on today’s agenda or the subject of a public hearing\, you are fully entitled to do so and now is the time to do so. sierra\, do we have any public speakers? \n>>Sierra Peterson: we do have one. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: will you call that speaker\, please? \n>>Sierra Peterson: gita dev with the sierra club. you may unmute. \n>>speaker: thank you\, bcdc commissioners and staff. the reason i wanted to take this opportunity with so many commissioners present was to just bring to the attention of the whole commission how much of the shoreline along the peninsula is currently under consideration or under design. and more justly information\, it’s all the way from the airport down to san mateo\, coyote point. and then leaving aside foster city\, it’s redwood city all the way to menlo park. and then leaving east palo alto and palo alto\, there is a feasibility study starting up for all of moffett field\, sunnyvale down to alviso where work is actually ongoing. so\, it’s a large part of the coastline. in addition\, the design review committee has been looking at projects in burlingame\, in belmont\, in redwood shores\, yeah. i would say those are the ones. i just wanted to bring it to the commission’s attention because there are a lot of commissioners present how much is being designed right about now along the peninsula. that’s all. thank you very much. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you. all right. with no further public speakers\, that brings us to item 4\, approval of the minutes of our april 4th meeting. we have been furnished draft copies of those minutes. i would appreciate a motion and a second to approve the minutes. commissioner nelson moves\, commissioner gilmore seconds. thank you. little hard to scan on this. if there are no objections or corrections\, the minutes are approved. thank you. that brings us to my report. the first item is administrative. since commissioner eisen is out of the country\, i’ve asked commissioner gilmore to act as vice chair of our meeting this afternoon. thank you for doing so. i hope the technology i am using today does not require you to step in. i appreciate your willingness to do so if i have a technical failure. commissioner randolph has been kind enough to agree to act as vice chair during our hybrid meetings in the month of may — well\, actually both hybrid and real or physical. i do want to remind commissioners that the second meetings in may and june will also be hybrid because of construction at the metro center. the first meetings in those months are — will be hybrid meetings where we will have people physically present at the metro center. i encourage you\, particularly for the first meeting in may\, for as many as possible for you to be there. we have a full agenda and i’d like to make it a what we labeled as an anchor meeting where as many of us as possible are present in person. i also on an administrative issue wanted to announce an upcoming change to our meetings order of business. we are going to set up procedures that will allow us to approve stipulated enforcement settlement agreements much more quickly than we have in the past. i’ve asked in that regard for staff to create a consent calendar\, almost all of you are familiar with those in your own local jurisdictions. bcdc has not used one. i do not know the historical reasons for that\, but i think in efficiency we can do that. and we plan to place both minutes and any stipulated enforcement judgments on that consent calendar. there may be other matters that we deem minor enough to put on there. like consent calendars you are familiar with\, any commissioner will be able to ask an item taken off the calendar and agendize it at that meeting for full discussion. and we will have public comment on the consent calendar as well. staff is now working on this issue and we expect to have it more detailed and hopefully start implementing it in a couple of weeks. our next meeting will occur in two weeks on may 2nd. it will be an action-packed meeting. and as i stated\, i hope all of us or as many as possible can attend in person. at that meeting\, we expect to take up the following matters. consideration of a permit application for development at 505 east bayshore in redwood city\, which was postponed from today’s agenda. consideration of an enforcement case in the city of richmond\, a briefing from the metropolitan transportation commission on its plans for extending the pilot project on the richmond-san rafael bridge that now includes a bicycle lane\, and a briefing by our staff on the recent sediment management workshops that are leading the commissioner sediment working group toward create new policies designed to increase the use of sediment as a part of adapting to rising sea levels. a couple of comments\, there was an article which was in the “new york times” climate newsletter — not all of you may have gotten or seen that today — which i would label bad news and good news. it talked about a missing trillion dollars\, that’s trillion with a t-r-i-l-l-i-o-n\, and it’s talking about the world bank commitment to developing countries around the world to address climate change. they have basically estimated that it will take a trillion dollars a year to address climate change issues in those undeveloped countries. the difficulty\, of course is they have not identified the sources of that trillion dollars a year\, although they have some of it. and the reason that i label it both bad news and good news is the fact that it is necessary and the fact that they don’t have it are both pieces of bad news. but it — i think it helps to put our problem in context. we’re dealing with a billion rather than a trillion. and i think also we’ll help to create a background in which we can better educate people in the bay area of our needs to raise that money to adapt to rising sea levels in the bay. the last item in my report is ex parte communications. if any commissioner wishes to report communication they had outside public meetings about a matter on which we’re going to sit in judgment or have a public hearing that you have not made in writing you may do so now. you do still have to make it in writing. any commissioners who wish to make an ex parte communication report? i do not see any. thank you. that brings us to the report of the executive director\, take it away\, larry. \n>>Lawrence Goldzband: thank you\, chair wasserman. april 18th is a red letter date on the american calendar. it was on this evening in 1775 that paul revere and william dawes galloped out of boston towards lexington and concord\, towards hancock\, adams\, and the minutemen as british regulars were headed their way and loaded for bear. in a tremendous coincidence it was exactly eight years later on april 18\, 1783 that general george washington issued his general orders announcing that the cessation of hostilities between the united states of america and the king of great britain would be publicly proclaimed the next day. i mention this because today you’ll learn how our planning team has started to gallop through the bay area’s nine counties\, to ask local elected officials to work closely with us as we develop the guidelines their jurisdictions will need to use to create their local rising sea level adaptation plans. and unlike george washington who could not foresee when the revolutionary war would end\, we know it will be no longer than eight months\, not eight years until the commission will adopt those regulations later this year. good news on staffing. unless we hear otherwise from you\, we plan to transfer rachel cohen\, who not only serves on the enforcement team right now but is sitting somewhere behind me here in this weird temzacal room\, we will transfer her to the long-range planning team as an environmental scientist. rachel is a blue hen\, having earned her undergraduate degree in energy and environmental policy from the university of delaware. she was originally hired by bcdc as a secretary and supported our sediment team in a number of planning efforts. she was promoted to the enforcement team in october ’22\, and you’ll remember her from her presentation two weeks ago. working withh the long-range planning team\, rachel will be part of the group that is reviewing how the bay adapt regional shoreline adaptation plan guidelines may lead to future amendments to the san francisco bay plan\, and the process by which subregional plans developed under sb272 will be reviewed and approved by bcdc. also on the screen today is rose ahn who joined the bcdc sediment team last month as a sea grant fellow. there you go. she’s waving at you. rose is helping develop the beneficial reuse roadmap and subsequent proposed bay plan amendment and is working to understand outcomes of the sand mining studies. rose is a lady trojan\, having earned her undergraduate and graduate degrees from the university of southern california. prior to starting with us\, she completed an internship for the sea grant research arm in which she worked at various outreach events to effectively communicate to the public the importance of marine protected areas\, coastal issues and environmental justice. prior to that\, she interned for los angeles mayor karen bass\, performed research on red abalone and conducted stakeholder outreach on oil well remediation and solid waste management on catalina island. and we’re thrilled to have her with us. with regard to policy\, you may remember that several years ago\, bcdc approved the creation of the wings landing educational kayak program\, which was developed as a way to provide public access to the wings landing tidal habitat restoration project in the suisun marsh. we knew that creating a program that would create public access by putting kids in kayaks would be a grand experiment. it started in 2021. we have received the good news that the program has been fully integrated into the summer school curriculum for crystal middle school as part of a multi-session week-long science camp and is expanding to include additional schools this summer. each year has been met with excitement and overwhelming positive reviews by everyone including the students. and the local soroptimist club is granting the program an additional $20\,000 to keep it going. this is a great example of how public access can be developed not just on land but on the water\, and demonstrates that bcdc continues to need to be creative as we explore new ways of providing public access in light of rising sea level. assistant planning director Dana Brechwald and i had a terrific discussion with members of the solano county board of supervisors and the mayors of the cities of solano county last week about sb272 and the developoment of the subregional adaptation plans. i want to note this particularly because and pay attention local elected officials\, the supervisors and mayors seem to agree that the best way for the county to move forward is to work together on a joint plan to cover the entire county shoreline. we don’t know whether that will happen\, or if it does if other counties will take the same approach — hint\, hint — but we couldn’t help but be terribly impressed by the seriousness and insightfulness of the supervisors and mayors. we want to thank commissioner vasquez for his help in setting up the meeting. and i’ll let you know now that next week we will have meetings with marin county officials and the week after that we will be in contra costa to meet with their local officials. in what is likely the last time that i will need to mention the oakland athletics\, the alameda county superior court dismissed without prejudice the lawsuit filed by east oakland stadium alliance against bcdc and the a’s over the commission’s approval of the howard terminal bay plan amendment almost two years ago. we all know that the athletics have more than just indicated their intent to abandon the ballpark and the city and the mixed use development proposal\, so all litigants stipulated to certain terms to dismiss the lawsuit. that being said\, staff will continue to apprise the commission of any further issues of note surrounding the bay plan amendment\, relevant legislation including ab1191\, and the oakland athletics miracle start to the season. finally\, here is a notice for the bcdc book club. our friend from uc davis\, professor mark lubell\, who sits on bay adaptation advisory group\, and his former researcher\, francesca pia vantaggiato of kings college in london\, have written a book specifically about the governance issues surrounding rising sea level policy in san francisco bay. its title is “governing sea level rise in a polycentric system.” and it is available on amazon. we look forward to mark explaining the title much less many of the book’s graphics in the near future. with that\, chair wasserman\, i’m happy to answer any questions. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: do the commissioners have any questions for our executive director? i see no hands. that brings us to item 7\, consideration of administrative matters. we did not have an administrative listing\, which means our regulatory director\, harriet ross\, is spared once again. as i previously noted\, item 8 is postponed. so\, that brings us to item 9\, a public hearing and possible vote on the enforcement committee’s recommendation to require statutory and permit compliance at starkweather in san rafael\, marin county\, and payment of up to $30\,000 in administrative\, civil liability to resolve bcdc case — enforcement case er2015.024.00 against the owner of record the city of san rafael. on march 7\, 2024\, after a duly noticed public hearing on this matter\, the bcdc enforcement committee voted to recommend this enforcement proceeding go to the full commission for approval. the recommendation includes a proposal settlement agreement with the city of san rafael that requires it to reopen a required public restroom at the park and pay an administrative civil penalty by no later than may 10\, 2024. adrienne klein of our enforcement team will present the item in just a few minutes. first\, i would like the representatives for the city of san rafael\, if they are virtually present\, to identify themselves for the record. \n>>Connor Maclean: hello\, i’m Connor Maclean\, attorney for the city of san rafael. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman. thank you very much. \n>>Fabiola Guillen: my name is Fabiola Guillen\, i am the senior project manager for the department of public works for the city of san rafael. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you for being with us as well. bcdc enforcement staff will first present the case and the proposed settlement agreement\, after which time the respondent will be given an opportunity to comment. after that presentation and comments\, we will open the public comment period. public comments will be limited to three minutes per person. after the public comment period has been closed\, we will — the floor will be open to members of the commission to ask follow-up questions of bcdc staff and the respondent and to deliberate on the matter. all speakers must limit their presentation and comments to the evidence already made part of the record that has been published online with this meeting’s agenda and/or the policy implications of such evidence. we will not allow the presentation of any oral testimony or new evidence. the public hearing is declared open. adrienne\, will you please make the presentation? \n>>adrienne klein: thank you\, chair wasserman. thank you\, director goldzband. i believe everyone can hear me. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: i think you need to boost your volume. \n>>Pat Eklund: i cannot hear you. \n>>adrienne klein: good afternoon chair wasserman and commissioners. \n>>Pat Eklund: needs to be up higher\, please. \n>>adrienne klein: i have a presentation to share. could it be loaded? the purpose of this formal enforcement proceeding is to resolve a single violation involving a closed public restroom at starkweather park on francisco boulevard in the city of san rafael. the presentation will identify the site where the violation is occurring\, briefly review the permit and enforcement history\, summarize the terms of the settlement agreement that will resolve the violation and conclude with the staff recommendation. the next three slides identify starkweather park in the city of san rafael near the western terminis of the richmond-san rafael bridge in marin county. with this image showing a site overview with enough detail — oops\, sorry. this is zoomed in closer. next slide. now there is enough detail for you to see the restroom building visible inside the red cloud bubble at the bottom left of the image in the parking lot area. francisco boulevard is below the bottom of the image\, and the shoreline trail pictured adjacent to that restroom continues to the north and west above the top of the image. there is a beach pictured on the right. next slide. this google earth image shows the view of the restroom looking north\, the public shore parking required by the bcdc permit is located in the parking lot where the photo was taken. you can see that shoreline trail behind and to the right of the restroom\, beach is off to the right. this formal enforcement proceeding seeks to resolve a single violation\, the failure as has been noted to maintain a public restroom in violation of special condition ii.b.4 of a 1978 permit. next. now to the timeline. the 1978 permit authorizes a portion of two commercial buildings and fill placement for paved roads and parking in the commission’s shoreline band jurisdiction. special condition 2b3 of this permit requires among other public access improvements that the permitee provide a public restroom that shall be open to the public prior to the use of any commercial facility and that commercial facility has been in use since at least 1987. while the public restroom was constructed and open to — constructed according to approved plans and open to the public in september 1985 the city closed it approximately six months later in or around march 1986. and it has remained closed since that time. therefore\, as noted in the previous slide\, the city is in violation of the maintenance condition of its permit which requires the city to maintain a permanent public restroom. and by its closure\, the city has failed to maintain the permanent public restroom. between 1986 and 2015\, bcdc was unaware of the public restroom’s closure. staff received no reports from the public nor did staff discover the violation. the building was non-descript structure for many years which made it difficult to identify the violation for anyone without knowledge of — detailed knowledge of the permit’s public access conditions. in july 2015\, the city submitted a permit amendment request\, in fact\, to remove the restroom from the permit requirements. this is how bcdc discovered the violation. in october 2015\, bcdc staff opened this enforcement case and notified respondent of its permit violation. in april of 2016\, one year later\, staff requested documentation from the city to support its position that to open the restroom would constitute a public safety hazard. between april and november 2016\, the city provided — did not provide that data to bcdc staff. and in november\, also in november\, bcdc issued a letter that commenced the accrual of standardized fines or the restroom closure violation among others that have since been resolved. in december of 2016\, staff understanding the difficulty inherent in reopening this long-closed\, unused structure to the public in a manner compliant with building requirements\, agreed to allow the city to install a portable restroom and hand washing station at the site on a temporary basis in order to provide the basic service that was — that the city had denied to the public for the past 30 years. staff did not contemplate at the time of this arrangement that the temporary portable restroom would remain in place more than seven years. in january 2017\, bcdc staff informed the city with the installation of the portable restroom and hand washing station\, staff had determined that the violation had been provisionally resolved\, temporarily halting the standardized fine accrual through a specific date of june 30\, 2017 by which time staff expected the permanent restroom to be open to the public or standardized fines would recommence accruing. the city unfortunately did not open the restroom by the end of june. so\, in july\, bcdc staff informed the city that as the restroom remained close\, the provisional resolved status of the case was being rescinded and that the standardized fines as of that date accrued to over $18\,000 and would continue to accrue to the administrative maximum of $30\,000 until the violation had been resolved. staff informed the city of its request to eliminate the restroom from the permit was not approved by the commission that staff may commence a formal enforcement proceeding. in 2018 and ’19\, the city prepared and submitted restroom reconstruction plans to bcdc which bcdc staff conditionally approved in december 2019. the approved plans were for a single ada compliant plumed restroom with exterior lighting and the inclusion of a drinking fountain and wattle bottle filling station built into the exterior of the structure in order to offset the loss of the second restroom that was part of the original structure. for most of 2020 there was no contact between the city and bcdc due to covid-19. in november 2020\, staff reinitiated contact with the city to request progress on the restroom reconstruction and reopening project. in early 2021\, the city informed bcdc that the restroom reconstruction commenced and later that it had also been completed and passed plumbing and electrical inspections. the city stated the restroom might be open by the summer of 2021\, but that pg&e would have to first turn on the power. in march 2022\, the city reported that pg&e had reported that it would take five to eight months to start work once a construction contract between the city and pg&e was paid for and in place. the city reported to bcdc that pg&e needed to drop a power line from a pole and run conductors and conduit from the pole to the restroom. the city also reported that it was working with san rafael sanitation district to obtain a sewer connection permit and with marin municipal water district to obtain new water service. in january of 2023 the city reported that it had reinstalled the water service\, rehabilitated the sewer lateral\, installed a metered pedestal and conduit. they also stated that the city was still waiting on pg&e to provide electrical service\, the last utility required for the restroom to be functional. for the remainder of 2023\, there was no contact between bcdc and the city and on january 30\, 2024\, bcdc commenced a formal enforcement proceeding to cause the restroom to be opened through issuance of a violation report and complaint to cause resolution of the eight-year long violation. a week prior to issuance of the violation report and complaint\, city staff informed bcdc staff that the restroom reconstruction had occurred consistent with bcdc staff approved restroom reconstruction plans. and that pg&e had installed the power conduit to the restroom on a privately owned parcel adjacent to the restroom and would not turn on the electric power service to the restroom building until the city presented pg&e with an easement from the owner of that privately owned parcel. during a telephone conversation at the end of february of this year\, bcdc staff received the following further update. that the city had met with the private — the owner of the privately owned parcel who had agreed to enter into an easement with the city\, that pg&e had agreed to accept a letter from the owner pending completion of the easement process to enable pg&e to turn on the power to the restroom\, and that the city had obtained said letter from said private property owner and submitted it to pg&e who\, based on the assurance it provided that an easement would be forthcoming had scheduled an april 10th site visit to turn the power on to the restroom. on march 4th\, counsel for the city of san rafael and bcdc held a confidential negotiation which resulted in an agreement to settle this matter as follows. next slide. the city has agreed to pay bcdc $30\,000 by may 10th unless it demonstrates that it has made available for use by the public the permanent restroom facilities and water fountain — water fountain\, water bottle filling station by april 27th\, and restored the site by removing the nearby temporary toilet and hand washing station and restoring some landscaping behind the restroom by may 6th. in that event\, the settlement agreement would authorize the executive director to accept a payment of $15\,000\, no later than may 10th. next slide. on march 27th\, the enforcement committee adopted the staff recommended enforcement decision and today the enforcement committee recommends that the full commission adopt the proposed recommended enforcement decision which includes a proposed settlement agreement to resolve enforcement case er-2015-24. if adopted\, this case would be transferred from the enforcement to the compliance department for compliance monitoring. that concludes the staff’s presentation. thank you. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you. do the — either or both of the representatives from san rafael wish to address us? \n>>Connor Maclean: hi\, Connor Maclean\, attorney for san rafael. thank you\, adrienne\, for your presentation. we’ve enjoyed working with you on this and we’ve enjoyed working with other members of bcdc to put together this settlement agreement. i will have fabiola explain a bit more of what’s going on right now. i wanted to update everyone about the progress on this bathroom. unfortunately\, you know\, pg&e had told the city it would come on april 10th to finish installing power. we were expecting that shortly thereafter the bathroom could be reopened so we could meet the april 26th deadline for a $15\,000 reduction in fines. it’s pretty clear the city is not going to meet that deadline thanks to pg&e’s cancellation. we hope to meet the may 10th deadline for compliance to get this bathroom open\, but honestly\, at this point\, i don’t — i’ve never really trusted pg&e\, i continue not to trust pg&e\, and so\, you know\, we would like to ask for an extension if you would be willing to grant an extension for the timeline for compliance for opening the bathroom. i think that could benefit bcdc and the city. we understand the reasons for imposing the fines for the past violations. the bathroom wasn’t opened for all this time\, the public was harmed\, we get that. but at this point\, i don’t think that imposing additional fines on the city benefit anyone. it’s just taking funds from one public entity and giving it to another public entity and those are funds that could be used to actually open this bathroom. i understand that there’s an interest in putting a fire under the city’s feet to get this done\, the fire is there. you know\, we’re working on it. fabiola has been meeting with the neighboring property owner\, pg&e\, bcdc to get this bathroom open. at this point\, the city finds its hands completely tied. we are completely held by pg&e at this point. we were promised they would be here on april 10th. they then didn’t show. we are working with them to get them to come as soon as possible but there’s really nothing that the city can do at this point. so\, to impose additional fines if the bathroom were not opened by may 10th on the city would\, you know — seems a bit unnecessary given that the city is doing everything it can to get this bathroom open. i’ll turn it over to fabiola to explain a bit of the process of how we got to where we’re at right now. she has been with this process every step of the way. i think can explain a bit better some of the complications that happened with pg&e digging a ditch in the wrong place. making promises to the city to install service and falling through. i will turn it over to fabiola. \n>>Fabiola Guillen: hi\, everyone. Fabiola Guillen from the city of san rafael. it’s been an adventure. thank you\, adrienne\, for the presentation. there’s so much detail there. though it may appear otherwise\, the city has been working really hard to try to get this open\, this restroom open. it’s not only for our community but it’s a project that’s been lingering for so long that it’s in everybody’s best interest to get completed. i wanted to put it out there\, there’s absolutely 100% commitment from the city to get this done. secondly\, what connor mentioned\, pg&e has kind of put us in a very difficult position. we had an agreement with them\, they had — we had a commitment from them that they were going to install this power on april 10th\, and originally it was just with a promissory letter from the property owner\, adjacent property owner\, that they were giving us permission to install this power. later on that changed to requiring the formal easement\, which we produced and i have to say in record time\, and provided it to pg&e. only on april 8th did they tell us that the easement had to be issued earlier. so that they had bumped us off the schedule basically and we were never notified of this. our city manager got involved and has contacted pg&e about the director’s level and they seem to have committed now to rescheduling our job for may 10th\, for installation of the power. i have received the confirmation that that’s going to happen\, and the job may take a full week\, intermittent — different crews will come at different times and they’re going to install this power. we on our end have made arrangements to fulfill the rest of the agreement\, which is to remove the temporary power — the temporary toilet once the restroom is complete and restore the adjacent landscape so we can open the permanent bathroom to the public\, as soon as possible — as soon as the power gets connected. i also did a little investigation before the meeting and we have issued a $15\,000 check to bcdc as of march — let me double check. april 5th we issued this check for bcdc for the original $15\,000 amount. and we will hopefully be ready after all this is done and reopen the bathroom as soon as possible. like connor said\, our level of confidence and trust in pg&e’s commitment is — \n>>Connor Maclean: i’ll add to what fabiola said\, in case people are unaware of kind of the background here. the reason that we needed to get an easement from the adjacent property owner is because — fabiola\, you can step in and let me know the year in a second\, maybe a year ago or two years ago\, pg&e said they would come and install power for the bathroom\, they did so\, and afterwards they realized they installed it on the neighbor’s property and not the city’s property. the neighbor had to ask pg&e to either\, you know\, redo it\, which was going to cost a ton of money or\, you know\, negotiate an easement with the neighboring property owner. the neighboring property owner agreed that they would\, you know\, give the city an easement. that took some time to negotiate. but\, again\, you know\, this delay stems in the first place from once again another mistake by pg&e. you know\, i want to kind of highlight that even a year or two years ago\, the city was on track to get this bathroom open\, pg&e keeps making mistakes that prevent this bathroom from getting open. \n>>Greg Scharff: the commission really can’t give an extension on this. the commission could send it back to the enforcement committee if they want\, who could look at it. but staff can give an extension. the agreement says that the executive director can modify the agreement\, sign a modification. at this point\, staff is considering it. we would like the commission to allow the executive director — that would be our preference\, modify it assuming the city’s continuing to work in good faith and all of that. we don’t want to make the decision right now if we want to do that. so\, if you do nothing and approve this\, the executive director may very well grant an extension on this given the circumstances. the other choice you have is to send it back to the enforcement committee\, we will work with the city of san rafael and possibly give an extension depending on the circumstances. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you\, greg. sierra\, do we have any public comments? \n>>Sierra Peterson: no public comment. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: then i would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. \n>>Pat Eklund: before we do that\, zach\, i have some questions. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: commissioners will have an opportunity to ask questions after we close the public hearing. \n>>Pat Eklund: what if it requires the city of san rafael to do some responses. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: they can do that after we close the public hearing. this is basically saying the time for additional public input is over. \n>>Pat Eklund: that’s fine. i raised my hand first\, i’d like to — \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: i saw that. i will recognize you. \n>>Pat Eklund: thank you. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: do i have a motion to close the hearing? commissioner nelson moves. commissioner gilmore seconds. thank you. unless there’s an objection\, the public hearing is closed. now is the time for questions and comments by commissioners. commissioner eklund\, go ahead. \n>>Pat Eklund: thank you very much\, chair wasserman. i have a question for the city of san rafael. connor\, you mentioned in your presentation that pg&e didn’t show up\, and then later it was said due to a cancellation. can you help me to understand which one was it? did they cancel in advance or can you help me understand that sequence of events? \n>>Connor Maclean: yeah. fabiola is more familiar with this. i’ll let her take this question. \n>>Pat Eklund: okay. \n>>Fabiola Guillen: yeah\, so — i guess we’re all familiar with pg&e\, they have several divisions and what appears to have happened is the land development department who is in charge of the easements had everything that they needed to re-ease the project\, however somewhere in the construction side of things\, they didn’t get the easement in times in their mind to proceed with the work. so they basically removed the project from their schedule and we didn’t know until april 8th\, two days before that they’re supposed to come out\, even though with several follow-up emails and calls\, we confirmed that we were on track. it wasn’t until april 8th that we started hearing that that was not going to happen. they needed confirmation from the construction department. so\, i would consider it both\, a cancellation and\, you know\, basically took us off the schedule. it took a lot of — a lot of communication with them to try to get that information out. \n>>Pat Eklund: okay. help me to understand this lack of an easement. so\, the property that the bathroom is going to be on was actually not in a — in an approved location by the city of san rafael? \n>>Fabiola Guillen: the bathroom itself is on our property. it’s on a city property parcel. and maybe the presentation that adrienne had might have helped us understand. i don’t know if you remember the picture that we took from the — of the front of the building from the parking lot. \n>>Pat Eklund: mm-hmm. \n>>Fabiola Guillen: behind that parking lot is the street. that street is where the power is coming from. you imagine a line directly from the street to the bathroom\, that part\, that section is a private right of way that is private property. that’s where the — where pg&e runs the empty conduit without permission. \n>>Pat Eklund: had the city of san rafael talked with the owner of that property and got their approval to actually place the power line through that area? \n>>Fabiola Guillen: yes. so\, that is the easement that we procured. first\, we thought that a letter would suffice and allow us to fully conduct — allow pg&e to do the work and installation of the meter\, however they changed their mind and said we needed a formal easement which granted the city — or pg&e the right to use that land. that’s what the city did after negotiating with the property owner. \n>>Pat Eklund: okay. great. thank you. chair wasserman\, do you want me to make comments now or do you want me to wait until after all the questions are asked? \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: go ahead and make your comments now\, please. \n>>Pat Eklund: okay. i really feel that the bcdc or the enforcement committee or — should work with san rafael and not necessarily give them the full penalty. obviously for not doing it way back 20 years ago\, the city can’t change that. but for the work that is occurring now\, it sounds like — the city of novato has also had issues with pg&e. so\, it’s not — i think all cities and counties have had some issues with pg&e\, it’s just — it’s very hard sometimes to get them committed and they have — you know\, they do have high turnover. i would really welcome and would encourage the enforcement committee and bcdc to give the city of san rafael a little bit more time with that additional penalties because obviously they are committed to this\, and as a sister organization\, having issues with pg&e\, you know\, i — i would feel for the city of novato any way that we are being penalized for something we didn’t have control over. so\, that’s my comment. i would like staff at some point to let me know what i need to do in order to follow up on this if necessary. anyway\, that’s my feeling. thank you. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you. commissioner moulton-peters? \n>>Stephanie Moulton-peters: thank you. similar comments on my part. i want to thank the enforcement committee for bringing this to us and the staff. i think we’re all familiar with the difficulty pg&e has had in scheduling service and hitting the schedule\, whether it’s equipment shortages\, work priorities or the wildfire work they prioritize. i would also like to ask for consideration for san rafael be given some more time to pull this together with pg&e and have a reduced fine still in effect. thank you. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: commissioner vasquez? \n>>John Vasquez: thank you\, chairman. i will take a different route. i have no sympathy at all. the public has gone without a bathroom for 38 years. i think there’s been plenty of time to rectify it. for the last eight years we’ve known that it — the restroom has been closed. right? nine years at least. there’s plenty of time to get it done right. if it is the fact that they put the conduit in the right place\, i think the city or — had the power to simply condemn that piece of land and say this is where the easement is\, and this is where it’s going to stay. certainly it had power from 1978 to 1986\, because it was functioning. i — you know\, the — somebody from the city used the word promise a couple times. and i think one of the other speakers used commitment. there was a promise to the public to have these functioning restrooms\, and that promise was made 46 years ago. so\, i don’t see where there should be anymore leniency. those are my comments. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: commissioner addiego? \n>>Mark Addiego: thank you\, chair wasserman. i’m feeling a little bit more generous today than supervisor vasquez. i think most of the local elected people that serve on this commission could give you examples of where pg&e has delayed anything from much-needed traffic signals for safety to major developments worth tens of millions of dollars. i’m sympathetic to what san rafael is facing. i guess i’m directing my comments to the director\, it sounds like\, according to mr. sharpe\, that he’ll be the determining body. that was for you\, larry. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: commissioner showalter? \n>>Patricia Showalter: i’m sympathetic with san rafael on one hand. on the other hand\, if you have been having this problem for so many years\, why haven’t you thought of an alternative? there’s lots of lights that go on on batteries. i mean\, as an engineer\, there’s other ways to do things. this doesn’t seem like it’s a very remote place\, but\, you know\, i know there’s other technology. i just want to say in the future\, if we’re having a problem like this\, let’s ask people to think outside the box a little bit. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: i don’t see any other commissioners. connor\, i’ll give you a moment to respond and then i’ll make a couple comments. \n>>Connor Maclean: hi again. thank you all for your comments. i just\, you know\, wanted to point out\, i hear concerns and desire to hold the city accountable for not having had the bathroom open in the past. you know\, i just want to highlight\, again\, the city recognizes that that — that the bathroom should have been opened. again\, we’re doing everything we can to get the bathroom open. the city was composed 38 years ago\, 37 years ago\, 36 years ago. 20 years ago\, 10 years ago\, 5 years ago of different people than it’s composed of now within city staff. current city staff takes this seriously and is working to get it open. i don’t think it’s fair to — you know\, useful in any way to penalize the current composition of the city for past composition of the city. just to the point of commissioner vasquez\, you wondered why the city wouldn’t just condemn the land where the conduit was mistakenly built\, condemnation is not in that. were it\, the city may have considered that option. that’s not even on the table. you know\, we appreciate your leniency if that’s possible. we look forward to continuing to work with you. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: given our limited option — i’m sorry\, go ahead\, commissioner eklund? \n>>Pat Eklund: thank you very much for allowing me a second bite at the apple here. so — because i have not had too much experience with this. can you tell me what the process is? i guess is it appropriate for us to have some off-line discussions with the executive director on — \n>>Greg Scharff: let me tell you the process. the process is as staff were listening to what the commissioners have said and taken their comments into consideration\, the executive director — there’s two choices. you can either send it back to the enforcement committee\, which i do not think you should do. my recommendation is to approve what you have before you\, the executive director heard everything you said. san rafael and us will have discussions. we may or may not grant an extension. it’s not just granting an extension. it’s for how long an extension will be granted. it’s what milestones need to occur. there’s a whole procedure here so that we make sure that\, you know\, frankly their feet are to the fire. i don’t disagree that pg&e has caused the problem. i think san rafael has been working in good faith. we’re definitely taking that into consideration. but that’s really what the process is. \n>>Pat Eklund: so then\, do we have the ability as a commissioner to talk with the executive director on whether or not\, you know\, staff is going to give them extension\, whether or not we have an opportunity to bring it back to the commission if — \n>>Greg Scharff: no. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: those are different questions. let’s answer them separately. go ahead\, greg. \n>>Greg Scharff: the answer is i can’t stop you from sending emails\, but the answer is no\, it’s not appropriate in an enforcement matter to be weighing in on the executive director. now is your opportunity. you weighed in publicly. at least i took your comment as work with the city of san rafael. \n>>Pat Eklund: right. \n>>Greg Scharff: it’s not their fault. i heard you. i heard commissioner vasquez say the opposite. i heard commissioner moulton-peters say work with them. we’re hearing what you’re saying. i think it’s really up to the executive director. but i can tell you what our process will be. it will be to talk to the city of san rafael and to understand the situation and to take into account commissioner comments and figure out how best to move forward. \n>>Pat Eklund: great. thank you very much for explaining that. i just hope that the executive director will take what city san rafael said into consideration and try to work with them to urge pg&e to follow through on their commitments when to show up to help with the installation of the electrical connection. thank you very much. \n>>Greg Scharff: you’re welcome. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: i would support for my own perspective the position that our general counsel has proposed. i’m sympathetic as all of you are to delays by pg&e that are outside the limits of san rafael. but i think given our choices\, which are to totally reject this or to return it to enforcement\, or to approve it with the understanding that the executive director does have the power to grant extensions and determine the timing and conditions of those\, that that would be the appropriate matter. so i would entertain a motion on the matter. commissioner gilmore. \n>>Marie Gilmore: thank you\, chair wasserman. i move that the commission approve the enforcement committee’s recommended enforcement decision including the proposed settlement agreement with the city of san rafael. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: is there a second for that motion? i see commissioner moulton-peters and i’ll give you a third to commissioner pemberton. will you please call the roll\, sierra? \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner addiego. \n>>Mark Addiego: i guess i need a clarification. so\, with this motion\, it does not go to the executive director? \n>>Greg Scharff: no\, it does go to the executive director. \n>>Mark Addiego: okay. then yes. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner ahn? \n>>Eddie Ahn: aye. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner ambuehl? \n>>David Ambuehl: aye. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner burt: \n>>Pat Burt: yes \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner ecklund. \n>>Pat Eklund: aye\, with the understanding that the executive director will be able to follow through on this action. \n>>Sierra Peterson: thank you. commissioner gilmore. \n>>Marie Gilmore: yes. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner gunther? \n>>Andrew Gunther: aye. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner hasz. \n>>Karl Hasz: aye. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner kimball? \n>>Justie Kimball: yes. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner kishimoto. \n>>Yorko Kishimoto: aye. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner moulton-peters. \n>>Stephanie Moulton-peters: yes. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner nelson? \n>>Barry Nelson: yes. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner pemberton? \n>>Sheri Pemberton: yes. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner peskin: \n>>Aaron Peskin: aye. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner pine. \n>>Dave Pine: yes. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner ramos. \n>>Belia Ramos: yes. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner showalter. \n>>Patricia Showalter: yes. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner vasquez? \n>>John Vasquez:. yes. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner wasserman — chair wasserman. sorry. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: yes. \n>>Sierra Peterson: nine yeses\, no nos — pardon me. 19 yeses. no nos. no absentions. my apologies chair and commission. the motion passes. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: we all make math mistakes from time to time. the motion passes. i think that both the city of san rafael and the executive director and staff have clearly heard the concerns of the commissioners. and will act accordingly. that brings us to item 10. a briefing on our progress to create a regional shoreline adaptation plan. developing guidelines that local jurisdictions will use as they develop their subregional adaptation required by sb272’s regional shoreline adaptation plan mandate. these include a list of what elements those plans should obtain and how they should be developed. Dana Brechwald\, bcdc’s assistant planning director for climate change will provide a briefing after a brief introduction from our executive director. \n>>Lawrence Goldzband: thank you\, chair wasserman. and i haven’t told dana i would do this\, i want to do two things. number one\, i want to give dana props in front of the commission for what she did with the representatives from solano county last thursday night when she gave sort of the same presentation. and i want to draw all of your attention as local public officials to this presentation because this is what you all are going to experience after december when these guidelines are ultimately published. it will be your responsibility to work through them\, and we need you to think about them now before they get published\, much less before they’re really drafted in\, you know\, anything other than wet cement. and that’s why we really want you to pay attention to this presentation and as we go around the rest of the counties to be with us so that you understand what it is we’re trying to do\, and more important\, we get your help to do it right. with that\, go ahead\, dana. \n>>Dana Brechwald: thank you\, larry and chair wasserman. good afternoon\, commissioners. let me adjust all my moving parts here. okay. success. so\, good afternoon\, and it’s wonderful to see you all\, commissioners. i’m going to talk to you a little bit about our draft concept for subregional shoreline adaptation plans as identified and mandated by 272. you’ve seen the slide before. i know you’re familiar with the basic structure of sb272\, but just as a reminder\, this bill supports the regional preparation that we know we need by requiring local jurisdictions to develop subregional resiliency plans and for bcdc to develop the guidelines that the plans must follow. the bill also encourages consistency in coordination\, that’s what our regional shoreline adaptation plan is seeking to provide around the region. and the bill adds that bcdc is required to review and approve or deny subregional plans based on consistency with these guidelines. and lastly it adds an important carrot that projects within the approved plans are prioritized for state funding which supports our objective of supporting strategic implementation of projects around the region. the bill does contain some minimum requirements\, which are fairly basic. use best available science\, creation of a local vulnerability assessment that includes efforts to ensure equity for at-risk communities\, developing adaptation strategies for recommended projects\, developing lead and implementation agencies\, a timeline for updates as needed\, and an economic impact analysis for critical public infrastructure. obviously\, this doesn’t say much about what the plan actually is or what each of these elements should contain. that’s the basis for my presentation today. i’ll share with you our current thinking on what we’re calling plan requirements. and as larry mentioned\, the cement is still very wet\, so we’re hoping to hear your feedback today. as you know\, we’ve been working on developing the regional shoreline adaptation plan guidelines since before the bill was signed. we worked with senator laird to make sure the bill language was aligned with our vision for the regional shoreline adaptation plan and we’re on track to complete the guidelines by december\, per the bill’s language. i’ll also note that funding is already available for these plans. this is not an unfunded mandate for jurisdictions\, but there is grant funding for developing shoreline adaptation plans through available through the ocean protection council through the sb1 grant program. other pots could be applied to this purpose as well. we’ve been working with ocean protection council on — we worked with them on the grant criteria for the sb1 grants and staff is reviewing proposals from the bay area for alignment. once our guidelines are complete\, we will continue to work with opc to update their grant guidance for future rounds of this grant starting in 2025. i’ll also note that while there is a lot of money available right now for adaptation\, given our current state budget situation\, we don’t know how long this will last. it’s in the jurisdictions best interests to get these plans funded and developed soon. our first step towards establishing a regional process for adaptation planning and fulfilling sb272 was to develop our one bay vision to drive the scope and ambition of regional guidelines and local plans. we shared this with you in detail in february. the one bay vision establishes our ideal in-state if adaptation is successful in each of these eight topic areas you see here. so\, in addition to pop-ups around the region\, this vision was developed through an online survey and engagement with our advisory group which consists of 40 subject matter experts in various fields related to the topics you see here. sb272 requires bcdc to develop guidelines for subregional shoreline resiliency plans\, but that’s just the first phase for getting plans in place around the bay. phase one\, which will be completed by december\, includes our one bay vision that i just spoke of. the vision will first and foremost inform how local plan guidelines are developed. these guidelines will lay out consistent regional standards for how local jurisditions and create subregional plans and. provides — and develops adaptation strategies that meet minimum criteria to advance the region’s priorities of the one bay vision. the vision will also inform how we select the region’s strategic priorities. this component will identify key priorities for the region and identify where certain types of adaptation are most appropriate and beneficially locally to advance our goals of the region. these are based in products like our art bay area\, which was published in 2020\, which lays out a comprehensive vulnerability picture for the regions systems. so\, our next phase is supporting local jurisdictions to create these subregional adaptation plans\, which will include a variety of elements\, which i’ll discuss today\, such as our vulnerabilities assessments that were identified in 272\, and these will ultimately identify adaptation projects and land use changes with implementation strategies that will help get projects on the ground. and lastly\, up in — clicked too many times. the last component that we’re developing that you can see up here in the corner is our mapping platform which supports these efforts\, and it’s a data mapping designed to provide key information to local governments to support the development of subregional adaptation plans. right now\, as we develop an initial draft of the guidelines that specify what goes into subregional shoreline plans\, we also have to decide fairly quickly what these plans should look like\, what they should include\, what is the scale of the subregion and who leads\, what should these plans include to maximize effectiveness while recognizing the limited capacity of local jurisdictions to do these plans at the local and county scale\, and lastly how are these plans approved\, codified and translated into the real world. we have a concept that we developed that i’ll talk about\, but this is an important time to pause and say this is — we’re road testing these concepts. both through our commission\, this commission briefing today\, the meetings that we’re having with the counties that larry has mentioned\, and we’ve also been meeting with our advisory group and various focus groups to vet this material as well. it’s really important for us to test drive these concepts with the audiences who will be making the decisions about organizing and developing these plans such as you\, local elected officials\, local planners and other local staff. working with our stakeholders\, here are the guiding principles that we are bearing in mind as we develop our plan requirements. this concept that i’m about to share with you has been developed collaboratively starting with a research phase to look at various plan models throughout the region and the state\, working with a subcommittee of our advisory group and holding focus groups with local and county planners\, engineering and planning consultants and special districts. we want to make sure that the plans that we are developing through these guidelines are flexible\, aligned\, right-sized\, build on the existing efforts of local jurisdictions and are impactful. they actually have meaning in the real world. so\, the foundation for subregional plans is the scale at which they should occur. what we’re proposing is plans happen at the county scale and local scale to ensure we’re covering all portions of the bay shoreline. as a reminder\, our plan only covers local governments within bcdc’s jurisdiction\, while the coastal commission’s lcp process is being amended to enact sb272 on the outer coast. we learned by talking with cities and counties that every situation is different and we need to account for that as we move forward. so\, we anticipate working closely with cities and counties to identify the best scales and combinations of jurisdictions to do these plans. our county plans are intended to cover unincorporated parts of the county\, and we also believe the county should play a lead role in coordinating all the local plans within the county. at the local level\, jurisdictions may choose to do a single jurisdiction local plan or participate in a multi-jurisdictional local plan. single plans may be suited for large or high capacity jurisdictions\, or those that already have an adaptation plan in place. while multi-jurisdictional local plans may be organized around existing relationships\, geographic or landscape features such as an operational landscape unit or a watershed\, or small jurisdictions with limited capacity\, it can be expanded through partnerships. we’re open to any combination of cities and counties or any combination of cities. for example\, in a county with a handful of jurisdictions along the bay shoreline\, the county and cities may want to partner together to submit one combined plan\, such as what we heard may be the preference in solano county last week. staff is currently working to develop the content for the guidelines. here’s an initial outline of two major sections. we want you to take a look at this and think about whether these are the appropriate elements that should be in these plans. our goal here is to keep this document concise and effective without being overly complicated or prescriptive. the focus here is on the guidelines for what should be included in each plan element. that’s the column on the left. this is what should be in those plans. then the minimum standards and considerations for how to fulfill these guidelines. that’s the column on the right. what we’re proposing here is that each subregional shoreline adaptation plan should contain basic planning information\, assessment of existing conditions\, the vulnerability assessment as outlined in 272\, a section that outlines adaptation strategies and pathways for short\, medium and long-term for all sections of vulnerable shoreline\, a short-term project list\, a land use plan that outlines land use changes that need to happen in order to enact the shoreline changes\, and then an implementation plan that outlines how all of these adaptation strategies will be enacted over time. we also are coming up with minimum standards over equitable engagement and participation\,what time horizons people should be planning for\, what are the flood hazards that we think everyone should be planning for\, what are the minimum categories that people should be assessing in their vulnerability assessment\, and most importantly\, what are the adaptation strategy standards. it looks like a tiny little line on the slide here\, but that is are several pages for developing adaptation strategies such as looking at nature-based solutions\, how do you consider what adaptation strategies should go where given vulnerability and other conditions. one important thing to note is while plans may include multiple jurisdictions within a single plan\, each jurisdiction must meet all the guidelines in some way\, shape or fashion either on their own or in partnership with other jurisdictions. also really want to note here we are definitely anticipating allowing content that’s been already developed in other plans to be used or incorporated by reference in these plans\, especially in local hazard mitigation plans\, safety elements\, and existing climate action plans or adaptation plans. we recognize there’s a lot of very similar content that jurisdictions may have already developed. we would like to account for that as much as possible. so\, the slide talks about process for how we will submit and approve these plans. we want you to think about how might this process play out in the real world. it’s easy to look at it on a timeline\, but how would this actually work. once plans are developed\, counties and jurisdictions should submit the plans at the same time. plans will be reviewed by bcdc separately and together. together to make sure they’re coordinated in a county\, but separately to ensure each plan is reviewed for its own merits\, that each plan meets all the minimum requirements. bcdc will provide conditional approval to plans separately. if one plan does not meet requirements but others do\, they won’t be slowed down by approval. upon conditional approval\, plans should be adopted locally by county boards or local city councils and each participating jurisdiction must adopt their plan separately. once approvals are completed\, they’re submitted to bcdc and final approval occurs when all jurisdictions within a county submit for final approval to bcdc. we also believe it’s fundamental that the plan approved by bcdc to provide resilience for the shoreline of the whole county is codified into all the appropriate local plan and policy documents. we’ll be developing guidelines on where certain key strategies for implementing adaptation should be considered for integration into things like zoning ordinances\, specific plans\, capital improvement plans\, and how considerations for how to update general plan elements like housing elements to reflect resilience policy changes. so\, this is the timeline that will get us to commission approval of the guidelines by december of this year. we’re here on the left in mid-april. we’re preparing to share a first draft of the guidelines that we’re calling the committee draft that will be reviewed by our advisory group and that we’ll be using as a basis for content at our cbo workshops\, which i will talk about in the next slide. after incorporating input from those groups\, we’ll create a second draft after another round of review by our internal stakeholders\, and this will hopefully correspond with public workshops\, and we’ll incorporate any changes from that into a public draft released in early september in alignment with the commission briefing which will kick off our public comment period\, that will close with the commission hearing in early november. the vote is currently anticipated for early december. i also want to note here\, there’s a line for our electeds road show. we’ve already done two of those events and we have several more scheduled. we’ve been meeting with our local — we’ll be meeting with our local electeds task force on may 1st and plan on meeting with them again over the summer. and we met with our rsl commissioner working group a couple weeks ago and plan on meeting with them several more times before commission adoption. the last thing i just want to mention here is our next major outreach\, which is our local workshops in partnership with community-based organizations in may and june. these will be happening at five locations around the bay\, and co-hosted by our community-based partners. the goal of these workshops is threefold. we want to make sure the regional guidelines work for local governments and provide the guidance and direction necessary to plan and implement adaptation effectively. so we want to test out guidelines in specific locations. we want to bring people together\, local community members\, governments\, stakeholders to facilitate and kick start the collaborative conversations that are going to need to continue to happen after the guidelines are done and once planning begins\, and lastly\, we want to continue to build and support cbos to lead adaptation efforts in their own communities. the partnerships we’re offering are paid partnerships\, and our hope is by codeveloping the workshops with our community-based organizations they can be set up to play a larger role in the actual develop of the adaptation plans in the future. all commissioners with a workshop in your community will receive invitations to these workshops in the upcoming weeks. invitations have not begun going out yet. so you haven’t missed anything. our first workshop is planned for may 16th in partnership with sustainable solano. i’ll pause there and turn it back to chair wasserman for discussion. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you very much. with the presentation complete\, do we have comments from the public\, sierra? let’s call them. \n>>Sierra Peterson: carin high\, you have three minutes. you may unmute yourself. \n>>speaker: good afternoon. thank you. this is carin high\, citizens committee to complete the refuge. i would like to begin by expressing my thanks to dana and jackie and the rest of the staff and to the bcdc working group for their efforts they’ve put into this. rsap is definitely an extremely complex process and we recognize that there are many voices that must be considered and in a really short period of time. we deeply appreciate the manner in which staff have incorporated the importance and value of the bay’s ecosystem into the vision statement. we recently expressed to staff our concern regarding a previous version of the outline provided on slide 10\, and our concern was that putting nature first and equity should be conveyed in the higher level headlines as well as in the detailed language that will follow. for example\, headings regarding the need to put nature first and equity could be incorporated into the higher level headings of the outline that discuss the plan element guidelines and the minimum of standards and considerations and dana\, in fact\, just referenced the use of nature-based solutions under a heading of adaptation strategies and pathways. thank you for that. we understand the requirement to put nature first will be incorporated into the details developed for each of the outlined sections\, however\, the only place nature occurs in the draft outline heading currently is under the one bay vision section. our concern is that we totally support the vision that has been stated\, visions are not always reflected on what actually happens on the ground. and as just one recent example of why we think nature and equity need to be more prominent\, cccr recently received and reviewed and submitted comments regarding the redwood city sea level rise vulnerability assessment\, which was a good document. but while the vital of tidal wetlands was mentioned in the document\, discussion of the need to protect these habitats was largely absent as was any discussion of the use of natural infrastructure or nature-based solutions. of course\, we raised these issues in our comment letter. this underscores the need to elevate the issues of putting nature first and equity into every aspect of the draft outline and guidelines as possible. thank you very much for the opportunity to provide comments and we look forward to continuing working with staff. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you. do we have any other public speakers? \n>>Sierra Peterson: yes\, chair. Arthur Feinstein\, you may now unmute. \n>>speaker: hi\, chair wasserman and commissioners. Arthur Feinstein\, chair of the sierra club of san francisco bay. i second everything that carin said. so i just don’t repeat\, i want to recall to all of you in sb272\, one of these requirements is that the guidelines reflect and implement the principles found in the bay adapt process that you adopted a year or more ago. the second bullet in those principles of bay adapt is put nature first. so\, it’s not just a nice thing\, it’s actually a requirement that put nature first be put first whenever possible as the rest of the language goes. and as carin says\, unless that is emphasized consistently throughout the guidelines\, it’s really quite possible for communities to sort of ignore that because most communities\, most planners i believe\, most people think of the shoreline and sea level rise and flooding as let’s put up a wall because that’s what one does. foster city\, you know\, a wall. so\, it’s an educational process. so\, just putting it down at the bottom of\, oh\, one of the adaptation strategies is put nature first\, yes\, but maybe no. but if it’s right at the top\, more than once in the headings of what you need to do\, then it becomes more clear to the cities and the preparers of these plans that they have to educate themselves\, learn what it means to do nature-based solutions and put them into their planning. we just — we do thank staff very much for being very responsive to all of these thoughts. we just feel we have to keep reminding it because this is the one shot to save san francisco bay’s health. another reminder\, 78% or more of the state’s entire tidal wetlands are found in san francisco bay. a large percentage of them will drowned under sea level rise. i hope you all realize how important tidal marshes are to our aquatic environment and our own environment and our own lives. we don’t want to lose those. one of the only ways we’ll have to make sure that we continue to have tidal marshes and a healthy ecosystem is if when we adapt our shorelines\, we remember to put nature first. thanks very much. i look forward to working with all of you and hope we come to a very happy solution and that the bay survives into 2100 and beyond. thank you very much. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you. sierra\, any others? \n>>Sierra Peterson: yes. next we have gita dev. you may now unmute. \n>>speaker: thank you. thank you. is it possible to put up the slide that has the draft guidelines of the key elements? it’s quite — it’s got a lot of information on it. thank you so much. appreciate it. good afternoon\, all\, i’m gita dev with the sierra club\, at the risk of sounding like we’re all saying the same thing\, i want to endorse what carin high and Arthur Feinstein have just said. i would like to put a slightly different slant on it. i want to acknowledge we really appreciated staff having listened to our comments so far. and in this case\, we have this particular request — acknowledge it’s a tough task to codify the vision and to get our goals on paper\, but i work at sierra club\, work very closely with city councils\, speak with developers\, i’m an architect\, i’m accustomed to responding to rfps\, i can tell you how these projects actually work. that’s why the redwood city project came out the way it did. the capital improvement projects staff are public works staff\, and they are mostly engineers. the consultants who they hire\, the rfps are responded by rpr firm — rpr staff. they look only at the outline. they don’t look much further. they are extremely time-constrained. so it’s really important to get it in the — you know\, in the plan element guidelines and particularly in the minimum standards. because if it’s not there\, they may not actually put in a fee for that. they may not have some consultants that respond to that. these are the reasons why we’ve got to understand how projects actually work so that — the redwood city project did have element a\, b\, c\, and d. it went through the very good process of the existing conditions and the vulnerability assessment as carin high pointed out did not include anything offshore from the shoreline except to acknowledge they exist. they did not have a discussion about them. the adaptation strategies unfortunately were purely engineering. they were walls\, levees and storm water pumps and pipe incisors. in talking to them yes\, i did. i met with them yesterday\, they said\, you know\, we’re the engineers — \n>>Sierra Peterson: your time is now complete. \n>>speaker: that’s the reason i would ask you to bring this into the outline. thank you very much. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you. \n>>Sierra Peterson: there are no more hands raised\, chair wasserman. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you very much. commissioner eklund? \n>>Pat Eklund: thank you very much. great presentation. reminds me so much of working for epa where we did this for state agencies. anyway\, question first on the local workshops. i think it would be helpful if staff would contact the bcdc representatives for that particular county and talk with us about our availability because i think that this is going to be really important for — to make sure that those of us who serve on bcdc be there so that we can hear some of the concerns or comments of the folks that are at that workshop. that’s the first one. may 16th in solano\, is that going to be also through zoom as well or is it just going to be in person? \n>>Dana Brechwald: i believe that one will be in person. \n>>Pat Eklund: will it be zoom as well or not? \n>>speaker: i don’t know the answer right now. \n>>Pat Eklund: the other question i have with sb272\, was there any funding designated for local government cities and counties to not only help develop the plans but to codify the local plans that are developed into the zoning and housing elements\, general plans\, all those other documents that we have? is there any funding that is going to be given to each of the cities and the counties to implement 272? \n>>speaker: i think Justine Kimball is online and better answer that question than me about the suitability of funds for that. sorry to put you on the spot\, justine. \n>>Justine Kimball: yeah\, no worries. i may have to get back to you on the specifics. our funding is specifically towards development and the steps along the way including vulnerability assessment\, capacity building\, visioning\, to get to a sea level rise adaptation plan that can be a subregional plan. i don’t know about the piece of\, like\, integrating it — i didn’t quite get that\, integrating it into the other plans. \n>>Pat Eklund: dr. kimball\, in order to make this enforceable\, cities and counties need to put it into their regulatory documents\, i’ll talk — i’ll talk as a state or local — state or federal\, they have to put it into their regulatory requirements in order to be able to enforce it. so\, for example\, some of the adaptation strategies would obviously have to be recorded into the housing element or even in the general plan\, and then we have to develop enforcement mechanisms. so\, that takes funding to do that. cities and counties do not have enough money to implement\, let alone yet another state law and put it into our regulatory requirement. i guess i need to get some feedback as to what funding is going to be available for all. this is statewide\, so all this — i don’t know how many cities there are along coastal zones or waters of the state of california\, but cities and counties i would — would need direct funding from sb272 in order to implement some of the requirements. maybe we can have that discussion a little bit later or if bcdc staff know the answer to that question\, that would be helpful. i have other questions as well\, but — \n>>Justine Kimball: i can check back on the opc side of things. again\, the language for sb1 is very specific\, adaptation and plans. i can see about the inclusion integration into other plans and how that would fit into our funding eligibility and get back to dana with an answer. or directly to you. \n>>Pat Eklund: but dr. kimball\, you don’t have the regulatory authority to change our zoning standards\, for example. the cities and the counties would have to do that. \n>>Justine Kimball: i thought you were asking about funding for the work. \n>>Pat Eklund: funding for cities and counties to do the actual implementation of the standards. absolutely. \n>>Justine Kimball: yeah. our funding goes directly to cities and counties\, those are the eligible grantees\, i just need to check on that question about — yeah\, about how far the funding would go. \n>>Pat Eklund: maybe we can have an off-line discussion\, too\, to get more detail. i have done this at the federal and the state level\, and\, so\, i definitely have a real good understanding of the staff implications. for the city of novato\, there’s no way on this earth we’d ever be able to change our regulatory documents without funding. the other question is is that novato already has — i think san rafael does\, too\, to some degree or other cities around the bay\, we already have existing housing that is over the bay\, that’s — that’s in the regulatory jurisdiction of bcdc and others. and these houses are owned by individuals. they actually own i think the airspace above the water. i’m not sure what their deed looks like. so how is the local jurisdiction expected to develop requirements when we may not have the legal authority to remove some of those homes? i just — you know\, i — we’ll have to have some conversation about how do we deal with some of those that are already on the water or over the water or within the regulatory jurisdiction of bcdc and/or the state or federal agencies. can you help me to understand how that would be approached? \n>>speaker: i can’t say specifically how we would approach that specific situation. we’re trying to address as many situations as possible in the guidelines\, i think as you well know\, the bay area is vast and it’s — the types of manifestations of development along the shoreline and the issues and the priorities of each individual community\, i do anticipate we will be working closely with cities and counties. in fact\, we have an rfp out right now to help us develop a technical assistance program starting in 2025. in most cases\, i believe the guidelines will — we will work with cities and counties to understand how the guidelines apply in their particular situation. if that’s the case\, you know\, in marin or novato or anywhere along the shoreline\, we would welcome a one-on-one conversation about that. \n>>Pat Eklund: okay. how do we do that? how do we initiate and say let’s have some discussion\, not only with the staff but also the elected officials\, too\, so we can have a better understanding of what the implications are\, as well as legally. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: i think these are important questions\, we’re also getting into a level of process that is beyond the level of this presentation. certainly with our workshops and the local government officials\, we’re doing some of that\, which is not to say enough. so i think we will take those questions and issues into our staff’s planning and into the next presentations to the commission. \n>>Pat Eklund: thank you\, chair wasserman. i think it would be helpful if i could have some more discussions with staff on this issue so that i can have a better understanding about it\, so i can better communicate it. probably one of the rare elected officials that has worked for over 40 years for regulatory agencies. involving these issues. anyway\, so\, thank you very much for answering my questions. i look forward to getting more engaged in this process. thank you. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you. commissioner showalter. \n>>Patricia Showalter: well\, i have sort of similar things from the view of somebody who has been involved in flood protection for quite a long time\, too. in santa clara county we’re blessed by being wronged by old salt ponds that we can convert to marshes. we’ve been working on this for quite awhile. and most of us know this as the south bay salt pond project\, which was really started as a habitat project. all the engineers involved knew\, and it was also was just dandy sea level rise protection but that wasn’t something that resounded with our public at the time so we didn’t talk about it very much. as time has evolved\, we continue on the south bay salt pond restoration effort and we talk more about how indeed it’s really good for sea level rise. what i’m getting to is in the south bay\, in santa clara county\, the county in a sense isn’t really the lead in this. i mean\, the lead is really the coastal conservancy and the santa clara valley water district. i’m — it sounds like from\, you know\, when you really talk about this\, dana\, that when you talk about county\, it’s — i don’t know if you actually mean the formal county or what’s appropriate in that general area. i wanted to bring up that it may vary who are the really appropriate stakeholders from place to place. we just want to make sure that those — you know\, whoever they are are the ones who are brought to the table. i — i don’t honestly know what they are\, other localities\, i know in santa clara county\, if we don’t have the coastal conservancy and the santa clara water district taking part in this\, we won’t have\, you know\, all the stakeholders that we need to. i hope i’ll be able to set up a meeting with you and larry in the not too distant future about this. i do want to say i think it’s very important to give credence to the plans that exist. and that are moving forward. and to kind of fill the holes that haven’t been made in them. for instance\, mountain view has a plan. we passed it in 2012\, we’ve updated it a couple times. we’re actually — it includes 14 projects. we’re actually implementing it as we speak. but one of the things that wasn’t a part of it was an explicit conversation about equity. so that would be something that we’d need to include. i’m sure that if you look around at many of the other plans that were put together\, there are pieces that are just not there that we need to bring up. so\, i think that in lots of cases\, this is going to be a bit of putting together a beautiful patchwork quilt. we all have different patches finished and we have new ones we need to construct before we put it altogether. i think we want to be really cognizant of using good\, existing work that we have and using the good will that’s been built up to develop these and just kind of moving — particularly since we have to move quickly. we don’t want to be reinventing the wheel in things we’ve already done. that’s all i want to say. i’m just delighted to see this. i hope that i can serve as a resource for santa clara county. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you. commissioner — \n>>i wanted to clarify a point for the commissioners. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: sure. go ahead\, steve. \n>>speaker: which is the law is clear on who has to prepare a plan\, and it’s the local governments that are on the bay shoreline. it’s the cities and counties. it does not include special districts. that being said\, everything you said is very important in terms of special districts like the valley water and other land holders\, and state agencies like caltrans should be involved\, but the folks who have to submit the plans are the counties and cities. \n>>Patricia Showalter: steve\, along those lines\, is it the shoreline cities or — it’s the shoreline cities\, right? it’s not necessarily the counties. \n>>speaker: correct. it is — the counties are on the shoreline. it’s the counties and the cities. they all have to prepare and submit a plan. they can do them collaboratively — i’m sorry\, i didn’t mean to interrupt. \n>>Patricia Showalter: i was saying the same thing you are. very good. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you. commissioner pemberton? \n>>Sheri Pemberton: thank you\, chair wasserman. i just wanted to thank staff for the presentation and really excited to have the information and see this progress. i think the timeline looks great. i think the guiding principles look really good. one question is whether there will be collaboration with the state lands commission to factor in or address the public trust. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: larry\, you want to take that one or — \n>>speaker: i can take that one. the yes\, absolutely. we love working with the state lands commission. we work together through the — there’s a statewide body that opc convenes\, a statewide coordination group that we’ve already been presenting to\, which the land commission particiaptes in. and i think another exciting way that we will hopefully be coordinating even more is through a study that we’re just starting to develop around public trust needs for the bay and sea level rise that we’re scoping out right now. i think that’s another level in which our agencies can work together even more. \n>>Sheri Pemberton: thank you. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: commissioner nelson? \n>>Barry Nelson: first\, i’m really excited that we’re at this point in the process. it’s really encouraging. i really like the outline of the guidelines. but i do have a question to follow up the testimony we heard from the citizens committee and others. i’m hoping staff can help me. i’m trying to figure out if there’s a disagreement between the citizens committee and staff in terms of what’s in these documents or if that’s just input on the merits? the commission is very supportive of nature-based solutions. i think we absolutely want to encourage them. we heard this input a number of times. i’m hoping staff can help me understand if there’s a disagreement here or if that’s input the commission staff is planning to incorporate in the documents as they move forward and how you think about that. \n>>speaker: i hope that they will — Carin\, Arthur and Gita will agree that there’s not a necessarily a disagreement. we’ve incorporated nature-based solutions in an approachh to putting nature first throughout every component of the plan. the point they’ve been communicating to us recently is that it needs to be elevated to the level of being visible in an outline. and we are not ignoring that information. we’re simply — for version control issues\, we’re keeping versions consistent until we incorporate a lot of feedback at once. we’re also working with all three of those individuals on our advisory groups and various leadership groups. so\, there are plenty of opportunities for us to work together to come up with a solution that’s mutually acceptable. \n>>Barry Nelson: thank you. we obviously want to highlight those nature-based solutions\,. so — but i won’t offer my ill-informed thoughts about how best to do that. let staff keep working with those members of the public. thank you. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: commissioner john-baptiste? \n>>Alicia John-baptiste: thanks\, and kudos to the staff for their work on this. i share the enthusiasm of my fellow commissioners. i did have a question around how you’re planning to incorporate olus into the subregional plans. it seems like you had a potential fork in the road around organizing subregional plans according to jurisdictional lines or organizing them around olus. i can understand given the way we’re set up as a region why you might go to the jurisdictional direction. going in that direction then requires some kind of backstop in my estimation to ensure we’re not missing the lens of olu\, i think it creates some missed opportunity to connect yours dictions that share olu space but may not be connected either through county or through other forms of relationship. so to. me — my interpretation is there’s more responsibility placed on bcdc as the ones holding the point of view of the big picture. i don’t know if this is consistent with how you thought about it\, i’m wondering if there’s another level of detail below what you’re speaking about today that incorporates that. if you can share what you can at this point\, i would appreciate it. \n>>speaker: yeah. we certainly thought about looking at operational landscape unit as a form of analysis for developing solutions. and that’s why we’re offering a multi-jurisdictional plan option. we’ll provide some basic analysis that shows where operational landscape units can bring together multiple jurisdictions that might be particularly suited to doing a multi-jurisdictional plan. those plans can cross county boundaries as well. we did choose city and county boundaries because that’s where land use planning takes place and it can get a little bit messy when you’re going outside of those jurisdictional boundaries. the other place where we’re really going to be incorporating the concept of operational landscape units is in the guidelines themselves. there will be a guideline telling people to look at the operational landscape unit they’re in and look at all of their neighbors that share a similar set of suitability for adaptation strategies and incorporate them — if they’re not doing a multi-jurisdictional plan with them to incorporate those stakeholders into their planning process. we’re hoping to encourage it as much as we can without mandating it. \n>>Alicia John-baptiste: sorry. just a quick follow-up on this\, though. so\, part of what i think we’re trying to avoid is for one jurisdiction to put in place strategies that have either negative or suboptimal consequences to their neighbors. and if jurisdictions are not required to consider what — how nature will actually behave relative to what they are planning\, i don’t know that we will achieve that goal. so\, there’s a balance\, i’m sure\, between what we require up front and what we solve for on the back end. i do encourage — i encourage us to think about what the right balance is. because the point of having a regional agency in my view holding responsibility for setting these guidelines is so that we can ensure the whole is actually taken care of in the best possible manner. it’s really hard to do that from a more fractured perspective that we otherwise fall into as a region. i hope that makes sense. \n>>speaker: just to clarify\, we will be requiring people to work across jurisdictional boundaries as they develop their strategies. what we’re not requiring is that people submit a multi jurisdictional plan with their neighbors if they don’t want to. so\, that’s — in all other cases\, we are requiring people to work with their neighbors to look at the shared characteristics and operational landscape unit and to consider adaptation strategies impacts on neighboring jurisdictions. \n>>Alicia John-baptiste: thanks. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: commissioner vasquez? \n>>John Vasquez: first\, i want to thank dana and larry for the presentation. we have and organization call “for seas\,” and these kinds of things are made available to all the cities and the counties to talk about these regional concerns\, no matter what they are. and as larry indicated there is\, i think\, a willingness on the part of the cities and the county to work together with one plan. the other thing was\, we had a brief conversation afterwards about looking across to our neighbors\, contra costa and napa. so\, we fully plan to at least engage them so we’re not doing something that might impact them or influence water to go one way or the other. we can all be — as some of the other commissioners have said\, we can be concerned about our own area and not think about our neighbor. i’m glad dana said that. it encourages me to do more work then. thank you. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you. i don’t see any other commissioners. i certainly want to join in my thanks and praise to larry and dana and the full staff for the work that has led up to this and is ongoing. there have been times in this process — i suspect there will be times in the future when i become a little bit concerned about how much progress we’re making and how long it’s taking. but i think this indicates that we’re making very good progress\, at least at this moment in time. that brings me to item 11\, a certainly relevant follow-up\, a briefing from nasa on science underpinning of the new state of california guidance on rising sea levels. dr. Ben Hamlington of nasa who led the state and california’s science panel that formulated the basis underpinning the new state of california guidance on rising sea levels will make the presentation. we have heard from dr. hamlington before and his briefings have been interesting and especially tuned for those of us who are not scientists. Cory Copeland\, bcdc’s lead scientist will introduce the topic. \n>>Cory Copeland: thank you\, commissioner. my name is Cory Copeland\, i’m the bcdc adapting to rising tide state and science manager. i’m excited to introduce the latest on sea level rise science that informs new statewide guidance. as a reminder for the commissioners on february 1st\, you received a briefing from dr. Justine Kimball on sea level rise guidance. the public comment period for that draft has closed. bcdc staff are actively working with the opc to support the final draft. we’ve been told that opc anticipates adopting the guidance in june. at that point\, us — bcdc will be updating their own climate policy guidance with respect to the latest science and guidance from opc. that document will be used to inform bcdc permits and planning activities as it relates to our policies. if you look closely at the authorship of the draft guidelines\, you’ll see sections are written by opc staff\, which dr. kimball spoke to you about already\, and others are written about external scientists. today’s briefing is by dr. Ben Hamlington\, one of the external scientists\, author of the draft california state sea level rise guidance. he will specifically offer information on the scientific basis for projections. Ben Hamlington is a research scientist at the sea level rise and ice group at the nasa jpl. dr. hamlington is a preeminent expert on sea level rise science. he authored more that 50 scientific publications on sea level rise and related topics. i personally read and cited some of his work. within the guidance\, dr. hamlington is the lead author of the section on the report on the selection and creation of the california sea level rise scenarios. and so without further ado\, i’d like to pass it over to him to present some of the scientific updates that went into our new california sea level rise scenarios. \n>>Ben Hamlington: thank you\, cory. thank you for the invite to present. i hope i make this as accessible as i was given credit for in past presentations. but let me share my screen here. so\, i have a few slides going over the framing of the report. some of you may have seen a presentation. so\, justine and i did a roadshow of going around and sharing some of the findings in a brief overview of the report. so\, i’m going to go through some of those same elements\, maybe a little bit quickly. i have a couple new items here that are responsive to the public comments we received. so\, i do want to hit those as well. a goal of mine is to leave time for questions\, which i know based on the public comment just in this process\, that there are potentially many of those questions. hopefully we can address some of those here. let me share my screen. if i can confirm you guys can see that okay? \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: yes. \n>>Ben Hamlington: cool. okay. as i said\, and as cory nicely updated on\, i’m really focusing just on chapter 2 of the report. this is the science update. there is a chapter 4. so\, chapter 3\, for those of you who have not seen the report\, that’s the guidance. that’s the section led by opc and justine. there is a section 4 of the report that talks more about impacts. i know those impacts in section 4 is tremendously important to all of you and the discussions you’re having here talking about the prevalence and the potential expansion and increased frequency of flooding as we go forward\, as well as other impacts of saltwater intrusion\, erosion\, things like that. this is my way of saying i’m focused on chapter 2. it’s not at all to diminish the important work in chapter 4. it exists. it’s well-described in the report. and it’s being responsive to the public comment. again\, i’m just trying to set the framing for what i’m covering here. this is not the entirety of what’s in the report. okay. so\, what’s included in the report? there’s five sea level scenarios. that sea level scenario\, term\, phrase is based on some of the changes that occurred. i want to spend some time today explaining what those sea level scenarios are and how they’re different than what we’ve seen in past guidance. these span the range from 2020 to 2150. they span the range of plausible sea level rise. we do define what plausible means within the report. i’ll touch on that briefly here in the coming slides. these have been localized to california. one thing to note is the source material for this is the ipcc sixth assessment report and this federal technical report which came out in 2021 and 2022. billy sweete and i were authors of the federal report. wehat we’re doing is we’re using that scientific basis\, that consensus as the starting point to then build something that is let’s say both specific to california but also responsive to some of the gaps that existed coming out of that federal report. we did the same kind of thing after that\, we briefed it to other agencies\, states\, localities\, we got feedback that made it clear there are things we could be doing to make that information more accessible and easier to adopt into guidance. so within this update we’re trying to take some of those lessons learned and provide this update. so\, in that respect\, the california update i’m talking about here is certainly reflected and consistent with those documents\, but hopefully is continuing to advance our state of knowledge and how we’re describing that state of knowledge. and a couple of ways it does this is that within this report\, we evaluate the most likely scenario. so\, based on multiple lines of evidence\, we can actually start to weigh in a little bit more heavily based on our scientific understanding about not just here as a range of scenarios\, pick the one you want\, but here is a range of scenarios and here is what we can consider most likely and here’s why. so we’re trying to describe that in more detail to support the implementation and use of these scenarios. one way we do this is increased use of observations. we have good tide gage observations. obviously\, i’m biased\, we have satellite observations here at nasa\, but we have these increasingly long records from satellites that we can use alongside the models to say something more certain and definitive than ever before. then one last thing to note here\, we do a lot to provide story lines and context for each of our scenarios. i will get into that in a second. i’m not going to dwell on that in this slide. an important thing here is that there have been meaningful changes since the 2017 rising seas report. these are driven by the science. this is not some additional research i did while preparing this report\, this is the consensus in the ar6\, the state of publications here in california and how we can translate that into a consensus document that meets — hopefully checks the box of what we need here. the sea level scenarios. there’s five of them. there’s the low\, intermediate-low\, intermediate\, intermediate-high\, and high scenario. the ways these are defined — and this is the only point i’ll meters on this slide\, but it’s just because — meters instead of feet\, it’s just because these are nice round numbers. these scenarios are defined by amount of global sea level rise by 2100. and the reason for that\, the way we build the model-based projections that lead into the scenarios is from a global value and we regionalize off of that. if we go back to the starting point with the regional — with the global projections of sea level\, we look across the available model results in the scientific literature\, and we can come up with a plausible range of sea level rise. in this case\, in 2100\, that’s 30 centimeters to two meters. certainly beyond 2100\, that number can go far beyond that. before 2100\, that plausible range will be narrower to that. this is how we start out our scenario formation. then from there\, you can start to build in story lines. we do that in detail in this report. i think we’re doubling down on that within our revisions associated to the public comment. we can interpret exactly what the future looks like under these different scenarios. under the low scenario\, the global communities really got its act together\, really driven emissions lower\, basically got to net zero as quickly as possible. that’s the most optimistic future. on the other hand\, if we talk about the high scenario\, that’s kind of the worst case. emissions have gotten out of control. not only that\, we triggered some of the rapid ice-sheet processes\, ice-sheet instabilities that we think could be a factor and they’re contributing heavily to sea level rise. then you have the other three scenarios in between. i do want to point out two important ones. intermediate-low at 50 centermeters by 2100 and intermediate a 1 meter by 2100\, those bound what we’re calling the most likely range by 2100. those are important scenarios if we consider the future sea level rise and where we might be headed. there’s one last point i want to make in terms of the — some of the terminology used in the report. we talk about medium confidence and low confidence. this is mapping directly from the ar6 and the technical report. the key here is the level of scientific agreement or consensus. that’s what’s being described here. medium confidence\, and maybe you would like to say there’s high confidence among scientists on what’s going to happen in the future\, medium confidence is as far as we’ll go based on our current modeling and our understanding of the physical processes\, but we talked about medium confidence which collects a series of physical processes that we can model as part of these large ensemble efforts. the low confidence processes start to bring in physical processes that are of less agreement and more uncertain about what’s going to happen in the future. those are your rapid ice-sheet loss processes. those instabilities\, okay. so\, we denote between those two and those are built into the scenarios we’re using here. i’ll talk more — a key question is the difference between probalistic projections and sea level scenarios. i have a slide i’ll go through theses — these others quickly so i can answer some questions there. just looking at some of the numbers\, i’ll go through this briefly. you all can read the report and get these numbers\, but in terms of the sea level scenarios themselves and the numbers\, here on the right\, those color bars are the five — colored lines are the five sea level scenarios\, then the dashed line is showing the 2018 h plus plus scenario. i’m just showing one of these for comparison to tell you something about that high-end process — or the high end scenario. so\, again\, the low to intermediate scenarios kind of span. the medium confidence scanriros are those processes that we have a good understanding of. the intermediate to high scenarios explore that upper range\, where we have less confidence in what’s going to happen but want to capture those higher-end possibilities. the one thing to note here\, that dashed line\, you can see at every point in time it’s higher than the high scenario. so we have had the high-end scenario come down as a result of the science — again\, i have a slide on that in a couple minutes here. i’ll get into that in a second. one other important thing to note as you go through the report is that vertical land motion is the primary driver of local variations. if we think about the ice sheets\, the ocean and what’s happening there\, it’s a fairly similar signal whether you’re talking about san diego or crescent city. so\, the contribution from the antarctic ice sheet\, you’re so far away\, this should make sense\, it doesn’t change that much across the california coastline\, same thing with greenland. however\, if we think about what does drive differences locally\, it’s subsidence or uplift that may be occurring in different parts of california. we can represent a lot of the ocean-driven contributors to future sea level rise by one consistent scenario as we look out across california\, and then we can bring in the vertical land motion piece. there’s almost a separation between the two. here are some of the numbers that are — i’m showing from the report. this is to note we do have numbers of each decade going out to 2150 for each of these scenarios. within the report\, we also do kind of hone in on this near-term sea level rise. these next three decades\, 2020 to 2050. an important thing here is the range in 2050 is much smaller than it has ever been before in any of these consensus reports. in 2050\, the range is less than 8 inches between the low and the high scenario. it’s much lower than in past reports\, as i said. the primary reason for that is actually connected to the high-end possibilities and the rapid ice sheet loss processes. i’ll talk about why that’s the case in a minute. and it’s important to note that our observations are consistent with intermediate scenarios. it’s a little bit hard to see\, but this red line here is actually trajectory based on observations around california. it tracks extremely closely to the intermediate scenario. this allows us to say the intermediate scenario\, which is about 0.8 feet in 2050\, plus or minus a couple inches should be considered the most likely sea level rise in 2050. for california we’re almost collapsing future sea level rise down to a single scenario if we look out the next three decades. all right. so\, one last slide here before i get into some of those points that are responsive to the public comments we received. if we’re interpreting the sea level scenarios\, one thing we’re trying to do in this report\, because we’re building the scenarios\, we’re trying to add context to them with probablistic projections. the scenarios are formed using the probablistic projections\, we set these targets and find the probablistic projections to get to those targets. and then from there we can start to say something about what is your likelihood of reaching different scenarios. so\, if i look at this middle row here\, what’s the probability of passing roughly one meter of sea level rise in 2100 in a three degree sea warming future? my probability is 5% of exceeding that. on the other hand\, i have 82% chance of exceeding the intermediate-low\, 50 centimeters by 2100. the reason that’s important is that we can make an evaluation of different warming levels and the path we’re on and the likelihood of getting there. right? three degrees c is our current trajectory of warming as evaluated by ipcc\, working group 3. so you can look down here\, that’s part of the reason we make this evaluation of a most likely scenario. so 50% is between intermediate-low and intermediate. this is our most likely trajectory. this table becomes very informative to interpret those scenarios. that’s what i said in the first bullet. one other thing to note without rapid ice sheet loss — so that’s these low confidences\, the last two columns — the chance of reaching two meters by 2100 is effectively zero at warming levels below 5 degrees c. so we have in here less than 1%\,but these are again effectively zero. they’re extremely small given the number of actual projections that get us to that value. so\, in order to get to the high-end estimates of sea level rise\, like 2 meter by 2100\, you really need to have triggered the ice sheet instabilities and the rapid ice sheet loss. one thing we tried to hammer home in this report is that there’s no scientific consensus on rapid ice sheet loss and the associated processes. that’s why they’re called low confidence\, but it’s important when we consider the interpretation of the scenarios and ultimately the application of the scenarios. that’s the work opc is trying to do to understand what these scenarios mean and then how to interpret them going forward. okay. i have a couple slides left\, then i’ll stop for questions here. one thing that’s come up\, in the 2017/2018 guidance\, the starting point was these probalistic sea level projections. i’m using the term here implicit versus explicit construction of scenarios. the whole goal of these activities is to go from what is a very large number of projections — these probablistic projections\, even though there’s seven scenarios in the ar6\, encompass tens of thousands of sea level projections. right? because you have different percentiles and you have these different ranges. ultimately\, you need to get down to a discrete set of sea level scenarios. right? you need to have that down to a set of three\, five\, whatever the case may be. the way that was done in 2017 and 2018 was to start with the probablistic projections and then to go to the right to form the scenarios. right? here\, what i say is the advantages of doing that\, you can attach probabilities directly to the sea level scenarios\, which i think you’re all familiar with. you would pick a scenario\, you would see the liklihood or the different range of probabilities associated with that scenario and then you’re off and running. however\, based on the previous report\, how it was interpreted as well as other examples throughout the landscape of planning\, there are a lot of downsides to doing this. so\, the underlying assumptions you make in doing this kind of get lost. if i’m looking at a probability\, it’s important to consider that there is a probability associated with the scenario or the ssp or the warming level that you have selected. right? so\, if i go and just use my probability as is\, my probablistc projection\, and you’re making scientific decisions. the process of getting here to here\, you’re saying something about what you think the science is saying about the likelihood of different scenarios and projections. it’s blurring that gap between chapter 2 in this report and chapter 3 in this report. right? we’re not providing the clear scientific evidence that allows guidance to be built. and the last point here\, there are possible big shifts that can occur from one update to the next. we see that with the h plus plus. if we work back the other way\, and i’ll just go over this quickly\, here what we’re doing is defining the discrete sea level scenarios on the right and providing the context with the probablistic projections on the left. the pros of this\, the underlying sea level assumptions are explicit\, they’re very clear\, they’re directly attached. the likelihood of assumptions themselves can be factored in. that type of statement i said about the 3 degree c future\, i can say something about the most likely scenario as a result. they are intended to be more robust to scientific updates\, which is important. and i think an important thing here is they’ll be in line with the federal guidance and national climate assessment going forward. that will make the process of updating — of writing a report like this easier in the future. there are certainly some downsides to this. one\, you have to start and define the plausible range in the scenario definitions of the starting point. i say that’s a con\, but it’s not that difficult to do because we can look at the projections in advance\, look at the scientific literature\, the ar6 provides the guide for coming up with that plausible range. the last thing is the exceedance probabilities come at the end. it’s not an either/or. these thiings are directly related to each other and very important to consider. this is why we’re adopting the sea level framing as opposed to the probablistic projections. okay. so\, what happened to the h plus plus? nothing\, it’s being updated. i kind of hit on this already. the exact same modeling group using a similar but updated model that was used to support the formation of the h plus plus scenario in 2017/2018 has been used here in these low-confidence scenarios that help build the high estimate. so\, we have not changed anything. there’s not a new model that we said\, now we need to consider this. it’s the same line of evidence that’s been updated. a simple way to put it. if you want to call that same line of evidence h plus plus in the past\, you can call the same line of evidence that leads to our high scenario similar to h plus plus or interpret it in that here. the key finding there is more warming is needed to trigger instabilities that would lead to significant sea level rise. so in order to get to more warming\, that’s further out in the future\, and it just pushes the high level sea level rise further out into the future. it’s the when\, not if. we’ve pushed those possibilities futher out. one of the things to note is that the ar6 only generated two low confidence scenarios looking at one high warming\, one low warming. you could generate these low confidence scenarios for any level of warming. just because they’re not in the report\, doesn’t mean they don’t exist. it just means they weren’t computed. if you are trying to interpret one of those versus the other\, you have to be careful how you interpret those probablistic projections. there were methodological choices made to generate that suite of scenarios and then those then impact your guidance. one last note\, we have gotten a lot of feedback about not considering these low-confidence scenarios. and example of this is a report came out of new zealand and also one came out of maryland. they largely — they acknowledge the existence of the low-confidence scenarios and largely say they will not consider them in the production of guidance. so\, based on scientific understanding and our level of consensus within the ar6\, there’s very little scientific justification for doing this\, for disregarding them entirely. they are plausible\, to use that word. they are still being evaluated from a research perspective. one thing to note is that we can really do a good job of explaining these processes\, these scenarios\, in a way that helps support the formation of guidance like that in chapter 3. i don’t think they should be disregarded but they should be communicated clearly and then that should impact how they’re used in guidance. last slide. the vertical land motion is another one. in particular for the bay area\, there were questions about the alameda tide gauge versus the san francisco tide gauge. the reason i bring those up\, the alameda tide gauge had a positive rate of vertical land motion. it was evaluated to be uplifting slightly. the san francisco gauge was identified to be stable or slightly subsiding. so\, i’m showing — this is a very complicated figure. we’ve gone into more detail within the past couple months here looking at satellite observations\, looking at gps\, looking at tide gauges\, looking at the difference between satellite altemetry and tide gauges\, and we’re able to provide much better context for the vertical land motion we see. as an example\, for alameda\, two of our methods indicate uplift. two of our methods more directly tied to the observations indicate a similar level to what you see in san francisco. i think this is information we can help communicate and then allow people understand how to implement that. that really goes back to the point that a lot of the drivers of sea level rise are consistent across the california coastline and then we can make adjustments based on the vertical land motion that you choose to adopt and implement. i think in particular\, the — there’s an example in san rafael\, very high rates of subsidence present there that we see in the satellite observations but are just not captured\, there’s no gps station there\, they’re not captured in the projections. that kind of analysis and additional information that we need to try to support the implementation of these scenarios. so\, i have key takeaways\, i will leave those up because i’ve said them four different ways by now and i’ll be happy to take any questions. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: commissioner eklund. i’m sorry. i apologize. any comment or questions from the public\, sierra? \n>>Sierra Peterson: no public comment. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you. commissioner eklund. \n>>Pat Eklund: thank you very much\, chair wasserman. great presentation. very interesting. to what extent is your report going to be looking at the extrapolation of sea level rise at different points throughout the san francisco bay? so\, for example\, when we get the report am i going to be able to look at it to see what the potential sea level rise is for\, like\, bahia or some others as you go up towards the bay? obviously there’s a lot of different ramifications that could influence your projections. curious on that. and i’ll probably have a follow-up. \n>>Ben Hamlington: quick answer to that. so\, the projections themselves\, the scenarios\, are on a one-degree grid. we provide greater levels on the vertical land motion. if we do choose to include that map\, it’s like 50-meter resolution. extremely high resolution information. but i think the important point here is that the processes that we’re modeling and representing within the scenarios are known to vary only on large spatial scales. they vary on a regional level. now\, when you start to think about the impacts that that background sea level rise can drive in the bay area\, these areas\, that’s where you need more local information and more detailed study. this is just providing the foundation. it’s a starting point upon which\, yeah\, more detailed information is needed to be brought in to understand the impacts of specific locations. \n>>Pat Eklund: so\, how would we be doing the next step so that if we needed to do that additional level in order to project whether bahia will be completely under water\, the houses\, for example\, because they have wetlands underneath them. so how is that going to do be done? how is that going to be paid for? \n>>Ben Hamlington: so\, i should separate things here. we’re looking at the mean sea level. i could easily take — this work is done in a lot of areas. you could take a digital elevation model and i could couple that background sea level rise\, and look at areas that could be at a threat of being under water. so\, i can bring in higher resolution. i think the way i was answering that is a nod to what’s in chapter 4 where you think more about the flooding\, the frequency of flooding\, the severity and more detailed information. so\, from like a screening level assessment\, you could use that mean sea level i’m talking about here relevant to elevations and say something\, but to do something more comprehensive that gets into a subsection of the report and there’s expertise to do that work and support that transition from this foundational sea level rise into something more meaningful at a local level. \n>>Pat Eklund: would you be amenable to working with the cities and the counties specifically to get down to that level of detail to help us in development of these plans? \n>>Ben Hamlington: my rule is to support the projections. at — so\, just my role to be clear at nasa\, it’s pretty large-scale. we look at global scales and how that relates to the local level. that being said\, our other authors in the report are experts in these topics. we have members from usgs\, from academia\, people who have worked in detail and i know who support the state and local communities a number of ways\, in addition to opc and other areas who support the rollout of this and implementation of it\, i guess i should say. \n>>speaker: if i could jump in for a second. i see cory nodding his head\, i wanted to give cory a chance to talk about the locality that he’s working on\, meaning the bay shoreline. \n>>Cory Copeland: yeah. thank you so much. i just wanted to highlight some of the work that — thanks to the close coordination that opc has done with us\, we have been able to see some of these numbers and start to integrate it into how we’re approaching developing the hazard scenarios for the regional shoreline adaptation planning. so\, we have taken these scenarios for timelines 2050/2100 and used existing regional hydrological models that do a better job expressing some of those local variances\, both baseline sea level rise scenarios\, scenarios with storm surge as well as ground water rise. so\, we’re doing the work to try to translate this guidance into really meaningful information that will hopefully support local governments as they’re preparing the plans and also ourselves as we do our own planning work and regulatory reviews and things like that. \n>>Pat Eklund: cory\, at what point would that information be available? i think that the sooner we become aware of implications for current land uses\, the better we are able to help make sure that this is going to be a smooth transition. \n>>Cory Copeland: yeah. well\, i guess there are two sides of it. one side is on the opc side\, the other is on our side. on the opc side\, which probably would wait until it’s officially adopted hopefully in june to just make sure it’s the official state guidance. and then\, you know\, additionally on our side\, we’ve been going through a rigorous process with a data and mapping subcommittee under the rsap to review all this and to make sure that our regional experts on these things are in agreement that our approach is reasonable to translating this data. once we’re confident in that\, that’s when it would become available. minimally before the guidance is complete\, you know\, we definitely are going to have this available for people as a form of technical assistance to anyone developing the plans. \n>>Pat Eklund: great. i think it’s important that\, you know\, that at least the elected officials and the staff in each of the counties have an opportunity to get sort of a heads up on that information. don’t forget to involve the elected officials in that. because if we’re not kept informed what the implications are and we could get blind-sided. i think that based on the potential implications and ramifications in different areas\, it could be problematic. the sooner we can start sitting down and having some discussions\, i think the better. \n>>speaker: thank you. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: commissioner gunther? \n>>Andrew Gunther: can you hear me now? \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: yes. \n>>Andrew Gunther: great. just a couple of things i want to make sure i understand and a couple questions. if i understand this correctly\, no matter what the scenario that we’re considering\, the rate of sea level rise that we’re considering going up will be higher at the end of the century than it is right now. is that correct? \n>>Ben Hamlington: except for the low scenario. so it is a correct statement. the low scenario — an underlying assumption of the low scenario is that the current rate continues. every other scenario\, your statement is correct. the rate will accellerate and it will be higher at the end of the century. yet. \n>>Andrew Gunther: and no matter the scenario — i guess we’re defining the low scenario as this. but sea level will continue to rise into the 23rd century. \n>>Ben Hamlington: that’s correct. \n>>Andrew Gunther: okay. and. for — the fact that h plus plus is gone\, that’s lovely news. you don’t get to hear that kind of thing too much\, is that because we’re projecting less warming than we were ten years ago or because we have a different understanding of ice sheet dynamics. \n>>Ben Hamlington: yeah. so\, i wish it was gone. it’s more updated. it’s the latter. we’ve updated our understanding of those potential processes\, at least that one modeling group has. when i say that there’s more warming needed to trigger those processes\, that’s the evaluation. it’s basically having the same underlining assumptions about how we get to different warming levels in the future. it’s just instead of — i’ll throw out only numbers. instead of using 3 degrees celsius of additional warming by 2100 to potentially trigger those ice sheet processes\, now it’s maybe 4 degrees celsius. the h plus plus\, i use that when not if framing. instead of two meters being possible by 2100. if i were to look out 2120\, 2130\, it comes back on the table. so we have pushed things out a couple decades. \n>>Andrew Gunther: great. my last question is about vertical land motions. so\, are — have you considered or — i don’t — in terms of what might happen here in the bay area\, vertical land motions are gradual processes as opposed to\, say\, vertical land motions in places where you get subduction earthquakes where the land can move a foot or two in a minute. so\, we’re not considering those kinds of land motions in california when we talk about the future relative to sea level rise. \n>>Ben Hamlington: that’s correct. we’re assuming certain processes and ones that we think we can reasonably predict or project on to the future. that’s the slower scale processes. it’s largely driven by the current rate we see in vertical land motion. \n>>Andrew Gunther: if we were actually in seattle or we were in prince william sound or somewhere where those kind of subduction earthquakes are more common\, there could be vertical land motions that could happen very quickly that would change sea level. \n>>Ben Hamlington: yep. american samoa is kind of the poster child for that. there was an earthquake in 2010 that caused a shift\, and then the rate of subsidence increased by almost an order of a magnitude as a result of that. they have an extremely high rate of relative sea level rise as a result. those things can happen. \n>>Andrew Gunther: there are parts of prince william sound where old intertidal habitat is way above current sea levels because of the great alaska earthquake. that happened in a matter of minutes. great. thank you very much. great presentation. \n>>Ben Hamlington: thanks. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: commissioner showalter. \n>>Patricia Showalter: sorry\, i was having trouble with my mute button. to respond quickly to andy gunther’s comment about land motion. in the south bay we’ve had land motion due to ground water extraction. san jose has dropped over 12 feet in the early 1900s. and that ground water — that land subsidence has been stopped because of really aggressive ground water motion. but there is quite a bit of subsidence occurring in the central valley due to ground water extraction. i wanted to mention it’s not just earthquakes\, it’s ground water extraction. at the moment\, that’s not one of our problems. thank you. \n>>Ben Hamlington: that’s a good point. that’s part of the satellite we’ve done. it’s for the entirety of california\, not just the coastal areas. you can see a lot of those signals pop out. katie hageman in san rafael has been looking at this in detail. there’s an extremely high rate of subsidence on the order of almost a centimeter per year. it’s an order of magnitude greater than the sea level rise we see in a lot of locations. so\, with satellite observations\, we’re able to identify that. with that understanding allows her to better plan for her community and provide better projections. i do think these other types of data analysis that are very available here in california should be relied on to really start to constrain some of those additional factors. it’s a very good point. there are a lot of drivers of vertical land motion that we need to consider. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: i don’t see any other hands up for questions or comments. \n>>Larry Goldzband: can i make one comment? \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: of course. \n>>Lawrence Goldzband: cory and i had a conversation this morning knowing ben would be presenting what he’s presenting. we talked through how do we talk about this to the commission ultimately? so\, after the opc approves whatever it is going to approve\, cory and the team will be analyzing it — not that they haven’t already started\, and we will schedule a presentation for the commission about how we will use that guidance in the future. as i think we did in 2018 or 2019. but we’re looking that up just to make sure. because your permit staff uses this kind of information on a daily basis. and we want to make sure that you understand how our staff will be using it and we’re going to — this is news to ben\, but we’ll invite him back for that. just so he can take a look at it and — and give his analysis\, which he will do certainly through the system. you’ll see him again soon. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you. all right. \n>>Ben Hamlington: i appreciate the opportunity to present. thank you for your questions. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you very much for the presentation. we look forward to the next one as larry indicated. that brings us to adjournment. who wishes to take the honor of moving adjournment? nobody wants to move — \n>>Pat Eklund: i’ll move it. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: commissioner eklund moves. commissioner nelson seconds. seeing no objections. we are adjourned. thank you as always. \n>>Pat Eklund: see you may 3rd. \n  \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs 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. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant 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. \nIf 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. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf 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. \nCampaign Contributions\nState 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. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings 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.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/april-18-2024-commission-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240404T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240404T170000
DTSTAMP:20250320T170431Z
CREATED:20240118T072724Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250320T170431Z
UID:10000094-1712235600-1712250000@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:April 4\, 2024 Commission Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 189 (2022). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed above. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco415-352-3600 \n\n\nEast Sonoma County Services Center19080 Lomita Ave.Sonoma\, CA 95476 \nCNRA Building715 P StreetSacramento\, CA 95814 \n675 Texas Street\, Ste. 6002Fairfield\, CA 94533 \n\n\nOffice of Santa Clara County Supervisor Otto Lee70 W Hedding St.East Wing\, 10th FloorSan Jose\, CA 95110 \n112 Trellis Dr.San Rafael\, CA 94903 \n3833 Lakeshore Ave.Oakland\, CA 94610 \n\n\nCaltrans Building\, District 4111 Grand Ave.\, #300Oakland\, CA 94612 \nMountain View City Hall500 Castro St.Mountain View\, CA 94041 \n440 Civic Center PlazaRichmond\, CA 94804 \n\n\nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting.  \nJoin the meeting via Zoomhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/82730794235?pwd=Oxzl_O4peQ4TubUxFGJ-ZdceIADgBQ.jmU5A8BhMGajSi8H \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055 Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID827 3079 4235 \nPasscode292270 \nIf you call in by telephone: \n\nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourself\nPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak\n \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic 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]\nApproval of Minutes for February 15\, 2024 Meeting(Reylina Ruiz) [415/352-3638; reylina.ruiz@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]Public Comment\nPublic Hearing and Vote on an Enforcement Committee Recommended Enforcement Decision\, including Proposed Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order Number CCD2024.001.00 (BCDC Enforcement Case ER2021.080.00)The Commission will hold a public hearing to address the permit violation and unauthorized development at 660 Bridgeway Boulevard\, Sausalito\, Marin County\, and vote on whether to adopt a Recommended Enforcement Decision proposed by the Enforcement Committee which includes a proposed Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order to require compliance at the site and payment of $60\,000 in administrative civil liability.(Rachel Cohen) [415/352-3661; rachel.cohen@bcdc.ca.govPresentation // Public comment letters\nPublic Hearing and Vote on an Enforcement Committee Recommended Enforcement Decision\, including Proposed Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order Number CCD2024.001.00 (BCDC Enforcement Case ER2021.080.00)The Commission will receive a briefing and consider authorizing the Executive Director to amend an existing contract with the Resource Legacy Fund to administer funding to BCDC’s Environmental Justice Advisors as payment for their services related to implementing Bay Plan Environmental Justice and Social Equity Policies and Bay Adapt. The amendment will add $106\,000 and extent the time period to June 30\, 2025\, bringing the total to $180\,000.00.(Phoenix Armenta) [415/352-3604; phoenix.armenta@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nAdjournment – in honor of the late Joe Bodovitz\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				This report lists the administrative permit applications that have been filed and are pending with the Commission. The Executive Director will take the action indicated on the matters unless the Commission determines that it is necessary to hold a public hearing. The staff members to whom the matters have been assigned are indicated at the end of the project descriptions. Inquiries should be directed to the assigned staff member prior to the Commission meeting. \nAdministrative Permit Applications \n\nApplicants\n\n\nEagle Rock Aggregates 1055 West Georgia Street\, Suite 2740 Vancouver\, BC V6E 35R\, Canada Port of Oakland 530 Water Street Oakland\, CA 94607\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2022.008.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\n01/17/2024\n\n\n90th Day\n04/16/2024\n\n\nLocation  \nWithin the Commission’s 100-foot shoreline band jurisdiction and within a Bay Plan-designated Port Priority Use Area\, at Berth 22 at the Port of Oakland\, at 1699 Maritime Street\, in the City of Oakland\, Alameda County.\n\n\nDescription\n\nConstruct and temporarily use\, through June 30\, 2035\, portions of an aggregate marine terminal to receive sand and aggregate dry bulk cargo from ships\, including: \n\nTwo barge loading radial stackers with the ability to rotate approximately 175 degrees\, the first with the ability to extend to 190 feet long (at the maximum extended position and lowest vertical angle\, it could extend approximately 112 feet past the face of the dock over the Bay)\, and the second with the ability to extend to 150 feet long (at the maximum extended length and lowest vertical angle\, it could extend approximately 90 feet past the face of the dock over the Bay);\nA conveyor transfer platform\, approximately 23 feet high\, with a footprint of approximately 340 square feet;\nApproximately 48 square feet of an approximately 192-square-foot\, 12-foot-tall building to be used as a marine operations break room\, with an ADA ramp and landing;\nA Portable ADA restroom and ADA ramp;\nApproximately 166 feet of an 8-foot-high chain link fence and a 12-foot-long swing gate along the northwest corner of the site;\nApproximately 76 feet of an 8-foot-high chain link fence and a 24-foot-long swing gate along the southwest corner of the site; and\nShore power infrastructure\, including two shore power vaults\, each covering approximately 33 square feet\, flush with the edge and surface of the dock\, and approximately 200 linear feet of conduits within a support structure mounted to the underside of the wharf.\n\nEagle Rock Aggregates’ lease with the Port of Oakland includes two options to extend the term (a 10-year option and a 5-year option)\, subject to mutual agreement\, such that the maximum extended lease term would expire June 30\, 2050. The permittees may request to extend the authorization period of this permit through a permit amendment upon extension of the Port of Oakland lease. \n\n\nTentative Staff Position\nRecommend approval with conditions. Katharine Pan; 415/352-3650 or katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\nSan Rafael Sanitation District 111 Morphew Street San Rafael\, CA 94901\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.010.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\n01/19/2024\n\n\n90th Day\n04/18/2024\n\n\nLocation  \nWithin the Commission’s 100-foot shoreline band jurisdiction\, at 177 Oak Drive\, 179 Oak Drive\, 181 Oak Drive\, and 183 Oak Drive\, in the Bayside Acres neighborhood located partially in the City of San Rafael and partially in unincorporated Marin County.\n\n\nDescription\n\nInstall new underground sump pumps and sewer lateral connections at four contiguous private residential properties\, involving: \n\nLay approximately 524 linear feet of new pipeline and electrical conduit ranging in diameter from 1 to 2 inches;\nExcavate 4 approximately 20-square-foot by 5-foot-deep basins to install the new sump pumps;\nRealign the existing gravity sewer pipelines to connect to the new sump pumps;\nRemove 2 existing manholes;\nCap-in-place and abandon the existing sanitary sewer crossing the four properties; and\nReturn the sites to pre-existing conditions.\n\nThe project is Phase B1 of the larger Bayside Acres Sewer Main Improvements Project\, an effort by the San Rafael Sanitation District to decommission and replace an existing\, deteriorating sewer system. Phase A\, completed in fall 2022\, consisted of constructing sewer main pipeline outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction. The District plans to install new underground sump pumps at an additional approximately 16 homes as part of a future phase of work. The final phase of the project will involve decommissioning the existing sewer pipeline in the beach. \n\n\nTentative Staff Position\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Jessica Finkel\, Project Manager; 415/352-3614 or jessica.finkel@bcdc.ca.gov\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\nWaldo Point Harbor 1 C Gate Five Road Sausalito\, CA 94965\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. 2002.001.09 \n\n\n\nFiled\n02/27/2024\n\n\n90th Day\n05/27/2024\n\n\nLocation  \nWithin the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot shoreline jurisdictions\, at 1-C Gate Five Road\, near the City of Sausalito\, in unincorporated Marin County.\n\n\nDescription\nRenew the existing BCDC permit authorizing and conditioning the use and maintenance of Waldo Point Harbor houseboat marina for a potential additional 20 year period\, consistent with San Francisco Bay Plan Other Uses of the Bay and Shoreline Policy 4 and following a completed review of the public trust uses of the project area. No additional expansion of the houseboat marina\, or intensification of use of the marina is authorized through this amendment above the existing 273 houseboats\, 9 arks\, one harbor maintenance area\, and associated marina facilities\, such as docks. All existing conditions of the current permit will remain in effect\, including maintenance of shoreside public access areas and protection of Bay resources. No additional fill or public access improvements are included as part of this authorization.\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\nRecommend approval with conditions. Sam Fielding; (415) 352-3665 or sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\nThe Fallen Oak Trust P.O. Box 5197 San Mateo\, CA 94402\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2022.029.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\n02/18/2024\n\n\n90th Day\n05/18/2024\n\n\nLocation  \nWithin the Commission’s Bay jurisdiction\, at 95 West Shore Road\, Belvedere\, in Marin County.\n\n\nDescription\n\nRepair and renovate an overwater single-family home and address structural deficiencies\, to consist of: \n\nRepairing 23 existing steel piles;\nRemoving 6 creosote timber piles;\nInstalling 4 new steel H-piles;\nAdding 16 sets of steel cross bracing between the pilings; and\nRepairing existing concrete cross braces.\n\nThe Project will also replace an existing 275-square-foot deck\, relocate a 24-square-foot section of the deck\, replace in-kind an existing 3\,000-pound boat lift\, and install a new 80-square-foot motorized kayak platform. The permit will be conditioned to protect eelgrass habitat and species with potential presence in the project vicinity\, including all decking and platforms to maintain a minimum 40 percent light transmittance and to be constructed with untreated timber\, piles to be driven with the use of a cushion block\, all in-water work to be restricted to the environmental work window\, and pre- and post-construction eelgrass surveys to be conducted. The project will result in the removal of approximately 4.88 square feet of solid creosote timber fill\, and a decrease of approximately 24 square feet of overwater shading from treated timber deck removal. \n\n\nTentative Staff Position\nRecommend approval with conditions. Sam Fielding; (415) 352-3665 or sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Articles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nWould California bridges stand up to a direct hit? We asked experts\nAs tides turn\, anchor-outs reach for a way off the bay\nRemembering Joe Bodovitz\nCalifornia coastal advocate Joe Bodovitz dies at 93\nPioneer who helped save San Francisco Bay and California coast dies at 93\n‘People who move here don’t leave’: Why this rich California enclave is bracing homes for rising seas\nFresh batch of YIMBY housing bills clash with California’s coastal protections\nRichmond-San Rafael Bridge pedestrian lane may soon be removed after four-year pilot\nOn this Bay Area bridge\, a celebrated bike path might revert to being a breakdown lane for cars\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				\nApril 4\, 2024 meeting minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				 \nAudio transcript \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: good afternoon all welcome to another hybrid meeting of bcdc. We’re going to start with a video. Welcome to this meeting of the san francisco bay conservation and development commission. This commission meeting will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the bagley-keene open meeting act. Commissioners are located both at metro center and at publicly accessible venues throughout the bay area as specified on the meeting notice. Commissioners who participate virtually will keep their cameras on throughout the meeting so they will be visible to the public for members of the public attending virtually\, if you would like to speak either during the public comment period\, which is item three on the agenda or during a period reserved for public comment during another agenda item you will need to do so in one of two ways. First if you are attending virtually on zoom\, please raise your hand in zoom.to do so click the participants icon at the bottom of your screen\, find your name and the small hand to the left and click on that hand. If you are joining our meeting via phone\, you must press star six on your key pad to unmute your phone to make a comment. Individuals who have raised their hands will be called in the order they have been raised and they will be unmuted. Attending this meeting in-person either at metro center or at a publicly noticed teleconference location who want to address the commission should follow the protocol at your location. Those attending the meeting at the metro center will use the podium on their right. Wherever you choose to attend from please state your name to provide your comments. All members of the public will be allowed three minutes to address the commission at the discretion of the chair.comments must be respectful and focused each individual has the responsibility to act in a civil manner without using hate speech director\, indirect threats\, and/or abusive language. Bcdc has also established an e-mail address to compile public comments its address public comment at bcdc@ca.Gov. E-mails received before ten this morning have been shared with the commissioners and any received since then will also be shared with the commissioners and the public. Welcome to this meeting of the san francisco bay conservation development \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: with that and my very short additional comments that I hope that we do not need to worry about being zoom bombed by virtual speakers; we have not been. But if that occurs\, you I have a fairly stern gavel. Please call the roll. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: chair wasserman? \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: here. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: sorry\, chair wasserman. Vice chair eisen? \n>>v. Chair\, Rebecca Eisen: here. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: addiego? \n>>speaker: here. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: benson? \n>>Stephen Benson: here. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: eckerly? \n>>Jenn Eckerle: here. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: ecklund. \n>>Pat Ecklund: present. And I am located on the front porch at charles drive san rafael\, and there is no one else here except the beautiful blue sky and some clouds but the sun is out and life is great. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: thank you.commissioner gilmore? \n>>: here. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: commissioner gunther? \n>>Andrew Gunther: here. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: commissioner lee? \n>>Otto Lee: present. Santa clara. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: thank you. Commissioner nelson? \n>>Barry Nelson: here. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: commissioner pine? \n>>Dave Pine: present. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: Randolph? \n>>Sean Randolph: here. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: showalter? \n>>Patricia Showalter: here. I’m at mountain view city hall. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: thank you. Commissioner vazquez? \n>>John Vasquez: here. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: zepeda? \n>>Cesar Zepeda: here. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: did I forget anyone? 17 commissioners present. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: thank you. We have a quorum\, so we can conduct business. A organizational announcement. We’re going to switch items 8 and 9. Nine will be a fairly brief item.public comment? Do we have any public speakers? \n>>speaker: yes chair wasserman\, you have one present in the building\, I do believe. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: the only card I have is for item eight. \n>>speaker: I stand corrected. You have no public comment at this time. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: that brings us to approval of the minutes of our february 15th meeting.we have been furnished copies of them. I would entertain a motion and second to approve the minutes. \n>>speaker: so moved. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: commissioner gilmore moves. Commissioner nelson seconds. Anybody wish to make a correction or a comment? Anybody oppose to approving the minutes?the minutes stand approved. Thank you. That brings us to my report. We had an interesting and productive meeting this morning in this building and by zoom on our rising sea level working group talking about the outline as we move forward for our regional adaptation plan\, and implementation of the sb72 guidelines. The laird bill guidelines. A lively discussion about what they’re going to mean about various things to make sure that various important policy issues are appropriately emphasized. Supervisor — commissioner gioia raised the issue of when we’re going to talk\, again\, about governance and whether we believe we need more authority.we will have that discussion. But we’re building towards it\, and\, indeed\, it was discussed in the second presentation\, which was on how our staff is working to modernize and organize more efficiently\, our permitting system\, including — well\, a number of things about it were encouraging. One of them is that they are looking to how we can\, in fact\, get our application process as fully as possible\, online. Which will help everybody\, our staff\, as well as applicants and those concerned about applications. It’s a very significant effort. Most of it will be done internally\, some will need additional resources\, something we are consistently fighting for. I\, also\, noted with interest with the article in the new york times this morning with the cloud gun being shot off in san francisco bay as a way of trying to redirect heat upwards by creating micro particles in the air.it was sent to me by a friend who had a tag line\, does this need a bcdc permit? ” and in fact staff is look into that (laughter) but it was actually encouraging to me in a different context. The article is worth reading in part because it talks about a range of new ways looking at climate change and global warming using new scientific techniques\, some of which may have their own side effects that need to be evaluated\, and I still hold out hope that there will be some scientific breakthroughs that are going to help us on adapting to rising sea level. I don’t think it will involve turning the sea into micro particles. But I do think that there are some things out there that will help us\, but we’re not depending on them. We’re moving forward with our efforts\, using the techniques that we know to address the need that we know we need to meet. A couple of things about meetings.our next meeting on april 18th will occur fully virtually\, because of construction here at metro center that will not allow us to be present here. So\, the meeting of the 18th is fully virtual. Everybody needs to register with sierra where they will be\, and she is very good at helping you do that. If you need assistance\, hopeful you can do it in clusters as a number of you have been doing. But we need do that. At that meeting we may take up the following matters\, consideration of a permit application for development at 505 east bay shore drive redwood city enforcement case in the city of san rafael progress report on regional shoreline adaptation plan and new regulatory roadmap that we’ll draw from the discussion I described this morning and a briefing by nasa on the science news to create california’s draft rising sea level guidance. I also want to encourage for our may 2nd meeting\, that as many people as possible actually come in\, I want to describe it as one of our anchor meetings where we can get more of us together.it will be an important meeting in terms of a number of topics to be discussed so I think it will be worth your time to join us in-person if you possibly can. \n>>speaker: chair Wasserman f I may? \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: you may. \n>>speaker: I know we have implemented a new process for quorum\, and for that april 18th meeting\, it is due — the quorum is due today\, if you could notify me by the end of the day today\, I would greatly appreciate it\, since you are all here and a captive audience. Thank you. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: so\, just to repeat I asked you to provide the information. Sierra is telling you to do it right now.and if not this moment\, by the end of the day. I don’t want to steal larry’s thunder\, there are a few of us who may not have filed our form 700 divorce\, I have been in contact\, and did file mine just turned it in. Not a wonderful example. But please do get it in yes\, I could not have bugged you if you hadn’t done that\, I would have hidden underneath the table. On a sadder note\, although it’s also a celebratory note\, I hope that all of you would have seen the publication on the web site about our appreciation of joe bonovitz’s work who passed last month. He was bcdc’s first executive director and went on to be the first executive director of the coastal commission. And is really a giant in the regulatory\, ultimately pc as well\, as executive director goldman wrote in the statement that posted no individual in the state’s history was more directly responsible for the creation of our coastal zone management policies than joe he was a terrific example I did have the pleasure of having a couple of conversations with him when I first joined the board.he was a quiet\, solid leader. I’m not going to make comparisons\, but we had no desire to be flamboyant — and not talking about you — (laughter) but he provided tremendous leadership in areas that\, to a slight extent we have come to take for granted\, but was really pioneering work when he did it. He is missed\, and at the end of this meeting I’ll ask for a motion to adjourned in his memory. If there is any commissioner who wishes to report an ex parte communication that you have not filed in writing\, now is the time to do so. This is on an adjudicatory matter that we have not heard. Any commissioner wish to make such ex parte communication report? Seeing none.that brings us to the report of the executive director. \n>>Larry Goldzband: — your\, hopefully\, not flamboyant executive director. Welcome to our first commission meeting during the spring of 2024. Quoting charles dickinson who noted that spring feels like summer when the day is sunny and it feels like winter in the shade. I take heart and that lesson not just because it’s hard to know how I will dress for tomorrow’s opening day ball game at oracle park. Spring is complex and candidly so is what bcdc does the rising sea level working group her two very substantive presentations this morning centering on how bcdc may define where the local governments rising sea level plan should contain and the staff’s multi-dimensional planned reform on many regulatory processes. Finding the answers to these documents and processes will depend on our collective ability to understand and resolve intricate and difficult issues and conversations during which unfamiliar sun and shade may be present. While our job as staff is to help you through those tricky conversations\, we should remember that mark twain once said that in the spring I have counted 136 different kinds of weather inside 24 hours.with regard to staffing\, unless we hear otherwise\, we plan to hire dr. Britton clifton as a climate adaptation specialist working in the regulatory improvements team with ethan lavine. Britton has expertise in restoration climate adaptation worked as research associate at the oak ridge national laboratory and as a graduate researcher and restoration research projects\, britton is a bobcat having earned her doctorate in environmental systems in uc merced a charger having earned a master in earth system science from university of alabama huntsville and bs in biology from athens state university. Unless we hear from you otherwise\, britton will start with us on april 18th. Happy to report that your staff has started series of presentations about sb272 implementation to city and county local elected officials. Commissioner Dave Pine stepped forward almost immediately after we asked for your help and he arranged our briefing to san mateo county cities almost two weeks ago\, for which we thank you. I want to thank you\, gorin\, gioia\, lee\, ramos and vazquez for arranging presentations in their counties.we’re working with the remaining supervisors to reach their elected officials about the development of the sb272 guidelines and answer their questions about bcdc. We’ll report on discussions. Steve goldbeck worked with chair wasserman and approved an emergency permit for a homeowner in belvedere whose dock broke free of its piles in winter storm\, the emergency permit allowed the homeowner to remove the dock and apply for replacement of the dock. I was returning from washington\, d.C. Because planning director jessica fain and I attended the coastal states organization and noaa meetings for coastal zone managers. I am impressed by the caliber of our colleagues. We all tackle challenges such as rising sea levels\, permitting and budgeting et cetera. Jessica and I were fortunate to be with staff members of both u.S. Senators and staff of six house members including pelosi\, mullin\, desaulnier\, garamendi\, huffman\, and eshu\, all supporters of enterprising coastal zone management.jessica briefed staff members and I spoke quickly about bcdc’s emerging role and the reconstruction of highway 37. You may have seen a few stakeholders raise concerns about the safety of bridges above the bay in light of the disaster recently in baltimore harbor. Caltrans district four director and bcdc commissioner dina el-tawansy let us know caltrans plans to present a briefing to the commission and likely mtc as well later this spring or early summer to inform you about bridge safety and stability in the bay. I’m excited to announce bcdc’s firsts ever rising together bay adapt summit\, a community event in san francisco on august 8th. Mark your calendars now. Rising together will be an immersive and dynamic summit it will bring together community leaders to celebrate sea level rise adaptation in the region. As part of the event we’ll be hosting an awards ceremony hosting exemplary climate change leaders. Those leaders are advancing bcdc joint platform advancing the protection of people in the natural and built environment from rising sea levels.now the ask. We’re looking to honor one local government staff member\, one community leader\, and one elected official\, each of whom will be helping build more resilient shorelines in their communities. Please nominate a leader in your community who has displayed excellence in your communities for rising sea levels. Our bay adapt website has information and we’ll be e-mailing the link to all bay adapt stakeholders\, commissioners and advisory board members. As chair wasserman said\, joseph bonovitz passed away in march. I was honored to represent the commission at the memorial service. I want to read to you the appreciation that’s on bcdc’s web site because it’s important for the public to hear and for all of us to hear again.joe’s contributions to california’s conservation policies cannot be overstated who began his career as a journalist working for the san francisco examiner. He moved to spur in 1964 he began work on bay related issues\, resulted in leading staff consultant team that drafted the original san francisco bay plan as bcdc’s first executive director. When bcdc’s first chair mel lane was asked by ronald regan in 1972\, to chair the coastal commission\, joe was hired away from bcdc nobody in the entire state of california was more influential in development california’s coastal zone management policies than joe. Seven years later\, joe became executive director of the california public utilities commission which he led for seven years served as head of california environmental trust and later as project director for bay vision 2020 which attempted to reduce silo effects and redundancies caused by the myriad of regional planning implementation government bodies in the bay area developed during post world war ii period. Joe was born in oklahoma city in 1930 studied english literature at northwestern university\, a wild cat\, and served in the u.S. Navy and korean war. After\, joe completed graduate degree in journalism at columbia university\, so he was a lion. Always generous with his time and efforts to help bcdc.joe routinely answered questions and using experience to forecast issues. His advice was always relevant even through change in 2024. I encourage to you visit the web site of the university of california’s library to examine joe’s oral history because it is absolutely a great read. Finally\, chair wasserman\, I want to reiterate what you said about the important announcement due to construction here\, our next commission meeting in two weeks will be held totally virtually\, and we’ll be posting the me meeting notice and agenda as we normally do\, and you can expect those next two meetings later in the following two months\, may and june\, also to be virtual. We are hoping that we will get our space back in july\, but we’re not quite counting on it yet. With that\, chair wasserman\, I’m happy to answer any questions. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: are there any questions for the executive director from the commission? I see none.that brings us to item seven\, consideration of administrative matters. We have received a report of the administrative listing and regulatory director harriet ross is here to answer any questions. Any questions on that? You know you’re getting off easy. Because you do a good job. To item nine\, as I noted we’re going to shift the order\, a request from staff to consider authorizing the executive director to amend an existing contract with the resources legacy fund to further administer funding for the commissions environmental justice program. Our advisor\, environmental justice policy manager phoenix will provide the staff analysis. \n>>speaker: thank you\, chair wasserman. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: can we have the presentation up please? \n>>speaker: good afternoon commissioners. Phoenix Armenta climate equity community engagement for bcdc. Coming to you with a staff report recommendation to approve amendment to contract with resource legacy fund in order to fund ej advisors program. Next slide please. Our ej adviser program launched in 2021 with generous funding from this resource legacy fund\, a philanthropic non-profit organization.the ej advisors program was created to help bcdc implement its environmental justice and equity policies which the commission adopted as bay plan amendment in 2019. The resource legacy fund originally funded six ej advisors with annual stipends of $6\,000 per year. [indiscernible] committed to funding three years of the program with understanding bcdc would gradually take over funding from them. In 2022 they provided stipends for five advisors and in 2023 provided stipends for three ej advisors with bcdc making up the remainder of funding. Our original agreement has come to an end\, rls agreed to continue sponsoring the ej adviser program. Next slide please. Here are six current ej advisors: nama from the watershed project\, myria garcia\, india culture organization\, julio garcia rise up south city\, violet\, climate resilient communities\, salina feliciano sf consulting anthony bayview hunters point advocates. Julio\, nama\, and anthony have been with the program from the beginning and about to start their fourth year with bcdc.nama began their tenure with ej advisors in december of 2023. Next slide please. On this slide we have the overarching goals of the ej advisors program created with the ej advisors. They include advance and recommend to the commission how best to embed equity and environmental justice principles through bcdc’s programs\, policies and processes. Work with bcdc staff and commission to develop metrics to track the implementation of such changes. Encourage commission pointing authorities to select commissioners and alternate who is reflect the diversity of bay shoreline and inland communities\, increase strategies for more diverse workplace at bcdc\, and develop a permitting and planning model that incorporates meaningful engagement during development and permitting processes especially in areas in most vulnerable to sea level rise. These goals are aligned with our ej and social equity policies regional equity plan and strategic plan. Next slide please.over the past three years the ej advisors have advised us on a variety of topics to achieve goals hold monthly meetings and regular participate investment j working group meetings they participated in a workshop and environmental justice concerns in the permitting process\, advice on the permitting process continues as we’re working to implement some of their suggestions. They also participate in drafting original objectives in the racial equity plan\, participated in our october 2022 racial equity workshop and expected to review the updated draft whether it comes out. Activities include commenting on and making recommendations for the cbo mapping tool and most recently project focused on planning series of toxic tours for bcdc staff and commissioners. Currently undergoing organizational development assessment of the program with consultants from mig. Next slide please. This contract allows us to pay the final installation for the ej advisors from the grant we received from the state coastal conservancy for bay adapt work allow us to pay for 6e j adviser stipends at $10\,000 per year. In addition this will fund their activities on the bay adapt implementation committee and the advisory group.because we requested an additional year of sponsorship we’re charging an administrative fee of 17% per invoice\, bringing the total of the contract up to $180\,000. Next slide please. This contract help us to align the ej advisors program with gavin newsom’s executive order to embed equity into state government operations our strategic plan and the forthcoming racial equity action plan we previously were contracting with an organizational development consultant to continue development of the ej advisors program. Next slide please. In conclusion\, the staff recommends that the commission authorize its executive director to amend an existing contract with the resources legacy fund from $74\,000 up to $180\,000 to administer stipends to bcdc’s ej advisors and extend the end date to june 30th\, 2025. Thank you. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: thank you. With that presentation complete\, I want to open up a public hearing on the matter and invite anyone from the public who wishes to do so\, to make a comment. Do we have any speakers on this matter? \n>>speaker: there is no public comment\, chair. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: thank you. Any questions or comments from commissioners? Commissioner ahn? \n>>eddie ahn: appreciate the presentation\, and as chair of the ej working group always believe stipends are a really important part of resourcing community participation making sure people feel valued for input they provide to this body. I want to hopefully provide a better sense of context\, a sense of agency what is they do something like a community participation stipend\, I’m hoping the community leaders appreciate the increase from 6\,000 to 10\,000 it seems like a big jump I’m hoping you can speak to how it compares to the larger ecosystem and\, two\, who are the community leaders who are part of the current body okay with it too? \n>>speaker: phoenix? \n>>speaker: in terms of other agencies\, I think it is comparable to what other agencies are offering. We have set it out that they are getting paid 125 an hour at 80 hours for the entire year. So\, you know\, that includes\, like\, a meeting a month plus ej adviser working group plus extra activities yes it seems they’re satisfied with that payment. So far everyone seems to be okay with it. \n>>eddie ahn: that’s good to hear. Thanks. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: any other questions or comments?i don’t see any. I would entertain — \n>>speaker: chair? You do have commissioner showalter. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: oh I’m sorry. I apologize\, pat. Why is she not — \n>>Patricia Showalter: can you hear me? Can you hear me? \n>>speaker: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: yes. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: yes. \n>>Patricia Showalter: sorry I’m having a technical difficulty here. I want to thank the resources legacy fund for this grant. It’s very helpful to us.. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: thank you\, pat. Indeed it does.i’ll entertain a motion and second. Eisen and second. Take ag the closest ones. I’ll ask for the staff recommendation. \n>>speaker: staff recommends the commission authorize its executive director to amend the existing contract with the resource legacy fund from $74\,000 to $180\,000 to administer stipends to bcdc advisors to extend the end date to june 30\, 2025. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: any questions? I would entertain a motion to approve the recommendation. \n>>speaker: so moved. \n>>Pat Ecklund: second. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: who moved? Vazquez? Commissioner lee. Thank you. Will you call the roll on the motion\, please? \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: commissioner addiego? \n>>mark addiego: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: ahn? \n>>eddie ahn: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: ambuehl? \n>>david ambuehl: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: eckerly? \n>>Jenn Eckerle: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: ecklund? \n>>Pat Ecklund: aye. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: gilmore? \n>>: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: gunther? \n>>Andrew Gunther: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: lee? \n>>Otto Lee: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: nelson? \n>>Barry Nelson: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: pine? \n>>Dave Pine: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: randolph? \n>>r. Sean randolph yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: showalter? \n>>Patricia Showalter: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: vazquez? \n>>John Vasquez: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: zepeda? \n>>Cesar Zepeda: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: thank you.did I forget anyone? At the end of my list. I’m sorry. Eisen. \n>>v. Chair\, Rebecca Eisen: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: chair wasserman? \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: 16 yes\, no-nos. No abstention. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: the motion passes. Thank you for the good work. That brings us to item eight\, a public hearing and possible vote on the enforcement committee’s proposed recommended enforcement division to require statutory and permit compliance at 660 bridgeway in sausalito marin county and payment of $60\,000 in administrative civil liability in order to resolve bcdc’s enforcement case er2021.080.00 against the owner of record bayview one llc. In a moment\, rachel cohen of our enforcement team will present the item. But first I would ask mr.chris henry who owns bayview\, or his representative to come forward and identify themselves as being present. \n>>speaker: good afternoon commissioners attorney for bayview one llc\, darien key with benmore wendell. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: thank you. I want to state the process we’ll go through. Bcdc enforcement staff will present the case and proposed cease and desist civil penalty order for our consideration. After which time\, mr. Henry’s representative will be given opportunity to comment.after all the presentations have been given\, the public comment period will be opened. Those comments will be limited to three minutes per person. After the public comment period has been closed the floor will be opened to members of the commission to ask follow-up questions of staff and mr. Henry’s representative and deliberate on the matter. All speakers must limit their presentations and comments to evidence are already made part of the record which has been published online with this meeting’s agenda and the public implications of such evidence. We will not allow the presentation of any oral testimony or new evidence. First\, I want to open the public hearing on the matter.it is so open. Second\, I invite commissioner gilmore\, chair of the enforcement committee to give a brief summary of the committee’s hearing on this matter that took place on march 14th 2024. You have the floor. \n>>: on march 14th the enforcement committee held a hearing and vote on executive director’s recommended enforcement decision against mr. Henry to address long-standing violations of bcdc permit number m1979.088 as amended and section 66632 of the mcateer-petris act at the commercial property at 660 bridgeway in downtown sausalito. Upon reviewing the evidence pertinent to this case and conducting our hearing which included presentations and comments by staff\, as well as the respondent represented by mr. Henry who is the sole owner and officer of bayview one llc\, the enforcement committee voted to adopt without changes the executive director’s recommended enforcement decision as the enforcement committee’s recommendation to the full commission. As a reminder to my fellow commissioners\, I will now review in summary the actions that we are allowed to take today.we may\, number one\, adopt the recommended enforcement decision without any change and the proposed cease and desist and civil penalty order. Two\, we may dismiss the entire matter by voting not to issue the proposed order. Three\, remand the matter back to the enforcement committee or the staff for further action as the commission directs. Or\, four\, reject the 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 when it shall proceed in accordance with the same procedural requirements as the commission must follow under regulations 11/3/27. With all of that in mind\, I’m going to invite miss cohen to make her presentation. \n>>rachel cohen: thank you chair gilmore\, and chair wasserman. Allow me a minute to share my screen\, please.it will look funky for a minute then it will look correct. All right. Can everyone see that in full screen? \n>>: yes. \n>>rachel cohen: thank you. Good afternoon\, all. Today I’ll present enforcement case er2021.080.00 for which the respondent is mr.chris henry and his company bayview one llc this case involves long stand obstruction to public access and unpermitted redevelopment activities in bcdc’s jurisdiction. Mr. Henry’s 15 year history of failing to comply with terms of bcdc’s permit and mcateer-petris act has caused staff to commence a formal enforcement proceeding to restore public access. We’ll go through the location of violations\, history of non-compliance timeline of events violation summary and respondent defenses and staff rebuttals and enforcement committee’s recommended enforcement decision these are vicinity maps of two scales of 660 bridgeway sausalito marin originally ferry terminal privately owned two story building now the home to a restaurant and shops in downtown sausalito\, this is a site plan\, exhibit a\, bridgeway boulevard is over here\, building is here and the bay is over here on the eastern side of the building. The approximately 1\,158 square foot public access area shown in faint red line wraps around the southern and eastern sides of the building and includes the staircase landing pad halfway up the staircase offering the public an elevated view of the bay. The original permit in 1979 allowed renovations to the grown floor restaurant piccolo cafe and repairs to the deck support required landscaping public trash containers and no fewer than two benches to be made available access area provides sweeping bay views and connection to the park immediately south. This dark blue dashed polygon outlines the space which was formerly used by el piccolo cafe\, and the area outlined with the black rectangle represents 155 square feet of the public access space\, which the second permit amendment authorized the permittee to use for outdoor dining\, chairs that were accessible to the public and patrons of el piccolo cafe public access areas to outdoor dining ceased to exist in the doors closed in 2016. This was a photo from march 2022 from south of the building facing north\, the public access area partially shown under overhangs and the plywood sheets partially blocked access\, continues around the southeastern corner of the building sun and the stairs here.this photo was taken in march of 2024 from the southeastern corner was the building facing west. The public access area\, again\, includes the area under the overhang here and this walkway. The public access space which was authorized by bcdc included a continuous paved surface and this raised wooden decking was placed throughout the public access space without bcdc authorization. This photo was taken in march 2024 from the eastern side of the building facing northeast. These are the stairs that ascend to the second floor public access stair landing pad and you can see the unauthorized raised wooden decking continues through the this section of the public access area. This slide shows bcdc’s shoreline ban and bay jurisdiction showing that nearly the entire building within bcdc’s jurisdiction. So\, now that I have reviewed the permit public act requirements I’ll review history of non-compliance at this site before circling back to the current violations.mr. Henry took ownership of 660 bridgeway in 2007 and the long list of prior enforcement cases shows permit under mr. Henry’s ownership began in 2010 and have occurred since then six cases between 2010 and 2016 dealt with restaurant staff refusing to allow members of the public to use the outdoor dining tables public were told to either purchase food or leave the area. Two cases mr. Henry was find for repeating the same violation within five years. Two cases dealt with requirement to provide public shore signage and failure to address unauthorized outdoor dining tables. I want to draw your attention to 2016.013 when mr.henry announced intent to construct a new restaurant space on the first floor demolishing the former cafe space and expanding into the neighboring business suites within the building mr. Henry was informed in april and september of 2016 he was obtain a bcdc permit prior to commencing this project however in november 2016 much of the public space had been blocked off and construction commenced without bcdc permits staff initiated fines and mr. Henry submitted an incomplete permit application to — [indiscernible] the project. After more than a year mr. Henry failed to complete his permit application and it was returned unfiled and with note reminding him his property was within the commission jurisdiction subject to the 1979 permit and mcateer-petris act when informed of the violation staff directed him not to resume the project before seeking out a bcdc permit. Mr. Henry reinitiated the renovation project in 2022 without obtaining approval from bcdc and this is one of the subject projects of food’s enforcement proceeding.moving on to counter case. In august 2021 staff received an enforcement report which alleged that the respondent again on-instructing public access pathway with plywood and tables september 2021 enforcement staff mailed a violation notice and enforcement action and standardized administrative fines staff of second floor restaurant replied public access path had been blockaded by plywood due to a fire and marin southern fire district instructed them to close off the back patio. Bcdc staff requested documentation of the fire marshall direction but never received it mr. Henry’s process is separate from distinct from bcdc’s. Later that year in december enforcement staff asked for documentation from mr. Henry that the public access had been blocked off. In march and december of 2022\, and april of 2023\, staff visited the site and documented the persistence of the violations shoreline public access had been blockaded and unauthorized work was occurring on the ground floor public access area and within the grouped floor commercial space. The entire public access area was being used to store furniture construction materials and trash bins making it unusable to the public.in december of 2023 the public e-mailed staff documenting development of activities expanded to include raised wooden flooring\, high top bar and new glass wall railing in the public access space appearing to staff mr. Henry intended to privatize the public access space for use by the restaurant enforcement staff responded to the opportunity resolving the case standardized find were no longer available on january 24th\, 2024 enforcement staff issued violation report and complaint and penalties to mr. Henry on january 31st mr. Henry e-mailed staff and said he hadn’t received the violation report and complaint. Mr. Henry agreed to completing an permit assignment form on february 6th but staff have not yet received one. February 8th\, 2024 mr.henry pledged to send documentation he had made public access area with the 1979 permit he also pledge said to submit an after the fact permit application for the unauthorized work. On february 27th\, 2024 staff spoke with mr. Henry and his architect and staff explains the enforcement committee commission hearing processes and the statement of defense form due date again mr. Henry applied for after the fact permit authorization for fire repairs and interior restaurant renovations since both occurred in bcdc jurisdiction without bcdc approval and staff advised him that bcdc may require additional public access in lieu of years of closure and unauthorized work on february 28th\, 2024 staff received mr. Henry’s incomplete application for after the fact approval of the fire repair project. Despite staff’s recommendation that mr. Henry include both the fire repair and the restaurant renovation project\, the application excludes the restaurants renovation project and the changes to the public access space completely.as noted earlier on march third 2024 bcdc’s staff conducted a site visit and observed that wooden barricades were still being used to block the public access area and other portions of the public access area were being used for private storage of restaurant materials and rubbish. Work on the interior of the restaurant appeared incomplete. These are snapshots of the restaurant renovation plan. The image on the left shows preconstruction conditions with former el piccolo cafe outlined in a dashed blue outline and the former wine bar and retail space on the other side of this hallway. The image on the red post construction conditions and as you can see from the solid blue outline the restaurant has expanded into the former hallway and wine bar and retail space\, and fill has been placed internally consisting of new restrooms\, new kitchen\, new dining room and office space. The public access areas outlined in red show the intent to access space for use by the restaurant by placing tables and chairs through the. So\, in sum\, violation one is for the unauthorized redevelopment activities on the ground floor of the building and violation two is for closing\, blockading\, and removing the public required access amenities and intending to privatize the public access area for restaurant use.mr. Henry submitted a statement of defense form with attachments on february 28th\, 2024. In it\, mr. Henry admits to owning the property subject to the complaint that worked was performed on the back deck and that he installed plywood to block access to it. Moving on to defenses and rebuttals\, defense one is that mr. Henry received building permits from the city of sausalito for the restaurant remodel work\, however receiving a city of sausalito permit does not absolve the respondent from process to consult bcdc prior to performing work in bcdc’s jurisdiction\, to obtain bcdc’s approval for the work and to comply with the mcateer-petris act. The separation and distinction from the city of bcdc and sausalito’s processes was explained to mr. Henry in writing in 2021 and even if it had not been mr.henry is responsible for obtaining bcdc’s authorization prior to placing fill within or making any change of use within bcdc jurisdiction or change to existing required public access. Defense two is that nobody mentioned anything to mr. Henry about having to get bcdc approval for the restaurant remodel work. Despite it being solely mr. Henry’s responsibility to comply with mcateer-petris act and regulations applicable to his property staff informed him three times in 2017 and 2018 that he must obtain a bcdc permit amendment prior to commencing this project. Defense three is that nobody mentioned anything to mr. Henry about having to go through bcdc to get approval for the fire repair restoration work.mr. Henry should have known he needed to consult bcdc\, staff repeatedly asked implementation that fire department directed closure of the public access area and staff informed him that the blockade was violation and asked him to remove the sheet of plywood that was blocking public access. Defense four is that mr. Henry was directed by the city of sausalito department and fire marshall to install plywood and block access to the deck as it was unsafe from the fire mcateer-petris act — [indiscernible] bcdc authorization prior to making any substantial change to any water land or structure within bcdc’s jurisdiction such as closing the public access bcdc has proceeds in place to respond to instances when emergency work is required yet there is no record of mr. Henry proactively informing bcdc about the fire and need to close public access areas for emergency repairs prior to or just after the repairs occurred. There is history of correspondence with mr. Henry that demonstrates that he should have known that he needed to inform bcdc about the closure of the public access area.lastly bcdc has never seen documentation that the department directed him to close the deck. Defense is that mr. Henry went through the required channels of the city and was issued a permit. Mr. Henry did not go through all required channels to receive approvals for the fire restoration and restaurant renovation work because bcdc is a required channel. Case history demonstrates that mr. Henry should have known that he needed to inform bcdc about the closure of the public access area yet mr.henry did not voluntarily apply for a bcdc permit until he was subject to enforcement action and the permit application is not inclusive of all work that was performed. Defense six is that mr. Henry did not add any fill while staff sees that the footprint of the deck is the same now as it was before the unauthorized work performed\, mr. Henry expanded the original restaurant space by demolishing and utilizing the adjacent commercial spaces. Mr. Henry changed the use of the area by reducing public access and views\, placing impediments in the public access space\, and intending to privatize the public access area for restaurant use. Mr.henry removed public trash containers\, removed a public bench\, added a standing bar in the bench’s place\, added raised wooden decking and a new glass deck rail and the plans for the new restaurant illustrate his intention to place restaurant dining tables and chairs throughout the public access area. All activities require bcdc consultation and authorization. Defense seven is that the administrative civil penalty would possibly bankrupt respondent or put him out of business and bayview one llc employs many different people and they and their families rely on the respondent for their living. The statement of defense form allows respondents opportunity to express whether they will be unable to pay the proposed penalty or whether paying the penalty would have substantial adverse effect on ability to continue in business however since relative to these considerations is exclusively in the possession and control of the violator appendix j of commission’s regulation requires violators to submit factual information supporting. A violator should provide and include audited financial statements balance sheets profit and loss statements\, statements of net worth\, tax returns and more. However since no factual information or documentation was submitted to support this claim\, staff cannot consider this as a viable defense and mr. Henry’s title pay is not in question.to review the proposed administrative civil penalty\, appendix j of the commission’s regulations requires staff to assess certain characteristics when settling on the appropriate fine amount including but not limited to respondent’s degree of culpability history of violations voluntary resolution efforts economic benefit and violator other factors we determined the violation and gravity of harm for this case is moderate and extent ever deviation from the statutory requirement to provide permit required public access and secure permit or remove unauthorized is major. Daily penalties violation were assessed at $937 per day mr. Henry failed to take action to correct violations\, capped at $30\,000 and staff proposes penalty amount of $60\,000. Moving on to our recommended enforcement decision\, the enforcement committee recommends that the commission authorize the executive director to issue the proposed cease and desist and civility penalty order number ccd2024.001.00\, which would order the respondent to cease and desist from violating bcdc permit m1979.088.02\, and the mcateer-petris act to fully restore and maintain public access within 30 days of order issuance by december 31st\, 2024\, to obtain a permit or permit amendment for extensive grounds floor restaurant redesign work that commenced in or around november 2016 and has continued to date as well as any work that was performed in the public access areas to complete a permit assignment for the 1979 permit within 45 days of order issuance to cease and desist from any development of the ground floor’s restaurant space\, and to not conduct any business or other use of the space until a commission permit that authorizes such use and fill in place therein is obtained and pay $60\,000 administrative civil penalty within 30 days of order issuance and that concludes the staff’s presentation. \n>>: thank you\, rachel. I will now invite mr. Henry’s representative\, mr. Key to comment. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: I would note although mr. Key may do see\, that apparently mr. Henry is virtually participating. \n>>speaker: that’s correct. He’ll be available for any questions should you have any\, or myself. Good morning commissioners. My name is darin key attorney with benmore and weldell on behalf of bayview one llc\, as to bcdc enforcement hearing er21.080. My client’s requests\, as a continuance of 30 days since our office was required last friday to present bayview we request to review the record and to better understand strategy for bayview to come into compliance with obligations for bcdc permits second is that the administrative fee be stayed until the final compliance obligation due date of december 31st\, 2024. The reason for this request is he can come into compliance with bcdc obligation.six points for the commission to adopt I’ll not repeat they’re in the report 1 and 2. I would like to address the six points. First bayview has admitted permit amendment to try to come into compliance\, to the extent bcdc believes a different permit amendment is needed he will do that within 30 days so they’re now properly reviewing new permits. Second bayview has opened the public access area removed tables\, chairs\, materials and waste containers we submitted photos yesterday demonstrating that. In addition bayview is working on providing required benches and trash containers. Bayview is requesting continuance and enforcement so we can focus on preparing compliance obligations as opposed to paying enforcement cost to resolve underlying problems requested he can come into compliance. Fourth bayview will submit application for permanent assignment within 45 days bayview will cease and desist all future development operations until bcdc permit has been authorized. And lastly bayview requests the state of enforcement for $60\,000 be stayed until december 31st\, 2024. If all requested work is stayed until december 31st by that date he requested the fee be waived.if not properly permitted by that date\, bayview would not impose imposition of the fee extension of the time. Thank you for your time and hearing our request. We’re available for questions should you have them. \n>>: thank you for your comments\, mr. Key\, and thank you to staff for the presentation. Would you please open the public comment period? \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: public comment period is now opened.i believe there are no members in the audience who have submitted cards. Do we have any virtual cards submitted? \n>>speaker: there are no hands raised\, chair wasserman. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: with that\, I will close the public comment period and ask commissioners if they have any questions. I do want to point out\, reemphasize two things\, that chair gilmore of the enforcement committee stated: that\, one\, we cannot consider evidence that was not presented at the enforcement committee. So\, the pictures that mr. Keys referred to cannot be considered.two\, our choices in action are in fact very limited. We can approve the recommendation\, we can reject it entirely\, or we can send it back to the enforcement committee. With that are there any comments or questions from commissioners? \n>>speaker: commissioner vazquez has his hand raised. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: commissioner vazquez. \n>>John Vasquez: you said in your presentation that mr. Henry took over the property in 2007 and that there were already issues of compliance? is that correct? \n>>rachel cohen: I was referring to issues of compliance that occurred after mr. Henry took overstep ownership. \n>>John Vasquez: yes but he took over according to the powerpoint\, in 2007. \n>>rachel cohen: yes. The violation around his ownership began in 2010. \n>>John Vasquez: 2010. Okay that — it’s only 14 years he’s had an opportunity to come into compliance. \n>>rachel cohen: pardon me on my math. \n>>John Vasquez: I just raise the issue that asking for more time when you have had plenty of time to come into compliance then you ask us to waive it\, the fines for the past non-compliance\, not because you do the work and somehow that goes away\, those are just my thoughts. \n>>Pat Ecklund: are we allowed to ask a question of the applicant? \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: yes\, you are. \n>>Pat Ecklund: my question to the applicant\, not his representative\, is why didn’t he seek legal counsel earlier? \n>>speaker: good afternoon. Chris henry here. Thank you for taking the time to hear me today. I appreciate it.i hired mr. Attorney — I didn’t realize I was going to need legal representation until the hearing. I moved during covid\, and I didn’t receive a lot of the correspondence that rachel said that were sent out\, and once I found out the situation\, I hired the attorney. \n>>Pat Ecklund: thank you. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: any other questions from commissioners? Yes\, commissioner randolph. \n>>r. Sean randolph: was the correspondence sent by mail during covid or by e-mail?or how was that communicated. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: rachel? \n>>rachel cohen: first correspond was sent by mail and e-mail during covid and mr. Henry was responding to us for e-mail in 2021. There were some mailing issues that the first version of the violation — of the violation report and complaint that was mailed in december. It was returned undeliverable. So we reissued it with a new hearing date to mr. Henry’s current address and he did get in touch with us just a few days after it was mailed to him at his new address. \n>>speaker: thank you. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: and did he appear at the enforcement committee? \n>>rachel cohen: yes. He appeared virtually. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: thank you. Any other questions or comments? Public comment is now closed.chair gilmore\, would you like to move the enforcement committee recommendation? \n>>: thank you chair wasserman. Okay. I move to adopt\, without any changes\, the executive director’s recommended enforcement decision\, as was ably stated by staff. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: is there a second? Commissioner nelson seconds. Any comment on the motion?i see none. Will you call — sorry. Oh\, an affirmative vote of a majority of those voting are needed to approve the order federal representatives can vote on this motion. Call the roll\, please \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: commissioner addiego? \n>>mark addiego: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: ahn? \n>>eddie ahn: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: ambuehl? \n>>speaker: aye. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: benson? \n>>Stephen Benson: aye. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: eckerly? \n>>Jenn Eckerle: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: commissioner ecklund? \n>>Pat Ecklund: aye. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: commissioner gilmore? \n>>: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: gunther? \n>>Andrew Gunther: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: commissioner lee? \n>>Otto Lee: aye. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: commissioner nelson? \n>>Barry Nelson: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: commissioner pine? \n>>Dave Pine: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: commissioner randolph? \n>>speaker: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: commissioner showalter? \n>>Patricia Showalter: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: commissioner vazquez? \n>>John Vasquez: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: commissioner zepeda? \n>>Cesar Zepeda: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: vice chair eisen? \n>>v. Chair\, Rebecca Eisen: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: chair wasserman? \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: 17 yeses\, zero nos\, and zero abstentions. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: thank you\, all\, for that effort. That brings us to adjournment. And\, as stated earlier\, I would ask that the motion to adjourn — oh\, you want to make the motion. The motion to be made in honor of joe bonovitz\, our first executive director. \n>>Barry Nelson: I wanted to make that motion and simply say that I worked for save the bay for many years and had the pleasure of working with joe during those many years and after. And I just wanted to reinforce what the chair and larry have already said\, joe was wise and kind and generous and modest. He has an enormous responsibility both for the agency world we live in\, and the coastal zone we all enjoy\, but\, really\, I think had a gift for demonstrating\, showing that effective government agencies can work effectively for people. It’s a tremendous legacy. Joe is among the last of the original save the bay generation. We have lost the three ladies\, mel lane\, diet steel\, the legislators of the mcateer-petris act\, and joe is among the first generation of the pioneers. Save the bay movement which remember folks is arguably the first major urban environmental movement on the globe\, the first coastal protection movement on the globe.Joe was a part of a really visionary generation\, and a wonderful person. So\, I’ll move the recommendation. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: and I’m going to exercise chair’s prerogative and second that motion in joe’s memory. Unless there is a negative vote\, we are adjourned in the memory of joe bonovitz. May he be an example for us all. [adjourned] \n  \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs 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. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant 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. \nIf 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. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf 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. \nCampaign Contributions\nState 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. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings 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.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/april-4-2024-commission-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240321T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240321T170000
DTSTAMP:20240315T214538Z
CREATED:20240118T072538Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240315T214538Z
UID:10000093-1711026000-1711040400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:March 21\, 2024 Commission Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				This  report lists the administrative matters that have been filed and are pending  with the Commission. Due to the  cancellation of the meeting of March 21\, 2024\, and pursuant to Commission  Regulation Section 10620(a)\, the Executive Director will take final action on  these matters unless a Commissioner requests full Commission consideration by  communicating with the staff prior to March 21\, 2024. In the absence of  such a request\, the listed matters will be executed administratively after March 21\, 2024. \nAdministrative Permit Applications \n\n\n	 Applicant\n\n\n\nRobert Feirman\n	  57  West Shore Road\n	  Belvedere\, CA 94920 \n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.033.00 \n \n\n\nFiled\n03/05/2024\n\n\n90th Day\n06/03/2024\n\n\n\n		Location \n\nIn the Bay and within the Commission’s 100-foot shoreline band jurisdiction\, at 57 West Shore Road\, in the City of Belvedere\, Marin County. \n \n\n\n\n		Description\n	\n\nInstall four galvanized steel beams  underneath the existing deck and house to reinforce two existing wooden beams  that are deflecting\, involving: \n\nIn the  Bay: \n\nTemporarily moor an approximately 10-foot by  20-foot barge to the existing dock; and\nInstall four new steel beams\, which range in  size from approximately 14 to 16 inches wide by approximately 22 to 50 inches  high. \n\nWithin the 100-foot shoreline band:\n\nTemporarily  place and use a 40-foot by 8-foot boom truck crane to transport the  construction materials onto the barge.\n\n\nThe project will be  conditioned to minimize impacts to sensitive fish and eelgrass habitat in Richardson Bay. \n \n \n\n\n	Tentative Staff Position\n\nRecommend  Approval with ConditionsJessica  Finkel\, Project Manager; 415/352-3614 or jessica.finkel@bcdc.ca.gov \n \n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				\nABC News 7 story on recent Nature story on subsidence and flooding\, featuring SFEI’s Warner Chabot and Nancy Pelosi\, with a shout out to our Funding and Investment Framework report\nSausalito’s $3 million plan to clear illegal boats from Richardson Bay is working
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/march-21-2024-commission-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240307T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240307T170000
DTSTAMP:20240315T215036Z
CREATED:20240118T072405Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240315T215036Z
UID:10000092-1709816400-1709830800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:March 7\, 2024 Commission Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				This report lists the administrative matters that are pending with the Commission. Due to the cancellation of the meeting of March 7\, 2024 and because no Commission meeting will be held within 14 days of the mailed listing\, pursuant to Commission Regulation Section 10621(a)(2) \, the Executive Director will take final action on this matter unless a Commissioner requests full Commission consideration by communicating with the staff prior to March 15\, 2024. In the absence of such a request\, the listed matter will be executed administratively on or after March 15\, 2024. \nAdministrative Applications and Federal Consistency Actions \n\n\n	 Applicant\n\n\n\nU.S. Army Corps of Engineers San Francisco District\, Regulatory Division\n450 Golden Gate Avenue\, 4th Floor\nSan Francisco\, CA 94102-3404\n  \n \n \nDe Minimis Determination for the MOTCO Large Object Relocation Project\nNo. C2024.001.00\n \n \n\n\nSubmitted\nJanuary 4\, 2024\n\n\n\n		Location \n\nWithin the Coastal Zone in subtidal waters near the Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO) \n \n\n\n\n		Description\n	\n\nMOTCO submitted a memorandum describing a proposed project to relocate  25 submerged objects from a subtidal area that is planned for dredging to a  different subtidal area at MOTCO that would be out of the path of boat traffic  and strong currents. MOTCO identified the objects using sonar and believe them  to be pieces of ships sunk during the 1944 Port Chicago Disaster\, therefore the  objects are historical artifacts\, and are protected by the Sunken Military  Craft Act. The Memorandum concluded that the activity would not result in  significant direct or indirect coastal effects\, and therefore qualifies as a de  minimis activity under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). The CZMA  requires that the state agencies review the de minimis activity proposed  by the Federal agency\, and either concur with\, or object to the de minimis determination.  If the State agency concurs with the Federal agency\, the activity will be  excluded from further State agency review. If the State agency objects to the de  minimis finding\, the Federal agency must provide the State agency with a  negative determination or a consistency determination. \nAfter review of MOTCO’s Memorandum and de  minimis finding\, BCDC staff have found that the Memorandum was not  sufficient to reasonably find that the activity would not have any direct or  indirect coastal effects\, and thus BCDC staff do not concur with MOTCO’s de  minimis finding for the following reasons: \n\nThe large  objects are known by MOTCO to include pieces of ships that were used for  munition transportation\, and one of the ships is known to have been heavily  loaded with munitions when it sank. MOTCO has stated that there is no  definitive way to determine in advance if the debris still contains fuel or  hazardous materials. Therefore\, it is likely that the relocation of these  objects may result in the disturbance and release into the water of munitions  and potentially hazardous materials. \nMOTCO stated  that the objects would be relocated\, but have not specified methods for the  relocation beyond the requirement for the objects to remain submerged during  the operation. Without a relocation plan\, BCDC cannot concur that the activity  will not have significant coastal effects.\nMOTCO propose  requiring the contractor to develop and implement a Water Quality Monitoring  Plan for the project. Until the Plan is created and submitted\, BCDC staff  cannot concur that the Plan will be sufficient to avoid direct and indirect  coastal effects.  \nAs evidence that the activity would not have  significant adverse effects on water quality\, MOTCO submitted to BCDC the “Notice of  Applicability of the Wharf Maintenance Dredging Project – Large Object  Relocations Project under the State Water Resources Control Board’s Water  Quality Certification for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permits  (Order No. WQ 2021-0048-DWQ)\, Contra Costa County” issued by the San Francisco  Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) on November 9\, 2023. This Water  Quality Certification was issued for a previous plan for the activity\, which  involved the relocation of only four objects. The RWQCB has informed MOTCO and  BCDC that the issued Water Quality Certification must be amended for this  activity. Therefore\, the project described to BCDC has not yet been evaluated  for applicability under the Nationwide Permit. \n\n \n\n\n	Tentative Staff Position\n\nBCDC staff requests MOTCO review the proposed Federal agency activity in order to develop a negative determination or a consistency determination which indicates whether the activity will be undertaken in a manner consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of BCDC’s approved coastal management programs. \nRowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov\n	  \n \n\n\nAdministrative Permit Applications \nThis report lists the administrative matters that are pending with the Commission. Due to the cancellation of the meeting of March 7\, 2024\, and pursuant to Commission Regulation Section 10620(a)\, the Executive Director will take final action on these matters unless a Commissioner requests full Commission consideration by communicating with the staff prior to March 7\, 2024. In the absence of such a request\, the listed matters will be executed administratively after March 7\, 2024. \n\n\n	 Applicant\n\n\n\nSausalito-Marin City Sanitary District\n	  1 East Road\n	  Sausalito\, CA 94965	  \n \n \nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.002.00 \n \n\n\nFiled\nDecember 22\, 2023\n\n\n90 Day\nMarch 21\, 2024\n\n\n\n		Location \n\nWithin the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot shoreline band jurisdictions\, at the foot of Main Street in the City of Sausalito\, Marin County\, and at the Sausalito-Marin City Sanitary District Wastewater Treatment Plant\, at 1 East Road in unincorporated Marin County. \n \n\n\n\n		Description\n	\n\nRehabilitate an existing force main along approximately 2\,200 feet of  shoreline by inserting approximately 2\,180 linear feet of slip-lining from a  liner entry pit at Main Street to a receiving pit at the treatment plant\, with  the potential need to access an intermediate wye near 38 Alexander Avenue\, and  install additional infrastructure at the Main Street pump station\, involving  the following: \n\nAt Main Street\n\nMain Street Terminus\n\nConstruction staging at the terminus of Main Street  for approximately four months\, ensuring public access to the beach at all  times.\nExcavate an approximately 50-foot-long and  4-to-6-foot-wide area at the terminus of Main Street to a depth of up to  approximately 14 feet and install new underground valves and piping below Main  Street to connect the pump station to the rehabilitated force main. \nRelocate the existing public bench as needed  consistent with the approved public access plan for the neighboring Valhalla  project as authorized by BCDC Permit No. M2015.019.02.\n\nMain Street Beach\n\nRemove existing riprap at excavation area\, then\,  following completion of the rehabilitation project\, replace the riprap with the  delayed Phase 2 public access improvements required by BCDC Permit No.  M2015.019.02.\nExcavate liner entry pit on beach of approximately  35 feet in length\, 6 feet in width\, and 6 feet in depth.\nClean force main by using a jetter to pull debris  toward the wye at the liner entry pit and capture debris in a vacuum truck to  be removed and disposed of outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction.\nBackfill excavation area with native beach sand.\n\n\nAt the Wastewater Treatment Plant\n\nRemove existing riprap at excavation area\, and  replace riprap when project is complete to restore site to pre-existing  conditions.\nExcavate a liner receiving pit on beach  approximately 55 feet long\, 4 feet wide\, and 1 foot deep.\nClean force main by using a jetter to pull debris  toward the wye at the liner receiving pit and capture debris in a vacuum truck  to be removed and disposed of outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction.\nRemove portion of existing force main and install  approximately 35 linear feet of new 16-inch force main to connect the  rehabilitated force main to the Treatment Plant\, involving trenching along the  beach.\n\nLocation near 38 Alexander Avenue\n\nIn the event the liner becomes stuck between Main  Street and the treatment plant\, access the wyes from the surface to facilitate  movement of the liner.    \n\n\n \n\n\n		Tentative Staff Position\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Katharine  Pan; 415/352-3650 or katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov\n	  \n \n\nEmergency Permits \nThe Executive Director has issued the following emergency permit since the last listing. \n\n\n	 Applicant\n\n\n\nPacific Gas and Electric Company\n	  300 Lakeside Drive\n	  Oakland\, CA 94612 \n\nEmergency Permit No. E2023.007.00 \n \n\n\nFiled\nJanuary  23\, 2024\n\n\n\n		Location \n\nIn the Commission’s Certain Waterway jurisdiction at the Lakeville-Ignacio IG01/004 Electrical Tower (38.121742\, -122.507470) situated in tidal marsh east of the Petaluma River in unincorporated Sonoma County. \n \n\n\n\n		Description\n	\n\nConduct emergency repairs of a steel lattice electrical tower by  repairing and raising the tower foundations and installing cathodic protection.  The project resulted in the temporary disturbance of tidal marsh\, for which the  permittee is required to restore to the pre-construction condition within three  years and submit annual monitoring reports to ensure the success of the  restoration.  \nRowan Yelton  [415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov] \n \n \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Articles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nMud-Starved Wetlands Get a Meal\, At Last\nMORE TRAINING ACADEMIES PERCOLATING\nNBC Bay Area: Lawmakers propose measure they believe would save Bay from future flooding\nNew Highway 37 planning structure elevates focus on environment\, San Pablo Baylands\nAt epicenter of battle to hold back the sea
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/march-7-2024-commission-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240215T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240215T170000
DTSTAMP:20240220T182314Z
CREATED:20240118T072225Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240220T182314Z
UID:10000091-1708002000-1708016400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:February 15\, 2024 Commission Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Commissioners are located at the primary physical location and may be located at the teleconference locations specified below\, all of which are publicly accessible. The Zoom videoconference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually is also specified below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nPrimary Physical Meeting Location \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nTeleconference Locations \n\n\nSonoma County Administration Building575 Administration Drive\, Room 100ASanta Rosa\, CA 95405 \n715 P Street\, 20th FloorTrestles Conference RoomSacramento\, CA 95814 \n11780 San Pablo Avenue\, Suite DEl Cerrito\, CA 94530 \nVTA Administrative Offices\, Building B3331 N First StreetSan José\, CA 95134 \n\n\nOffice of Santa Clara County\, COB Conference Room70 W Hedding Street East Wing\, 10th FloorSan Jose\, CA 95110 \nMountain View City Council Chambers500 Castro Street\, Second FloorMountain View\, CA 94041 \nSolano County Administration Center675 Texas Street\, Conference Room 6002Fairfield\, CA 94533 \n\n\nCaltrans Building111 Grand Avenue\, 15th FloorMountain View RoomOakland\, CA 94612 \nCity Council Chambers Office440 Civic Center PlazaRichmond\, CA 94806 \n116 W 23rd Street\, 5th FloorNew York\, NY 10011 \nMargaret Todd Senior Center1560 Hill RoadNovato\, CA 94947\n\n\nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/82557391023?pwd=TwTLPTiueHMXiUK3SeSsOH3acpAS3w.oivswZ_6CPmxDWEa \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID825 5739 1023 \nPasscode407711 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\n\n\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic 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]\nApproval of Minutes for February 1\, 2024 Meeting (Reylina Ruiz) [415/352-3638; reylina.ruiz@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters There is no administrative listing (Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nCommission Strategic Plan Progress Report Senior staff will present an update on the progress associated with the Commission’s 2023-2025 Strategic Plan. (Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3653; larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov\n2023 Enforcement Program Annual Progress Report The Commission will receive a progress report on the program improvements and developments in 2023. (Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov] Presentation\nBriefing on the San Francisco Waterfront Coastal Flood Study Draft Plan The Commission will receive a briefing from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Port of San Francisco on the Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the San Francisco Waterfront Flood Study\, which was recently released for public comment. The draft plan addresses coastal flood risk and effects of sea level rise for the 7.5 miles of waterfront within the Port of San Francisco’s jurisdiction from Aquatic Park to Heron’s Head Park. (Jessica Fain) [415/352-3652; jessica.fain@bcdc.ca.gov]Draft Plan: https://www.swt.usace.army.mil/Portals/41/SFWCFS_DIFR_EIS_Main%20Report_1.pdf Presentation\nAdjournment\n\n\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				This report lists the administrative permit applications that have been filed and are pending with the Commission. The Executive Director will take the action indicated on the matters unless the Commission determines that it is necessary to hold a public hearing. The staff members to whom the matters have been assigned are indicated at the end of the project descriptions. Inquiries should be directed to the assigned staff member prior to the Commission meeting. \n \nAdministrative Permit Applications \n \n\nApplicants\n\n\n\nTreasure Island Development Authority1 Avenue of the PalmsSan Francisco\, CA 94130 \nAnsanelli Productions\, Inc.176 Wild Horse Valley DriveNovato\, CA 94947 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.027.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\nNovember 12\, 2023\n\n\n90 Day\nFebruary 12\, 2024\, extended to February 23\, 2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Commission’s 100-foot shoreline band jurisdiction\, along Avenue N between California Avenue and 10th Street\, on Treasure Island\, in the City and County of San Francisco. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nOperate the market event known as TreasureFest\, recurring from 8:00 AM on Saturday to 7:00 PM on Sunday of the last weekend of each month\, from February 24\, 2024\, through December 31\, 2024\, involving: \n\nClosure of Avenue N between California Avenue and 10th Street to traffic and the general public;\nUse of Avenue N for market activities\, including the temporary installation of market stalls and related temporary facilities in the roadway;\nUse of an approximately 7\,000-square-foot area between 8th Street and the former 5th Street for food trucks and visitor seating and vendor parking; and\nPlacement of temporary signage at entrances and pass-throughs to direct the public to the shoreline public access area.\n\nStated hours include all market-related activities\, including set-up and break-down. The event area will be open to attendees from 11:00 AM to 5:00 PM each day. Event attendees will be required to pay an admission fee\, but members of the public wishing to access the shoreline will be allowed access through the event space. Sidewalks along Avenue N will remain open to the public during the event. \n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position:\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Katharine Pan; 415/352-3650 or katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Articles about the Bay and BCDC \nS.F. boat harbor relocation scrapped after opponents fight Marina project \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				Audio Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2024/01/2024-02-15-audio-recording.mp3 \nAudio Transcrispt \nOF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: GOOD AFTERNOON AND WELCOME. I’M GOING TO START AGAIN. GOOD AFTERNOON\, ALL. AND WELCOME TO OUR ONCE AGAIN HYBRID BCDC COMMISSION MEETING. \nI AM ZACH WASSERMAN AND I AM THE CHAIR OF BCDC. OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS AS ALWAYS IS TO CALL THE ROLL. COMMISSIONERS\, IF YOU ARE PARTICIPATING REMOTELY\, PLEASE TURN YOUR MICROPHONE ON TO ANSWER AND THEN TURN IT OFF. \nREYLINA\, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: CHAIR WASSERMAN. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nHERE. OOIGS EAST — \nIMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS \nENFORCEMENT H \n>>REBECCA EISEN: HERE. \n>>EDDIE AHN: HERE. \n>>JOHN GIOIA: HERE. \n>>SUSAN GORIN: HERE. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: HERE. \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: HERE. \n>>BARRY NELSON: HERE \n>>AARON PESKIN: HERE. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: HERE. \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: COMMISSIONER PEMBERTON. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER PEMBERTON. AND COMMISSIONER JOHN-BAPTISTE. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE HAVE A QUORUM SO WE CAN DULY CONDUCT OUR BUSINESS. THE NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS IS PUBLIC \nCOMMENT. IF ANYONE WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY MATTER THAT IS NOT ON OUR AGENDA TODAY OR ON WHICH WE HAVE NOT HELD A PUBLIC HEARING\, NOW IS THE TIME TO DO SO AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO DO SO. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKERS? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO PUBLIC \nCOMMENT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: NO \nPUBLIC COMMENT EITHER IN THE \nROOM OR REMOTE. \nTHAT BRINGS US TO ITEM 4\, WHICH \nIS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF \nOUR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 1. WE \nHAVE BEEN FURNISHED DRAFT \nMINUTES OF THAT MEETING. AND I \nWOULD APPRECIATE A MOTION AND \nSECOND TO APPROVE THE \nMINUTES. \n>>MARIE GILMORE: MOVE. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER GILMORE MOVES. \nCOMMISSIONER RAN — RANDOLPH \nSECONDS. IS THERE ANY \nCONNECTIONS? SEEING NONE\, THE \nMINUTES ARE APPROVED. THAT \nBRINGS US TO MY REPORT. \nBEFORE OUR EXECUTIVE \nDIRECTOR BEGINS HIS ANNUAL \nCAMPAIGN OF BADGERING US — \nTHOSE ARE HIS WORDS\, NOT MINE \n— I WANT TO REMIND ALL \nALTERNATES THAT THE FINANCIAL \nDISCLOSURE FORM\, FORM 700\, IS \nDUE APRIL 2. PLEASE LET REGGIE \nKNOW IF YOU HAVE NOT RECEIVED \nTHE FORM OR NEED OTHER FORM OF \nASSISTANCE IN ORDER TO COMPLETE \nTHE REQUIREMENTS. I’D LIKE TO \nRECOGNIZE PAT SHOWALTER TO GIVE \nUS THE BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE \nSEDIMENT BENEFICIAL REUSE \nCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: HELLO\, \nEVERYBODY\, CAN YOU HEAR ME? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: GREAT. ON \nTUESDAY WE HAD A SEDIMENT \nSTAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP. IT WAS \nACTUALLY DAY TWO. WE HAD THE \nFIRST ONE ON JANUARY 13\, AND I \nPERSONALLY WAS ASTOUNDED AT THE \nTURNOUT. WE HAD\, I THINK\, 35 OR \nSO PEOPLE THE FIRST TIME\, AND WE \nHAD 50 THIS TIME WHICH TELLS YOU \nTHAT THIS IS A SUBJECT THAT GETS \nPEOPLE INTERESTED. SO THIS IS \nPART OF BCDC’S WETLAND \nADAPTATION PROGRAM\, WHICH IS A \nJOINT REGULATORY PLANNING AND \nSTAFF EFFORT WITH BCDC AND ITS \nPARTNERS. U.S. E.P.A.\, THE \nCOASTAL CONSERVANCY\, THE \nREGIONAL BOARD\, SFEI AND SAN \nFRANCISCO JOINT BAY VENTURE. IT \nWAS TO DEVELOP AN \nIMPLEMENTATION ROAD MAP OF \nACTIONS TO INCREASE BENEFICIAL \nREUSE OF SOIL AND SEDIMENT IN \nTHE BAY AREA. ON THE FIRST \nWORKSHOP\, WE DID A LOT OF \nBRAINSTORMING ABOUT WHAT WERE \nTHE POLICY ISSUES AND OUR STAFF \nAND THE FACILITATORS HAD DONE AN \nAMAZING EFFORT OF SIFTING \nTHROUGH OVER 17 PAGES OF\, YOU \nKNOW\, SINGLE-LINED COMMENTS TO \nPUT IT TOGETHER INTO A — I \nTHINK IT WAS EIGHT INTEREST \nAREAS. AT THE EVENT\, THERE WERE \n50 ATTENDEES FROM A VARIETY OF \nSTAKEHOLDER GROUPS THAT ARE \nACTIVELY INVOLVED IN AND \nIMPACTED BY SEDIMENT \nMANAGEMENT. \nTHIS WORKSHOP FOCUSED ON SETTING \nTHE PRIORITIES FOR ACTIONS AND \nFOR DEVELOPING A GOVERNANCE \nMODEL TO IMPLEMENT THE ROAD \nMAP. \nWE ALSO HAD A PANEL DISCUSSION \nOF FUNDING CHALLENGES AND \nRESOURCES WITH OUR PARTNERS AT \nTHE ARMY CORPS\, THE CONSERVANCY\, \nSAN FRANCISCO BAY JOINT VENTURE \nAND E.P.A. WE ARE GRATEFUL FOR \nTHE PARTICIPANTS FOR THEIR \nINVALUABLE INPUT THROUGHOUT BOTH \nDAYS OF THE WORKSHOP. AND I \nWANTED TO ALSO ADD TO OUR \nCURRENT WORK PLAN\, WHICH MAY GET \nREVISED\, IS TO INITIATE THE BAY \nPLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS SOMETIME \nTHIS SUMMER. AND TO DO THE \nPRELIMINARY STAFF RECOMMENDATION \nAND PUBLIC HEARING IN THE SPRING \nOF 2025\, WHICH IS WHEN THE DRAFT \nPOLICIES WILL BE READY FOR \nCOMMISSIONERS TO REVIEW. AS A \nHEADS UP\, WE PLAN TO DO A \nBRIEFING FOR THE COMMISSION \nABOUT THE WORKSHOP AND FINDINGS \nAT THE COMMISSION MEETING ON \nMARCH 21. I’D BE DELIGHTED TO \nTAKE ANY QUESTIONS AND ALSO\, I \nJUST WANT TO THANK\, AGAIN\, THE \nSTAFF\, BRENDA AND MAYA AND ERIC\, \nFOR THE EXCELLENT JOB THAT THEY \nDID. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU\, PAT. ANY QUESTIONS \nFROM COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER \nEKLUND. \n>>PAT EKLUND: THANK YOU. IN THE \nFUTURE\, CAN THE NOTICES OF THE \nMEETING OR THE INFORMATION BE \nPOSTED UP ON THE BCDC WEBSITE? \n>>SPEAKER: WE’LL MAKE SURE. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: OKAY\, \nYEAH. \n>>PAT EKLUND: WHEN IS THE NEXT \nMEETING\, IT’S MARCH\, WHAT? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: MARCH 21\, \nWE’RE GOING TO HAVE A BRIEFING \nAT THE COMMISSION MEETING ABOUT \nIT. \n>>PAT EKLUND: WHEN IS THE NEXT \nMEETING OF THE SEDIMENT \nCOMMITTEE? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: MAYA\, DO \nYOU KNOW THAT? I DON’T KNOW IT \nOFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD? \n>>SPEAKER: I DON’T KNOW BUT \nWE’LL FIND IT OUT AND GET IT TO \nEVERYBODY. \n>>PAT EKLUND: AND ARE YOU GOING \nTO BE PRODUCING MINUTES OR \nSUMMARY? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: \nABSOLUTELY. AND IF YOU LOOK ON \nTHE WEBSITE UNDER MEETINGS UNDER \nSEDIMENT — UNDER MEETINGS\, \nUNDER SEDIMENT\, YOU WILL SEE\, \nYOU KNOW\, THE AGENDA AND \nINFORMATION FROM THESE \nMEETINGS. \n>>PAT EKLUND: WHAT ABOUT A \nSUMMARY OF THE MEETINGS\, WILL \nTHEY BE POSTED AS WELL? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: THAT’S MY \nUNDERSTANDING\, THERE ARE \nSUMMARIES. ONE THING THAT’S \nINTERESTED ON BEING ON THIS \nWORKING GROUP\, THE FIRST YEAR \nWAS DEVOTED TO A SEDIMENT 101. \nSO WE HAD A SERIOUS OF PROGRAMS \nTHAT TAUGHT US ABOUT DIFFERENCE \nSEDIMENT ISSUES AROUND THE BAY \nAND NOW WE’RE WORKING ON \nWORKSHOPS TO TACKLE THE POLICY \nCHANGES. SO THERE REALLY IS A \nPLETHORA OF INFORMATION UNDER \nTHAT SEDIMENT HEADING. UNDER \nMEETINGS\, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO \nLOOK AT IT\, ABOUT\, YOU KNOW\, \nTHESE ISSUES. \n>>PAT EKLUND: I AM VERY FAMILIAR \nWITH IT BECAUSE OF MY WORK WITH \nTHE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION \nAGENCY. SO I LOOK FORWARD TO \nATTENDING THE NEXT MEETING. \nTHANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nBEFORE I RECOGNIZE COMMISSIONER \nGUNTHER\, JESSICA\, DO YOU HAVE A \nCOMMENT? \n>>JESSICA FAIN: I WANT TO \nRESPOND TO COMMISSIONER EKLUND’S \nQUESTION ON WHEN THE NEXT \nWORKING GROUP WILL BE. WE’LL BE \nMEETING ON MARCH 15. ALL OF \nTHOSE ARE PUBLICLY NOTICED \nMEETINGS. EVERYONE IS WELCOMED \nTO ATTEND. WE WILL WILL BE \nDEBRIEFING FROM THE TWO \nWORKSHOPS WITH THE \nCOMMISSIONERS\, REALLY KIND OF \nREPORTING ON WHAT WE HEARD\, SOME \nOF THE THEMES\, AND THEN THE TEAM \nIS GOING TO BE DEVELOPING A ROAD \nMAP FOR THE REGION FOR SEDIMENT \nAND BENEFICIAL REUSE. THAT’S \nREALLY THE OUTCOME OF THIS \nPHASE\, AND THAT’S SOMETHING WE \nWILL BE DISCUSSING BEFORE THE \nFULL COMMISSION AS WELL. \n>>PAT EKLUND: I APPRECIATE \nTHAT. \nI THINK ALSO IN THE FUTURE WE \nSHOULD IN THE\, PUT UP ON THE \nWEBSITE WHERE THE WORKSHOPS ARE \nOR HOW PEOPLE CAN PARTICIPATE. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \nBELIEVE THEY ARE ALWAYS POSTED\, \nPAT\, BUT WE’LL DOUBLE CHECK. \nTHANK YOU. \n>>PAT EKLUND: IT WAS NOT \nPOSTED. \nANYWAY\, THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER. \nNO\, COMMISSIONER PASS — I \nDON’T HAVE MANY REMARKS THIS \nAFTERNOON. WE CONTINUE TO \nPARTICIPATE IN THE EFFORT TO \nDEVELOP A REGIONAL M.O.U. ON \nCOOPERATION\, BOTH OF FUNDING AND \nIMPLEMENTATION OF MEASURES TO \nADAPT TO SEA LEVEL RISE\, THE \nFUNDING PIECE IS PARTICULARLY \nIMPORTANT AS WE TRY TO \nRATIONALIZE THAT PROCESS AND \nMAKE IT MORE EFFICIENT AND EVEN \nMORE IMPORTANTLY\, MORE \nEFFECTIVE. THERE WILL BE A \nMEETING IN MARCH OF THE \nAGENCIES AND HOPEFULLY BY LATE \nSPRING WE CAN HAVE AN M.O.U. TO \nPRESENT TO THE VARIOUS AGENCIES. \nWE WILL NOT HOLD A MEETING ON \nMARCH 7. \nOUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE ON \nMARCH 21 UNDER THE BAGLEY-KEENE \nATTENDANCE RULES. AT THAT \nMEETING WE EXPECT WE WILL TAKE \nUP THE FOLLOWING MATTERS — A \nPERMIT APPLICATION FOR PG&E’S \nAPPLICATION BAY AREAWIDE — FOR \nTHE BAY\, NOT THE ENTIRE BAY. I \nSHOULD BE CLEAR. WE ARE NOT \nTRYING TO EXPAND OUR \nJURISDICTION IN THAT MATTER AT \nALL. A PERMIT APPLICATION FOR \nTHE MARCH RESTORATION IN SAN \nRAFAEL\, AND A BRIEFING FROM NASA \nON THE CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE \nTHAT UNDERPINS THE DRAFT\, STATE \nOF CALIFORNIA RISING SEA LEVEL \nGUIDANCE THAT WE HEARD ABOUT AT \nOUR LAST MEETING. THAT BRINGS US \nTO EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS. IF \nANY COMMISSIONER HAS HAD A \nCOMMUNICATION\, WHICH HAS NOT \nBEEN PREVIOUSLY REPORTED IN \nWRITING CONCERNING A MATTER OF \nAN ADJUDICATORY NATURE THAT \nWILL COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION\, \nNOW IS THE TIME TO DO THAT. YOU \nNEED TO MAKE IT IN WRITING UNDER \nANY CIRCUMSTANCES. I SEE NONE. \nTHAT BRINGS US TO THE REPORT OF \nTHE EXECUTIVE \nDIRECTOR. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: I KNOW YOU \nMAY BE TIRED OF HEARING ABOUT \nTAYLOR SWIFT. HER UPCOMING \nALBUM WILL BE TITLED “CLARA \nBO.” \nSHE TRANSITIONED SUCCESSFULLY \nINTO TALKIES. HER SUCCESS HELPED \nDEFINE THAT DECADE AS THE RURG \n20’S. SHE WAS A PRETTY PARTY \nGIRL. LIKE TAYLOR SWIFT\, THERE \nWAS MORE TO CLARA THAN GOOD \nLOOKS AND TALENT. SHE UNDERSTOOD \nHERSELF BETTER THAN ANYBODY ELSE \nAND SHE RECOGNIZED WHAT MADE HER \nSO APPEALING AS AN ARTIST. AND \nON THIS DAY IN 1927\, FEBRUARY \n15\, CLARA BEAU \nBECAME THE IT GIRL\, THE SEXY\, \nVIVACIOUS\, TALENTED STAR THAT \nDOMINATED THE MOVIE SIMPLY MADE \n“IT” WHICH TOLD OF A CINDERELLA \nSTORY OF A POOR SHOP GIRL THAT \nMADE IT BIG. \nAS THE IT GIRL SAID OF HER \nSUCCESS\, I’M A CURIOSITY IN \nHOLLYWOOD. I AM A FREAK BECAUSE \nI AM MYSELF. WE CAN ALL AGREE \nTHAT TAYLOR SWIFT CONTINUES TO \nDEFINE HERSELF. SHE’S NOT \nLETTING ANYBODY ELSE DO THAT \nJUST LIKE CLARA DID. IT’S JUST \nTOO BAD THAT SHE ROOTS FOR THE \nWRONG TEAM. \n[LAUGHTER] \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: I WANT YOU TO \nMEET SIERRA PETERSON WHO STARTED \nOUT AS THE BCDC EXECUTIVE \nLIAISON. EVERYBODY SEE SIERRA. \nOKAY. STARTING AT INSURE NEXT \nMEETING\, SHE WILL SIT WHERE \nREYLINA IS SITTING. GO AHEAD AND \nSAY GOODBYE. YOU ALREADY \nRECEIVED ONE EMAIL FROM SIERRA \nINTRODUCING HERSELF. PLEASE FEEL \nFREE TO COMMUNICATE ABOUT ANY \nCOMMISSION LODGE CYCLE OR \nPROCEDURES ISSUE WITH HER OR ME \nAND WE WILL BE SURE THEY WILL \nGET IT REQUESTED. THE SMALL \nPERMITTING STAFF HAS BECOME EVEN \nSMALLER. ONE HAS LOST FOR \nWASHINGTON\, D.C. AND WE LOST \nDOMINIC TO THE FEDERAL \nGOVERNMENT. OUR SHORELINE TEAM \nLED BY \nCATHERINE \nA.T.M. LINA TAM. AND WE NEED TO \nREPLACE DOMINIC SO WE DON’T NEED \nTO NOT — WHILE WE HAVE POSTED \nOUR VACANT POSITIONS AS I TOLD \nYOU TWO WEEKS AGO\, THE \nCOMBINATION OF RELATIVELY LOW \nSTATE SALARIES DO NOT ATTRACT \nMANY QUALIFIED CANDIDATES WHO \nFITS BCDC’S NEEDS. I’LL KEEP YOU \nPOSTED REGARDING HOW WE WILL \nMAKE OURSELVES WHOLE AGAIN. \nMEANWHILE\, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF \nYOU NEED ANOTHER COPY OF OUR \nVACANT POSITIONS LIST TO \nDISTRIBUTE TO YOUR NETWORKS. AS \nCOMMISSIONER SHOWALTER WAS KIND \nENOUGH TO NOTE\, BCDC’S SECOND \nACT OF OUR TWO-PART BENEFICIAL \nREUSE OF SEDIMENT PUBLIC \nWORKSHOP APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN A \nSUCCESS. OUR STAFF WILL GIVE YOU \nA FULL WRAP-UP DURING THE NEXT \nMEETING AND I KNOW THAT JESSICA \nFAIN WILL TALK TO SOME EXTENT \nABOUT IT. I DO WANT TO SAY \nBEFORE JESSICA DOES THAT \nDEVELOPING AND HOLDING THE \nWORKSHOP WAS A TRUE TEAM EFFORT \nBY OUR REGULATORY\, PLANNING\, AND \nADMIN TEAMS AND IT WAS GREAT TO \nSEE AND WE CAN’T SAY THAT \nENOUGH. I ALSO WANT TO THANK OUR \nCOMMISSIONERS AND ALTERNATES ON \nTHE ONE BAY VISION COMMISSION \nTHAT JACKIE PRESENTENT WERED TWO \nWEEKS AGO. STAFF ARE FINISHING \nWHAT WE SHALL CALL OUR WORKING \nVISION WHICH INCLUDES MANY OF \nYOUR SUGGESTIONS. WE’LL SEND A \nCLEAN COPY FOR YOU TO READ AND \nWE’LL POST IT THROUGH OUR \nREGULAR BAY ADAPT AND REGIONAL \nSHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN \nPROCESS. I’M ALSO PLEASED TO LET \nYOU KNOW AS PART OF THE NATURAL \nRESOURCE AGENCY’S BLACK HISTORY \nMONTH OBSERVATION\, OUR \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE PROGRAM \nMANAGER\, PHOENIX\, WILL BE \nSPEAKING NEXT WEEK ON A \nSTATEWIDE PANEL ON CAREER \nPATHWAYS FOR AFRICAN-AMERICANS \nIN STATE SERVICE. THE SECRETARY \nHAS MADE WORKING WITH CAL H.R. \nAND OTHER STATE ORGANIZATIONS TO \nATTRACT A MORE DIVERSE AND \nPROFESSIONALLY DIVERSE WORK \nFORTS\, A — WORKFORCE\, A MAJOR \nGOAL. AND WE ARE HONORED THAT \nPHOENIX HAS BEEN ASKED TO BE \nPART OF THE WORKSHOP. I SHOULD \nALSO REMIND YOU THAT ONE OF \nBCDC’S NEWEST STAFF MEMBERS\, \nROSIE VELASQUEZ\, HAS COME TO US \nFROM THE CALIFORNIA CONSERVATION \nCORPS TO BOLSTER OUR PROGRAM AND \nTHAT REFLECTS THE SECRETARY’S \nADVOCACY. FINALLY\, I WANT TO \nTHANK SUPERVISORS VAZQUEZ\, PINE\, \nGORIN\, GIOIA\, \nMOULTON-PETERS AND PAM. I WILL \nSAY IT AGAIN. THEY RESPONDED SO \nQUICKLY TO OUR REQUEST FOR EACH \nOF OUR COUNTY SUPERVISOR \nCOMMISSIONERS TO ARRANGE FOR A \nSHORT BRIEFING ON THE \nDEVELOPMENT OF THE REGIONAL \nSHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN AND \nTHE GUIDELINES TO BE PROMULGATED \nTHIS YEAR WITH THE MAYORS IN \nEACH OF THE COUNTIES IN BCDC’S \nJURISDICTION. I’M HOPING I SHALL \nHEAR FROM THE REMAINDER OF THE \nCOUNTY SUPERVISORS WITHIN A WEEK \nOR SO BEFORE I AGAIN TO QUOTE \nCHAIR WASSERMAN\, TO HECKLE\, \nBADGER THOSE WHO HAVE NOT \nRESPONDED. SO ALL THIS LEADS ME \nTO SAY CHAIR WASSERMAN\, I’M GLAD \nTHE UNIVERSE IS BACK IN ORDER \nBECAUSE PITCHERS AND CATCHERS \nARE REPORTING TO SPRING TRAINING \nCAMPS THROUGHOUT ARIZONA AND \nFLORIDA THIS WEEK AND I AM HAPPY \nTO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ARE \nTHERE QUESTIONS FOR THE \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR? SEEING NONE\, \nTHAT BRINGS US TO ITEM 7\, \nCONSIDERATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE \nMATTERS. WE HAVE BEEN — \nPROVIDED A LIST OF THOSE. DOES \nANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT \nTHEM? HARRIET ROSS IS HERE TO \nANSWER THAT. AND IT APPEARS SHE \nGETS OFF THE HOOK. THAT BRINGS \nUS TO ITEM 8\, WHICH IS A \nBRIEFING ON THE PROGRESS \nASSOCIATED WITH THE COMMISSION’S \n2023 TO 2025 STRATEGIC PLAN. \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR GOLDZBAND \nWILL INTRODUCE THE BRIEFING. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: THANK YOU\, \nCHAIR WASSERMAN. AS WE PROMISED\, \nWE ARE TRYING TO BRING YOU THREE \nTIMES EACH YEAR A PROGRESS \nREPORT ON THE STRATEGIC PLAN. WE \nCOULD NOT DO IT IN DECEMBER AS \nWE HAD PLANNED BECAUSE OF THE \nPRESS OF BUSINESS ON THE \nCOMMISSION’S AGENDA\, AND THEN WE \nDIDN’T HAVE A MEETING IN \nJANUARY. AND SO AS A RESULT\, \nWE’RE DOING IT IN FEBRUARY. AND \nSO WE’LL ASK\, I BELIEVE ANGELA\, \nTO START THE PROGRAM AND HERE IT \nCOMES. AND SO YOU’VE SEEN THIS \nBEFORE. THIS IS OUR SEPTEMBER\, \n2023\, THROUGH JANUARY\, 2024 \nUPDATE. NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. \nYOU’LL RECOGNIZE OUR VISION AND \nOUR GOALS AND OUR ANTICIPATED \nOUTCOMES. THOSE HAVE NOT \nCHANGED. NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. I \nDO WANT TO REMIND YOU OF THE \nCORE VALUES THAT YOU ALL HAVE \nPUT INTO THE STRATEGIC PLAN. \nTHAT IS THAT BCDC IS EQUITABLE \nAND INCLUSIVE. THAT WE ARE \nSCIENCE-BASED AND DATA-DRIVEN. \nTHAT WE CERTAIN ATTEMPT TO BE \nAGILE AND PROACTIVE. WE TRY TO \nBE COLLABORATIVE AND \nSERVICE-ORIENTED\, AND WE \nCERTAINLY HOPE TO BE TRUSTED AND \nACCOUNTABLE. NEXT SLIDE\, \nPLEASE. \nWE HAVE HAD SOME GOOD \nSTRATEGIC PLAN PROGRESS\, AS YOU \nCAN SEE. \nWE HAVE DIVIDED THE ACTIONS THAT \nYOU ALL HAVE TAKEN A LOOK AT \nINTO FOUR DIFFERENT CATEGORIES. \nTHOSE THAT ARE ON TRACK\, THOSE \nTHAT WE HAVE HAD DELAYS OR THAT \n— THAT ARE SUBJECT TO VARIOUS \nISSUES. SOME THAT WE’VE ACTUALLY \nCOMPLETED. AND SOME THAT WE HAVE \nNOT STARTED. BUT WHAT I WANT TO \nDO NOW IS GET INTO EACH OF THE \nGOALS. SO NEXT SLIDE\, \nPLEASE. YAY\, GOOD\, WE’RE SET. \nWE’LL START WITH JESSICA ON THE \nPLANNING SIDE. \n>>JESSICA FAIN: THANKS\, LARRY. \nGOOD AFTERNOON\, COMMISSIONERS. \nJESSICA FAIN\, PLANNING \nDIRECTOR. \nI WILL GO OVER A FEW UPDATES \nTHAT ARE ON SEVERAL DIFFERENT \nGOALS AND WE SHARED WITH YOU \nBEFORE RELATED TO OUR REGIONAL \nPLANNING WORK. SO ONE OF OUR \nSTRATEGIC OBJECTIVES IS ABOUT \nIMPROVING OUR REGIONAL SEDIMENT \nMANAGEMENT SYSTEM. AND WE’RE \nREALLY EXCITED\, AS COMMISSIONER \nSHOWALTER DESCRIBED EARLIER\, TO \nHAVE REALLY TAKEN SOME MAJOR \nSTEPS TO ADVANCE THIS WORK. WE \nCALL IT THE SWAP PROJECT\, THE \nSEDIMENT FOR WETLAND ADAPTATION \nPROJECT\, WHICH WAS FUNDED AND \nLAUNCHED THIS YEAR. SO FAR WE’VE \nHOSTED SIX SEDIMENT AND \nBENEFICIAL REUSE COMMISSIONER \nWORKING GROUP MEETINGS. AS PART \nOF THIS EFFORT\, REALLY BRINGING \nALONG THE COMMISSION AS WE START \nTO EXPLORE THE CHALLENGES AROUND \nBENEFICIAL REUSE. WE’VE \nCONDUCTED STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS \nAND BRIEFINGS. COLLABORATED WITH \nMANY PARTNER AGENCIES. AND AS \nWAS DESCRIBED EARLIER\, JUST \nCOMPLETED HOSTING TWO \nSTAKEHOLDER WORKSHOPS ON JANUARY \n23 AND FEBRUARY 13. AND SO UP \nNEXT IS TO FINALIZE WHAT WE’RE \nCALLING THE ROAD MAP FOR \nBENEFICIAL REUSE IN THE REGION. \nREALLY\, THIS MULTI-PURPOSE\, \nMULTI-AGENCY MAP OF THE THINGS \nWE NEED TO DO REGIONALLY TO \nADDRESS IMPROVING OUR SEDIMENT \nAND BENEFICIAL REUSE SYSTEM. AND \nTHEN AFTER THAT\, WE’LL BE \nSTARTING A POLICY PROCESS\, \nBRINGING TO YOU IDEAS FOR HOW WE \nCAN UPDATE OUR BAY PLAN TO \nADDRESS THESE ISSUES AS WELL AS \nDEVELOPING A FUNDING STRATEGY. \nAND AS LARRY MENTIONED\, JUST \nREALLY WANT TO GIVE A SHOUT OUT \nTO THE COLLABORATIVE EFFORT OF \nTHIS. THIS IS BOTH A PLANNING \nEFFORT BUT REALLY INTO THE DEEP \nEXPERTISE AND LEADERSHIP OF OUR \nSEDIMENT TEAM WHO IS REALLY \nCO-LEADING THIS PROJECT WITH \nUS. \nNEXT SLIDE. OUR NEXT GOAL THAT \nI’LL — OUR STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE \nI’LL UPDATE YOU ON IS REGULARLY \nUPDATING THE BAY PLAN. AS YOU \nALL KNOW\, IN NOVEMBER\, YOU \nADOPTED A NEW SEAPORT PLAN. FOR \nTHE FIRST TIME IN OVER 20 \nYEARS. \nSO ONE OF THOSE CHANGES THAT YOU \nSAW IN LARRY’S PROGRESS SLIDE \nTHAT WENT FROM IN PROGRESS TO \nCOMPLETED WAS THIS ONE. THIS IS \nNOW FINISHED WHICH IS A VERY \nEXCITING MILESTONE FOR US TO \nREACH. WE’VE ALSO BEEN MAKING \nPROGRESS ON AMENDING OUR — THE \nSAN FRANCISCO WATERFRONT SPECIAL \nAREA PLAN. WE’VE BEEN WORKING \nCLOSELY WITH THE PORT OF SAN \nFRANCISCO TO REALLY REBOOT THIS \nEFFORT AND REFOCUS IT\, INCLUDING \nBRINGING TO YOU A MEMORANDUM OF \nUNDERSTANDING AND A SLIGHTLY \nREVISED SCOPE FOR THIS YEAR. WE \nPROVIDED RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE \nFALL FOR — ON THE SUIS UNMARSH \nPROTECTION PLAN AND HOW THAT \nPLAN CAN START TO ADDRESS THE \nCHALLENGES FACING THE SUISUN \nMARSH TODAY. AND WE’VE ALSO \nBEGUN SOME EARLY RESEARCH ON OUR \nPUBLIC ACCESS POLICIES AND HOW \nTHEY RELATE TO ISSUES RELATED TO \nWILDLIFE AND SEA LEVEL RISE\, \nINTERVIEWING STAKEHOLDERS ACROSS \nTHE REGION AS WELL AS OUR OWN \nSTAFF. COMING UP NEXT\, WE WILL \nBE BRINGING TO YOU A MODIFIED \nVERSION OF A SPECIAL — SAN \nFRANCISCO WATERFRONT SPECIAL \nAREA PLAN. YOU’LL BE HEARING \nTODAY FROM THE PORT OF SAN \nFRANCISCO WITH BIG PLANS ON THE \nWATERFRONT. WE’RE TAKING A MORE \nTARGETED APPROACH RIGHT NOW ON A \nSPECIAL AREA PLAN UPDATE TO \nALLOW FOR SOME OF THOSE BIGGER \nRESILIENCY PLANS TO BE \nDEVELOPED. AS WELL AS THINKING \nABOUT AS WE DEVELOP OUR REGIONAL \nSHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN\, HOW \nWE’RE REALLY GOING TO CODIFY \nTHAT AND BRING THAT INTO OUR \nFORMAL POLICIES WITHIN THE BAY \nPLAN\, SO THOSE ARE THINGS ON THE \nLIST OF TO-DOS. I WANT TO GIVE A \nSHOUT OUT TO OUR LONG RANGE \nPLANNING TEAM LED BY ERIC\, WHO \nARE LEADING THE CHARGE ON ALL OF \nTHESE EFFORTS AND I THINK I’LL \nPASS IT TO HARRIET. \n>>HARRIET ROSS: GOOD AFTERNOON\, \nCOMMISSIONERS. I’M HARRIET ROSS\, \nTHE REGULATORY DIRECTOR. I WILL \nBE REPORTING ON — OH\, NEXT \nSLIDE\, PLEASE. I’LL BE REPORTING \nON STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES 2.2 AND \n2.3 WHICH REALLY AIM TO UPDATE \nOUR OPERATIONS\, IMPLEMENT OUR \nLAWS AND POLICIES MORE \nCONSISTENTLY\, TRANSPARENTLY\, AND \nEFFICIENTLY AS WELL AS INCREASE \nTHE CAPACITY OF THE REGULATORY \nDIVISION TO OPERATE MORE \nEFFICIENTLY. SO WE’VE BEEN \nPRETTY BUSY SINCE WE LAST \nPRESENTED TO YOU ALL. WE HAVE \nDRAFTED WHAT WE ARE CALLING A \nREGULATORY ROAD MAP\, AND THAT \nROAD MAP IDENTIFIES IMPROVEMENTS \nTO OUR CURRENT PROCESSES\, \nREGULATIONS AND POLICIES. THE \nEXISTS REGULATIONS AND \nPROCESSES\, AS YOU ALL KNOW\, WERE \nFOR THE MOST PART ESTABLISHED \nMANY YEARS AGO AND THEY REALLY \nNEED TO BE UPDATED TO REFLECT \nTHE WORK WE’VE BEEN DOING \nESPECIALLY IN THE RESILIENCY AND \nEQUITY SPACE. THE ROAD MAP \nINCLUDES UPDATING OUR \nREGULATIONS AND PLANS\, INCREASE \nCLARITY AND EFFICIENCY. WE ALSO \nWANT TO UPDATE OUR PUBLIC ACCESS \nDESIGN GUIDELINES. AND SOME OF \nTHE WORK HAS ALREADY BEGUN\, AS \nJESSICA MENTIONED\, AND THAT \nDOCUMENT WAS CREATED BACK IN \n2005 AND 2007\, SO SOME UPDATE IS \nDEFINITELY NEEDED. AND WE’RE \nLOOKING TO ISSUE MORE PERMITS \nMORE QUICKLY FOR CERTAIN TYPES \nOF PROJECTS THAT REALLY \nPRESENT — WE ARE LOOKING TO \nIMPROVE SMALLER RESTORATION \nPROJECTS. WE HEARD A LOT FROM \nOUR STAKEHOLDERS ON THAT AND \nPROJECTS THAT REALLY INVOLVE \nNATURE-BASED ADAPTATION \nTECHNIQUES. THE ROAD MAP ALSO \nINCLUDES MORE UPFRONT \nDISCUSSION\, RECOMMENDATION WITH\, \nYOU KNOW\, TALKING APPLICANTS \nEARLY\, ESTABLISHING A MORE \nFORMAL PREAPPLICATION PROCESS SO \nWE CAN GET THE BIG ISSUES ON THE \nTABLE AND PERHAPS — PERHAPS \nCOME TO A GOOD SOLUTION PRIOR TO \nTHE BEGINNING OF THE REGULATORY \nSCHEDULE AND MANDATES FOR IRAQ A \nPERMIT — FOR ISSUING A PERMIT. \nOUR REGULATORY ROAD MAP INCLUDES \nTHOSE INITIAL RECOMMENDATIONS \nDETERMINED AND DEVELOPED BY THE \nDEPARTMENT OF FINANCE’S \nMISSION-BASED REVIEW. REALLY \nTHAT DOCUMENT LOOKS AT FINDING \nPERMIT EFFICIENCIES. AND SO \nWE’RE WORKING WITH THE \nDEPARTMENT OF FINANCE STAFF \nRIGHT NOW TO TIMIZE THAT — TO \nFINALIZE THAT. THE NEXT \nCHALLENGE WE HAVE\, WE’VE \nIDENTIFIED A BIG LIST OF \nREGULATORY IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE \nREALLY LIKE TO MAKE. AND WE \nREALLY NEED TO PRIORITIZE WHAT \nWE’LL BE DOING FIRST AND NEXT \nAFTER THAT POINT AND WE’LL NEED \nTO CREATE A TIMELINE AND HOLD \nOURSELVES ACCOUNTABLE TO KEEPING \nTRACK ON THESE TASKS. AND I ALSO \nWANTED TO GIVE A SHOUT OUT TO \nETHAN\, HE’S VACATIONING NOW IN \nSOUTH AMERICA\, I BELIEVE\, BUT \nHE’S REALLY LEADING THE \nREGULATORY IMPROVEMENTS UNIT AND \nRESPONSIBLE FOR MUCH OF THE WORK \nTHAT’S BEEN DONE. AND I THINK \nTHAT’S IT FOR ME. \n>>SPEAKER: MR. CHAIR. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>SPEAKER: I KNOW WE HAD LOTS OF \nDISCUSSION ON EQUITY — ON — IN \nOUR — IN THIS PLAN. I JUST \nTHINK — AND I FAILED TO MENTION \nI THINK WHEN THIS CAME UP IN OUR \n— WHAT WAS THE MEETING WE HAD\, \nTHE WORKSHOP ON THIS? THE \nWORKSHOP\, SOMETHING LIKE THAT\, \nI THINK WE NEED TO INCORPORATE \nTHAT LANGUAGE THROUGHOUT. AND \nWHERE IT SAYS UPDATE EXISTING \nREGULATORY LAWS AND POLICIES \nMORE CONSISTENTLY\, TRANSPARENTLY \nAND EFFICIENTLY\, I THINK IT \nWOULD BE GOOD TO SAY \nCONSISTENTLY\, TRANSPARENTLY\, \nEQUITABLY AND EFFICIENTLY. I \nKNOW WE HAVE THE EQUITY POLICIES \nTHROUGHOUT BUT IT WOULD — I \nTHINK IT’S WELL PLACED HERE. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nSECOND THAT NONMOTION. ANY OTHER \nCOMMENTS? BACK TO \nYOU. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: IF THAT’S \nALREADY\, CHAIR WASSERMAN. I WANT \nTO BRING ONE THING INTO FOCUS. I \nWANT TO SORT OF STEP BACK FROM \nWHAT HARRIET SAID. IN 2011\, THIS \nCOMMISSION APPROVED THE \nGROUNDBREAKING CLIMATE CHANGE \nAMENDMENTS\, WHICH ESSENTIALLY \nCHANGED IN MANY RESPECTS HOW WE \nDO PERMITTING IN TERMS OF \nSCIENCE-BASED\, VULNERABILITY \nSTUDIES. I MEAN\, YOU NAME IT. \nAND BCDC WAS REALLY THE FIRST \nREGULATORY AGENCY IN THE UNITED \nSTATES TO DO THAT. SINCE THEN\, \nWE HAVE LEARNED A LOT ABOUT HOW \nTO DO THAT AND HOW TO DO THAT \nWELL. AND THE REGULATORY TEAM \nHAS TAKEN\, YOU KNOW\, GREAT PAINS \nTO TAKE GREAT STRIDES TO DO SO \nAND THEY’VE BEEN VERY \nSUCCESSFUL. HOWEVER\, WE HAVE \nNOT CHANGED\, REALLY\, SINCE THEN \nTHE WAY WE \nACTUALLY PROCESS PERMITS OR HOW \nWE DO REGULATORY ACTIONS. \nSO THE ANALOGY I USE\, ADOPTING \nTHE CLIMATE CHANGE AMENDMENTS IS \nSORT OF LIKE BUYING A TESLA \nENGINE FOR A CAR. SOMETHING VERY \nNEW. SOMETHING MARVELOUS. \nSOMETHING THAT WILL BE HELPFUL. \nSOMETHING WE ALL WANT TO DO IN \nSOME WAY\, SHAPE\, OR FORM. BUT \nUNFORTUNATELY\, WE PUT THAT TESLA \nENGINE INTO A 1997 ACCORD. AND \nWE HAVEN’T BEEN ABLE TO REALLY \nMAKE THE CAR MOVE AS WELL AS IT \nSHOULD AND BE AS EFFECTIVE AS IT \nSHOULD BECAUSE THE TIRES DON’T \nWORK WITH THE ENGINE. THE \nTRANSMISSION IS STILL THERE. \nTHE — YOU KNOW\, AND THE BODY \nSIMPLY DOESN’T CONFORM TO WHAT \nTHE ENGINE NEEDS\, ETC. SO THE \nREGULATORY ROAD MAP THAT ETHAN \nHAS STARTED AND DOMINIC REALLY \nHAS STARTED WORKING ON WILL\, IF \nWE CAN GET IT DONE WELL\, BE ABLE \nTO TRANSFORM THAT 1997 ACCORD \nINTO SOMETHING WE CAN REALLY BE \nPROUD OF DRIVING. AND THAT WILL \nREALLY\, I THINK\, WORK WELL WITH \nTHE WAY WE DO OUR VULNERABILITY \nANALYSES AND EVERYTHING ELSE \nRELATED TO PERMITS THAT WE NEED \nTO DO. SO I WANTED TO STEP BACK \nAND GIVE YOU THAT ANALOGY AND \nHELPS YOU UNDERSTAND WHY AND \nWHERE WE’RE \nGOING. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: AND \nLET’S GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. I’M \nPHOENIX. I’M STARTING OUT \nTALKING ABOUT STRATEGIC \nOBJECTIVE 3.1 WHICH FOCUSES ON \nPRIORITIZING THE PROGRAM BY \nADENTFYING BCDC’S SPECIFIC \nPOLICIES\, PROGRAMS\, AND \nPRACTICES THAT HAVE LED OR \nCURRENTLY LEAD TO INEQUITABLE \nOUTCOMES AND WORK TO RESOLVE \nTHEM. SO SINCE WE LAST TALK\, WE \nCONTRACTED WITH M.I.G. AND \nBENCHMARK CONSULTING FOR — TO \nWORK WITH THE E.J. ADVISORS ON \nTHE ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT \nASSESSMENT OF THEIR PROGRAM WITH \nTHE GOAL OF STRENGTHENING THAT \nPROGRAM. WE ALSO APPLIED AND \nHAVE BEEN SELECTED FOR A NOAA \nCOASTAL FELLOW TO ANALYZE OUR \nPERMITTING PRACTICES WITH AN \nEQUITY LENS. OUR NEXT CHALLENGES \nARE TO COMPLETE THE \nORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT \nASSESSMENT. AS OF RIGHT NOW\, \nTHEY’VE DONE SOME FOCUS GROUPS \nWITH STAFF AND COMPLETED ONE \nWORKSHOP WITH THE E.J. ADVISORS \nAND THEY’RE PLANNING TWO MORE \nWORKSHOPS WITH THE E.J. ADVISORS \nAND ALSO GOING TO BE COMING TO \nTHE NEXT E.J. — ENVIRONMENTAL \nJUSTICE WORKING GROUP ON MARCH \n21. AND WITH THE NOAA COASTAL \nFELLOW\, OUR NEXT STEPS ARE \nDEVELOPING A METHODOLOGY TO \nEVALUATE EQUITY IN THE \nPERMITTING PROCESS. NEXT SLIDE\, \nPLEASE. SO FOR STRATEGIC \nOBJECTIVE 3.5\, WE ARE LOOKING TO \nDEVELOP A LONG-TERM \nRELATIONSHIPS AND PARTNERSHIPS \nBETWEEN AND AMONG BCDC AND THE \nBAY AREA’S TRIBAL COMMUNITIES TO \nINCREASE AUTHENTIC AND LASTING \nENGAGEMENT. TO THAT END\, OUR \nSENIOR STAFF ENGAGED WITH THE \nTRAINING CALLED “BEYOND LAND \nACKNOWLEDGMENT\, WHICH WAS HOSTED \nFROM THE REDBUD RESOURCE GROUP. \nTHEY WERE TESTING OUT THAT \nTRAINING TO SEE IF WE COULD \nBRING THAT TO ALL STAFF. AND OUR \nE.J. MANAGER HAS BEEN INVOLVED \nIN ASSEMBLING A TEAM TO WORK ON \nDEVELOPING OUR TRIBAL ENGAGEMENT \nPOLICY. AND LAST MONTH I MET \nWITH THE CONFEDERATED VILLAGES \nOF LISJAN TO DISCUSS PARTNERSHIP \nON SHORELINE LEADERSHIP \nACADEMY. \nOUR NEXT CHALLENGES IS TO DRAFT \nA TRIBAL ENGAGEMENT POLICY AND \nSCHEDULE A TRIBAL ENGAGEMENT \nTRAINING FOR ALL STAFF. THANK \nYOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \nHAVE A QUESTION AND I DON’T KNOW \nWHETHER THIS IS FOR YOU\, \nPHOENIX\, OR FOR YOU\, \nPERMITTING. \nONE OF THE THINGS WE DID IN \nADOPTING THE AMENDMENT\, THE BAY \nPLAN\, TO ADDRESS EQUITY ISSUES\, \nWAS TO REQUIRE OUTREACH TO \nIMPACTED COMMUNITIES IN A WAY \nTHAT IS DIFFERENT \nTHAN THE \nCEQA OUTREACH. AND I WONDER IF \nTHAT IS HAVING ANY IMPACT\, \nBLOWBACK\, OR HE THIS JUST \nHAVEN’T WOKEN UP YET? \n>>PHOENIX: WE’VE BEEN WORKING TO \nTRY TO UNDERSTAND ON OUR \nCOMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT. SO I’VE \nACTUALLY WORKED WITH A COUPLE OF \nPERMITS\, ALONG THE LINE\, MOST \nRECENT THE OAKLAND HARBOR BASIN \nTO GET OUTREACH FROM THE \nCOMMUNITY. WE DID GET FEEDBACK \nFROM THAT. THE COMMUNITY — \nDIDN’T THINK IT WAS SUFFICIENT \nBUT I THINK WE DID A LOT MORE \nTHAN WAS NORMALLY DONE. PART OF \nTHIS NOAA FELLOW\, THEY WILL BE \nWORKING WITH EACH PERMIT AND \nWORKING WITH C.B.O.’S SO WE CAN \nHAVE A MORE ROBUST COMMUNITY \nENGAGEMENT PROCESS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. AND THANK YOU FOR \nMENTIONING THE TURNING CIRCLE \nAND I THINK THAT’S A GOOD \nILLUSTRATION WHERE WE HAVE \nACHIEVED SUCCESS. THE MEASURE OF \nSUCCESS IS\, UNFORTUNATELY\, NOT \nTHAT THE IMPACTED COMMUNITIES \nARE THRILLED WITH WHAT’S BEING \nDONE. WE DON’T DO VERY MUCH \nTHAT THRILLS A LOT OF PEOPLE. \n[LAUGHTER] \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nBUT — BUT I DO THINK THE FACT \nTHAT WE GOT THAT HIGHER LEVEL OF \nINTEREST AND INPUT IS A MEASURE \nOF SUCCESS. COMMISSIONER \nNELSON. \n>>BARRY NELSON: JUST TO COMMENT \nABOUT TRIBAL ENGAGEMENT. IN THE \nLAST COUPLE OF YEARS HAS BEEN A \nREAL EXPLOSION OF INTEREST IN \nISSUES — WATER ISSUES UPSTREAM \nFROM THE BAY\, THE DELTA\, AND ALL \nTHE RIVERS UPSTREAM FROM THAT. I \nAM HOPEFUL WE CAN GET THE SAME \nENGAGEMENT ON TRIBAL AND BAY \nADAPTATION ISSUES. THAT WILL BE \nGREAT. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: I HAVE GOAL \nFOUR. STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 4.1 IS \nTO LISTEN TO\, COMMUNICATE WITH\, \nAND ENGAGE STAKEHOLDERS IN WAYS \nTHAT ARE MORE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL\, \nINCREASE AWARENESS OF BCDC AND \nITS ROLES AND PROCESSES\, AND \nFOSTER SUCCESSFUL COMMUNITY DIE \nLOGS. I THINK WE HAD SUCCESS \nDURING THE PAST FEW MONTHS. \nFIRST OF ALL\, OUR NEW WEBSITE IS \nNOT ONLY BEING CONSTRUCTED. IT’S \nBEING CONTEXTUALIZED\, IF YOU \nDON’T MIND THE TERM. THE \nINFRASTRUCTURE IS PRETTY MUCH \nDONE\, AND THE CONTENT IS BEING \nWORKED ON. I WANT TO THANK ETHAN \nAND COREY. COREY MANN\, FOR \nREALLY TAKING THE LEAD ON \nCONTENT. AND WE HAD A REALLY \nGOOD TEAM THAT DEALT WITH THE \nCONSTRUCTION. AND REYLINA HAS \nBEEN PUSHING US ALL TO MAKE SURE \nIT GETS DONE. WE ARE HOPEFUL WE \nWILL BE ABLE TO RELEASE IT AND \nPUT IT ONLINE LATER — I SHOULD \nSAY EARLY THIS SPRING. WE WERE \nABLE TO HIRE\, AS I MENTIONED \nEARLIER\, ROSIE VELASQUEZ\, WHO IS \nA CONSERVATION CORPS INTERN. AND \nWE DID SO NOT ONLY COULD ROSIE \nHELP THE E.J. — OUR E.J. \nPRACTICES\, BUT ALSO TO HELP GET \nUS A LITTLE BIT MORE UP TO DATE \nON SOCIAL MEDIA. BCDC IS NOW ON \nINSTAGRAM. AND I CAN TELL YOU \nTHAT I KNOW WE’RE ON INSTAGRAM \nBECAUSE OUR SON\, WHO IS AN \nINSTAGRAM FOLLOWER\, KEEPS \nSENDING ME THINGS ABOUT HOW GOOD \nOUR REELS ARE. WHATEVER THE HECK \nTHAT MEANS. AND SO WE HAVE \nDEFINITELY INCREASED OUR USE OF \nSOCIAL MEDIA AND WE HAVE \nINITIATED — ANNIE HAS DONE A \nTREMENDOUS JOB ON THIS — BCDC’S \nFIRST-EVER MEDIA PLAN. IT \nHASN’T BEEN CERTAINLY PUT INTO \nPRACTICE YET BUT WE ARE WORKING \nON IT AND I THINK IT WILL END UP \nBEING VERY\, VERY SUCCESSFUL. OUR \nNEXT CHALLENGES IS TO FINISH UP \nTHE WEBSITE AND PUT IT UP. AND \nAS I SAID IN MY REPORT\, USE ALL \nOF OUR COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE \nCOUNTY SUPERVISORS TO ENABLE \nRSAP GUIDELINES BRIEFINGS\, THE \nREGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION \nPROGRAM GUIDELINES FOR THEIR \nMAYORS AND KEY STAFF THROUGHOUT \nTHEIR JURISDICTIONS IN ORDER TO \nMAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE MORE \nAWARE OF WHAT BCDC IS DOING. THE \nNEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. YOU \nCAN’T — \nYOU CAN’T WALK THROUGH BCDC \nTHESE DAYS WITHOUT SOMEBODY \nASKING\, WHEN ARE WE GETTING A \nP.I.O.? WELL\, WE’RE GETTING \nTHERE. WE HAVE ACTUALLY — WE’RE \nIN THE MIDST OF REQUESTING\, I \nSHOULD SAY\, CAL HR TO APPROVE A \nSENIOR LEVEL POSITION CALLED THE \nDIRECTOR OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS. \nTHAT INCLUDES A PART-TIME \nP.I.O.\, A PART-TIME LEGISLATIVE \nLIAISON\, A LOCAL GOVERNMENTALLY \nASSON\, AND A PERSON WHO HAS SOME \nEXPERIENCE\, KNOCK ON WOOD\, WITH \nCZMA. AND SO THE NEXT CHALLENGE\, \nOF COURSE\, WILL BE GETTING IT \nAPPROVED BY CALHR\, WHICH I THINK \nTHEY WILL DO\, BUT THEN\, OF \nCOURSE\, GETTING IT FUNDED DURING \nTHIS TIME OF STATE FISCAL \nDISREPAIR. EVEN WITH THAT\, I \nHAVE SOME HOPE. IF THERE ARE NO \nQUESTIONS ON THAT\, WE’LL GO TO \nGOAL FIVE. \n>>SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON\, \nCOMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS \nREYLINA RUIZ AND DIRECTOR OF \nADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNOLOGY \nSERVICES. I’LL BE TALKING TO YOU \nTODAY ABOUT GOAL FIVE WHICH IS \nTO ADEQUATELY MEET THE GROWING \nNEEDS MORE EFFECTIVELY AND \nSUSTAINABLY. ONE OF THE \nOBJECTIVES FOR GOAL FIVE IS TO \nHAVE STAFF REFLECT THE BAY \nAREA. \nWE REGRUTED GREAT TALENTED FIELD \nPOSITIONS. IT’S BEEN DIFFICULT \nBUT WITH THE PERSEVERANCE OF OUR \nHIRING MANAGERS\, WE’VE BEEN ABLE \nTO FILL SOME VACANCIES IN THIS \nLAST QUARTER. WE EXPANDED OUR \nOUTREACH LIST TO NOTIFY CONTACTS \nOF JOB OPPORTUNITIES AND WE’VE \nENHANCED THE JOB POSTING PROCESS \nTO INCLUDE SENDING ANNOUNCEMENT \nLINKS TO ALL STAFF SO THEY CAN \nDISTRIBUTE TO THEIR NETWORKS\, \nPOSTING EVERY VACANCY ON \nLINKEDIN AND ALSO PUBLICIZING \nTHE OPPORTUNITIES IN BCDC ON THE \nINSTAGRAM AND X\, FORMERLY KNOWN \nAS TWITTER\, ACCOUNTS. IN THIS \nNEXT QUARTER\, WE’RE WORKING ON \nCONDUCTING AN ORGANIZATIONAL \nHELP SURVEY\, INCLUDING A \nSEPARATE SURVEY ON RACIAL EQUITY \nAND WE’LL ALSO BE COMPLETING A \nWORKFORCE ANALYSIS AND \nSUCCESSION PLANNING TO BETTER \nINFORM OUR STAFFING STRATEGIES \nMOVING FORWARD. NEXT SLIDE\, \nPLEASE. SO ANOTHER OF OUR \nOBJECTIVES FOR GOAL 5 IS TO \nIMPLEMENT TECHNOLOGICAL UPGRADES \nTO IMPROVE OUR PROCESSES. AND \nNOW WE’RE ONBOARDED TO THE \nNATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY \nSECURITY OPERATION SERVICE\, OUR \nC.I.O. HAS IMPLEMENTED SYSTEMS \nTO MONITOR SECURITY\, ENCRYPT OUR \nDEVICES AND COLLECT SECURITY \nCOMPLIANCE AND VULNERABILITY \nDATA ON ALL OF OUR DEVICES. AND \nIN ADDITION TO IDENTIFYING THE \nISSUES\, WE HAVE END-POINT \nSOFTWARE BEING IMPLEMENTED TO \nALLOW ANDREW TO IDENTIFY THOSE \nIMMEDIATE THREATS AND MANAGE OUR \nSOFTWARE DEPLOYMENTS AND TRACK \nCOMPLIANCE ACROSS OUR ENTIRE \nNETWORK. THAT’S A BIG \nACCOMPLISHMENT THERE. \nADDITIONALLY\, WE RECEIVED THE \nFINDINGS FROM THE I.T. \nASSESSMENT I SPOKE TO YOU ABOUT \nLAST TIME. WE RECEIVED A PASSING \nSCORE\, BUT THERE ARE \nOPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT. \nSO WE’LL BE WORKING ON THOSE. WE \nCOMPLETED THE MIGRATION\, AS \nLARRY SAID\, OF THE EXISTING \nCONTENT ON THE WEBSITE INTO THE \nHOSTING SERVICE. AND WE DID \nCONTRACT WITH AN EDITOR TO \nENSURE OUR WEBSITE CONTENT IS \nUSER-FRIENDLY ON THE NEW WEBSITE \nWHEN THAT GOES UP. SO NOW THAT \nWE’VE IMPLEMENTED THESE SYSTEMS \nTO IDENTIFY THE SECURITY ISSUES\, \nTHIS NEXT QUARTER\, WE’LL BE \nWORKING ON IMPLEMENTING A \nSOLUTION FOR ATTACK \nDETECTION\, THREAT VISIBILITY\, \nAND THREAT RESPONSE — THREAT \nRESPONSE. SO WE’LL ALSO \nPRIORITIZE THE FINDINGS FROM THE \nI.T. \nASSESSMENT\, BECAUSE WE DO WANT \nTO ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS\, AND \nWE’LL FINALIZE THE CONTENT WITH \nTHE EDITOR FOR THE WEBSITE. \nTHANK YOU. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: WITH THAT\, \nCHAIR WASSERMAN\, I THINK YOU CAN \nSEE WE’VE BEEN PRETTY BUSY. \nTHERE’S A LONG WAY TO GO. I \nTHINK THAT IT IS FAIR TO SAY \nTHAT STAFF WHO HAVE DAY JOBS TO \nGET THE PERMITS OUT OR TO DO \nWHATEVER THEY’RE DOING ARE ALSO\, \nYOU KNOW\, PART OF THIS WHOLE \nPROCESS TO GET THE STRATEGIC \nPLAN DONE. SO IT IS TO EXTENT \nFITS IN STARTS\, BUT THERE’S \nDEFINITE PROGRESS\, AND WE LOOK \nFORWARD TO HAVING A HIGHER \nHISTOGRAM BARF COMPLETION BY THE \nEND OF THE YEAR. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY \nQUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM \nCOMMISSIONERS? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: YES. \nALTERNATE COMMISSIONER. I JUST \nHAVE A THOUGHT TALKING ABOUT \nTHIS — THE PUBLIC OUTREACH AND \nTHE P.I.O.\, WHICH IS BADLY \nNEEDED\, I AGREE. AND I’M JUST \nREFLECTING\, ONE OF THE PROBLEMS \nIS\, OF COURSE\, THERE’S SO FEW \nJOURNALISTS AROUND IN THE BAY \nAREA THESE DAYS. SO THEY ARE \nBADLY MISSED. BUT WHEN I THINK \nBACK ON ARTICLES THAT I USED TO \n— PLACES I USED TO GO TO TO \nKIND OF UNDERSTAND TRENDS AND \nSOME ANALYSIS\, BAY NATURE IS \nACTUALLY A GREAT MAGAZINE WHICH \nKIND OF TALKS ABOUT THE \nSCIENCE. \nTHE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF \nTHE BAY AREA USED TO PUT OUT A \nREGULAR NEWSLETTER THAT TALKED \nABOUT — \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: MONITOR. \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: DO THEY \nSTILL DO THAT? YEAH\, THERE’S A \nFEW SOURCES. THERE’S SO FEW OF \nTHEM. THE OTHER ONE IS THE \nCOMMITTEE TO COMPLETE THE \nREFUGE. THEY ACTUALLY HAVE AN \nEXCELLENT NEWSLETTER THAT COMES \nOUT QUARTERLY THAT I READ \nRELIGIOUSLY. SO I — I DON’T \nKNOW WHAT WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT \nEXCEPT\, YOU KNOW\, MAYBE GET SOME \nMORE ARTICLES OUT IN THE BAY \nNATURE WOULD BE GREAT OR I DON’T \nKNOW WHAT — YOU KNOW\, IT’S — \nEXCEPT TO LAMENT THE — YOU \nKNOW\, I WISH THERE WERE MORE \nSCIENCE AND REGULATORY \nJOURNALISTS IN THE BAY AREA. \nJUST WANTED TO SHARE THAT. THANK \nYOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nOKAY. VICE CHAIR EISEN. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK \nYOU. AND THANK YOU FOR THE \nSTRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE. MY \nEXPERIENCE WITH STRATEGIC PLANS \nIS THEY SOMETIMES COLLECT A LOT \nOF DUST ON SHELVES AND I’M \nTUFLLY GLAD TO SEE THAT’S \nNOT — \nAND I’M GLAD TO SEE THAT’S NOT \nOURS. AS FAR AS THE INSTAGRAM \nACCOUNT IS\, I KNOW WHAT A REEL \nIS. IT REALLY IS A FANTASTIC \nINSTAGRAM ACCOUNT THAT’S BEEN \nSET UP FOR THE BCDC. FOR ANYBODY \nTHAT’S NOT YET GOTTEN ON \nINSTAGRAM\, MY NAME IS CALLED ONE \nSTONE TWO BIRDS IF YOU’RE \nLOOKING FOR ME. THAT IS REALLY \nFANTASTIC\, FANTASTIC STUFF ON \nTHERE\, AND THE BCDC’S ACCOUNT IS \nEXCELLENT. I WANTED TO — LARRY \nSTARTED OFF BY SAYING WE HAVE \nACCOMPLISHED SOME OF OUR \nSTRATEGIC GOALS. AND IT OCCURRED \nTO ME THAT SOME OF THEM ARE HARD \nTO KNOW WHETHER WE HAVE IN FACT \nACCOMPLISHED THEM. AND THE FIRST \nONE WE TALKED ABOUT\, 1.4\, THE \nSWAP BENEFICIAL REUSE PROGRAM. \nI’M WONDERING IF WE HAVE IN MIND \nWHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE WHEN WE \nHAVE ACCOMPLISHED THAT \nPARTICULAR GOAL\, WHICH IS TO \nINCREASE THE BENEFICIAL REUSE OF \nSEDIMENT. HOW ARE WE GOING TO \nKNOW WHEN WE’VE ACCOMPLISHED \nTHAT ONE? \n>>JESSICA FAIN: I THINK THERE IS \nA MORE PHILOSOPHICAL ANSWER. \nI WOULD DEFER TO THE \nPHILOSOPHICAL ANSWER WHICH IS \nHOW MUCH SEDIMENT IS GETTING PUT \nINTO WETLAND AND BENEFICIAL \nREUSE PURPOSES RATHER THAN BEING \nDUMPED OFF INTO THE OCEAN. BUT \nWE DO ALSO ACCOMPANYING OUR \nSTRATEGIC PLAN HAVE SPECIFIC \nSTRATEGIES THAT ACCOMPANY EACH \nOF THE OBJECTIVES AND SO THE \nPRACTICAL ANSWER WOULD BE\, YOU \nKNOW\, WE HAVE A GRANT THAT IS \nHELPING US IMPLEMENT THIS AND \nTHERE’S TASKS ASSOCIATED WITH \nIT. THE FIRST THING IS TO \nDEVELOP THIS ROAD MAP WHICH IS \nSORT OF THIS REGIONAL ACTION \nPLAN AROUND SEDIMENT AND \nBENEFICIAL REUSE WHICH I THINK \nWILL REALLY LAY OUT A LOT OF \nTHOSE METRICS WE WANT TO GET TO \nAS A REGION. AND WE HOPE TO \nAMEND THE BAY PLAN WITH YOUR \nAPPROVAL TO HELP AMEND OUR \nPOLICIES TO GET THERE AS WELL AS \nDEVELOP A FUNDING STRATEGY THAT \nWILL ACCOMPANY THIS THAT IS A \nSORELY NECESSARY PIECE TO \nACTUALLY GET THE WORK DONE. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: IF I CAN \nFOLLOW UP ON THAT. ONE OF THE \nREALLY GREAT PIECES OF NEWS THAT \nWE RECEIVED IN THE PAST MONTH OR \nTWO IS THAT DUE TO THE INCREASE \nIN FUNDING ON THE FEDERAL SIDE \nTHROUGH THE WATER RESOURCES \nDEVELOPMENT ACT WORK WE’VE DONE \nON\, MORE THIS YEAR OF THE \nSEDIMENT HAS ACTUALLY GONE TO \nBENEFICIAL REUSE THAN EVER \nBEFORE. AND SO\, AGAIN\, SO MUCH \nOF IT DEPENDS UPON FUNDING. BUT \nWE WILL CONTINUE TO MAKE — WE \nCONTINUE TO MAKE PROGRESS ON \nTHAT SO LONG AS THE STARS \nALIGN. \nAND FROM MY PERSPECTIVE\, THE \nREALLY INTERESTING BIT\, AS \nJESSICA SAID\, IS THE \nCOMMISSION’S ROLE IN HELPING US \nFIGURE OUT HOW BEST TO AMEND THE \nBAY PLAN TO ENSURE THAT \nBENEFICIAL REUSE ACTUALLY \nHAPPENS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: AND \nI WOULD NOTE THAT IN THIS AREA\, \nAS IN MANY AREAS\, WE DON’T ACT \nALONE. WE ACT IN CONJUNCTION \nWITH OTHER PARTNERS. AND ONE OF \nTHE STRONGEST PIECES OF NEWS WE \nHEARD ON THIS WAS WHEN WE GOT \nTHE REPORT TWO MEETINGS AGO THAT \nTHE ARMY CORPS WAS INCLUDING\, \nREALLY ON THEIR INITIATIVE\, \nBENEFICIAL REUSE AS PART OF THE \nPROJECT. THAT’S A HUGE — \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: HUGE. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: HUGE \nAPPROACH. ARE THERE OTHER \nQUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SEEING \nNONE\, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR \nTHE EFFORT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH \nFOR THE CONTINUED EFFORT ON \nPROGRESS ON THIS. AND THAT WILL \nBRING US TO ITEM 9\, A BRIEFING \nON THE 2023 PROGRESS THE \nCOMMISSION’S ENFORCEMENT \nPROGRAM. OUR ENFORCEMENT POLICY \nMANAGER\, MATTHEW TRUJILLO\, WILL \nPROVIDE THE BRIEFING. \n>>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: GOOD \nAFTERNOON. I’M GOING TO GET SET \nUP HERE. I AM GOING TO SHARE MY \nPOWERPOINT. \nSORRY. \nOKAY. I CAN’T SEE MY NOTES AND \nSHARE THIS AT THE SAME TIME SO I \nAM GOING TO DO MY BEST HERE. MY \nNAME IS MATTHEW TRUJILLO\, \nENFORCEMENT POLICY MANAGER. AND \nTODAY I’M GOING TO TALK ABOUT \nBASICALLY OUR 2023 \nACCOMPLISHMENTS IN THE \nENFORCEMENT PROGRAM. I AM GOING \nTO START BY A REVIEW OF OUR \nENFORCEMENT PROGRAM THAT’S BEEN \nPUT IN PLACE AROUND 2019/2020. I \nWILL TALK ABOUT SOME CASE \nMANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS WE’VE \nDONE IN THE YEAR. GO OVER SOME \nCASE MANAGEMENT DATA. GIVE US \nPROGRESS ON THE OLD AND OLDEST \nCASES IN THE QUEUE. REVIEW SOME \nOF OUR AVAILABLE RESOURCES. AND \nTHEN FINISH ON A HIGH NOTE WITH \nPROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS AND KIND OF \nGO OVER SOME OF MY IDEAS AND \nDESIRES OR GOALS FOR THIS \nUPCOMING 2024. AND ONCE AGAIN\, \nSO OUR PROGRAM GOALS ARE TO THE \nDEFENDANT\, DETERRENCE\, \nTRANSPARENCY\, CONSISTENCY\, AND \nFAIRNESS. DETERRENCE\, WE WANT TO \nREMOVE THE INCENTIVE TO VIOLATE \nTHE LAW. WE WANT TO CLEAR THE \nEXPECTATIONS AND ENSURE THE \nPROCESSES ARE UNDERSTOOD BY THE \nREGULATED COMMUNITY. THAT’S \nTRANSPARENCY. CONSISTENCY IS WE \nMAINTAIN A CLEAR\, DOCUMENTED \nENFORCEMENT PROCESS. AND THEN \nFAIRNESS\, WE TREAT ALL \nVIOLATIONS SIMILAR IN NATURE AND \nIMPACT TO THE BAY AND PUBLIC \nACCESS SIMILARLY. DURING 2023\, \nWE — THIS WAS THE FIRST FULL \nYEAR WE HAD A COMPLIANCE \nPROGRAM\, AND WE’VE WORKED ON \nCOORDINATING CLOSELY WITH THEM. \nKIND OF SETTING UP DEFINING \nROLES AND EXPECTATIONS BETWEEN \nTHE COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT \nSTAFFS AND WHAT I CAN REPORT \nOUT\, HAVING WORKED WITH THEM \nOVER THIS PAST YEAR\, IS THAT \nTHEY’VE BEEN INSTRUMENTAL IN \nASSUMING COMPLIANCE MONITORING \nOF ANY ORDERS WE ISSUED AND \nSETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS WE \nISSUED. \nHOW IT WORKS\, WHEN THE \nCOMMISSION ISSUES AN ORDER OR A \nSETTLEMENT\, THAT ESSENTIALLY \nCLOSES THE ENFORCEMENT CASE. IT \nGOES TO COMPLIANCE TO MAKE SURE \nTHEY RESPONDED TO THAT ORDER OR \nSETTLEMENT FOLLOWS THROUGH\, PAYS \nTHEIR FINES\, MEETS THEIR \nDEADLINES\, DOES WHAT THEY’RE \nORDERED TO DO. THEY’VE ALSO BEEN \nINSTRUMENTAL IN MANAGING REPORTS \nOF IMPENDING AND POSSIBLE \nVIOLATIONS. AND THEY’VE BEEN \nABLE TO RESOLVE ANY ISSUES \nWITHOUT INFORMAL ENFORCEMENT \nACTION. FOR EXAMPLE\, THERE IS A \nKIND OF BOILER PLATE CLAUSE IN \nOUR PERMITS IN THE MANT TANS \nPROVISION THAT — MAINTENANCE \nPROVISION THAT SAYS\, IF WE FIND \nTHERE IS A PUBLIC ACCESS ISSUE \nWITH REGARD TO MAYBE A PIECE OF \nA TRAIL THAT’S IN DISREPAIR OR \nHAS BEEN SHUT DOWN FOR WHATEVER \nREASON\, OFTENTIMES WE WILL REFER \nTHAT TO COMPLIANCE RATHER THAN \nOPENING A CASE BECAUSE THE \nBOILER PLATE LANGUAGE GIVES THAT \nRESPONDENT OR THAT PERMITTEE\, \nRATHER\, 30 DAYS AFTER BEING OFF \nSTANDARD\, 30 DAYS AFTER BEING \nNOTIFIED TO FIX THAT PROBLEM \nBEFORE IT BECOMES AN ACTUAL \nISSUE\, AN ACTUAL PERMIT \nVIOLATION. SINCE THAT’S A COMMON \nISSUE WE RUN UP\, COMPLIANCE HAS \nBEEN REALLY GREAT IN BEING ABLE \nTO WORK WITH THE PERMITTEES TO \nGET THEM ON THE RIGHT TRACK \nBEFORE WE HAVE TO OPEN AN \nENFORCEMENT CASE. THAT’S BEEN \nVERY HELPFUL. MILESTONE \nTRACKING. WE USE OUR TECHNOLOGY \n— TECHNOLOGY I MEAN EXCEL FOR \nTHE FIRST PART TO ORGANIZE DATA \nAND TRACK DEADLINES. \nAPPROXIMATELY 34 OF THE 71 TOTAL \nCASES IN THE QUEUE AS OF THE END \nOF LAST YEAR ARE SUBJECT TO \nMILESTONE TRACKING. \nTHE REMAINDER OF THOSE ARE \nPRE-2020 WHEN WE DIDN’T HAVE THE \nSYSTEM IN PLACE AND THEY ARE \nTREATED A LITTLE SEPARATELY\, A \nLITTLE DIFFERENTLY. WE’RE \nWORKING ON THAT. I’LL GET TO \nTHAT LATER. THEN\, 2023 IS ALSO \nTHE FIRST FULL YEAR WE’VE HAD \nTHE NEW ENFORCEMENT REGULATIONS \nPUT IN PLACE THAT TOOK PLACE AT \nTHE END OF LAST YEAR. THESE HAVE \nBEEN INSTRUMENTAL IN \nFACILITATING MORE EFFICIENT \nCOMMUNICATION. WE’RE NOW ABLE TO \nCOMMUNICATE EXCLUSIVELY \nELECTRONICALLY\, GRANTED WE’VE \nGOT WRITTEN PERMISSION. THAT’S \nBEEN HELPFUL IN TERMS OF GETTING \nTHINGS OUT OF THE DOOR QUICKLY \nAND FACILITATING FAST RESPONSE \nAND EFFICIENT CONVERSATIONS. \nIT’S ALSO PROVIDED\, I \nTHINK CIVIL PENALTY CALCULATION \nPOLICY. THAT’S APPENDIX H OF THE \nREGULATIONS. THAT’S HELPED TO \nSTANDARDIZE HOW WE CALCULATE \nCIVIL PENALTIES TO DO IT MORE \nTRANSPARENTLY\, TO DO IT \nSYSTEM@ICILY — SYSTEMATICALLY. \nAND IT’S BEEN GREAT. IT’S BEEN A \nLEARNING PROCESS\, THOUGH. NEW \nAND IMPROVED TOOLS. FORMAL \nENFORCEMENT DOCKET. THIS WAS \nSTARTED UNDER OUR EX-ENFORCEMENT \nATTORNEY\, BRENT. HE TOOK\, \nCREATED A SPREADSHEET AND \nPROJECTED OUT FOR — I BELIEVE \nIT WAS 2023 — 2022\, MAYBE\, THAT \nWE WANTED TO BRING FORMAL \nENFORCEMENT THAT WAS IN THE \nQUEUE. HAVING COME ON IN MARCH \nOF 2022\, I’VE TAKEN THAT ON AND \nDONE SOME REVISION. I’VE \nIMPROVED THE FORMULA. IT’S MADE \nIT A BIT MORE USER-FRIENDLY\, A \nBIT MORE AUTOMATED AND I DID \nTHAT BASED ON LESSONS LEARNED\, \nSTAFF FEEDBACK AND \nCOLLABORATION. AND ALSO DRAFTED \nAN ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL PENALTY \nCALCULATOR TO MAKE EFFICIENT USE \nOF ALL THE REGULATIONS OR THE \nNEW PROCEDURES AND POLICIES THAT \nARE IN APPENDIX H SO NOW IT’S A \nMATTER OF DATA ENTRY AND THE \nSPREADSHEET WILL CALCULATE CIVIL \nPENALTIES BASED ON THE INPUTS \nAND SPIT OUT A GOOD NUMBER. \nTHAT’S STILL TESTING. THERE’S A \nLOT OF BUGS IN THAT. I’M HOPING \nTO GET THAT PERFECTED THIS \nYEAR. \nWE’LL SEE. IN 2023\, BCDC \nENFORCEMENT OPENED 70 NEW CASES \nTOTAL AND RESOLVED 50 OF THOSE \n70 NEW CASES. OVERALL\, WE’VE \nCLOSED 88 CASES IN 2023. AND THE \nVAST MAJORITY\, AS YOU CAN SEE \nFROM THIS TABLE TO THE RIGHT\, \nWERE OPENED IN THE LAST TWO \nYEARS\, 2023 AND 2022. AND \nIT INCLUDES THE — OH\, WE HAD \nAN OLDEST CASE IN THE QUEUE FROM \n1990. WE WERE ABLE TO RESOLVE \nTHAT IN 2023. WANTED TO CALL \nTHAT OUT. THEN\, PROGRESS ON OLD \nAND OLDEST CASES. SO OUR \nMANAGEMENT PROCEDURES DEFINES \nTHOSE OPENED IN 2016 AND BEFORE \nAND DEFINES OLDEST CASES AS \nTHOSE OPENED IN 2000 AND PRIOR. \nCURRENTLY WE’RE DOWN TO ONE OF \nOUR OLDEST CASES. AND THE NUMBER \nOF OLD CASES IS NOW 19. WE \nREDUCED THE NUMBER OF OLDEST \nCASES BY TWO AND REDUCED THE \nNUMBER OF OLD CASES BY ABOUT 14 \nIN 2023\, WHICH IS A PRETTY GOOD \nACCOMPLISHMENT. OLD AND OLDEST \nCASES COMPROMISE APPROXIMATELY \n52% OF THE TOTAL YEAR-END \nCASELOAD OF 71. IN 2024 WHAT I’M \nDOING IS PRIORITIZING THE OLDEST \nAND OLD CASES FOR RESOLUTION. WE \nUSE THESE RESOURCES TO DO OUR \nWORK. PRIMARILY ARCGIS SYSTEM\, \nWE CALL IT THE DATABASE\, WHERE \nWE’RE ABLE TO PUT PIN DROPS AT \nDIFFERENT PROPERTIES THROUGHOUT \nTHE BAY AREA AND KEEP NOTES. \nTHAT’S KIND OF OUR CASE TRACKING \nMETHOD. WE ALSO HAVE MANY OF OUR \nPERMIT FILES AND OTHER FILES ON \n1DOCSTOP WHICH IS A DATABASE \nTHAT HOLDS P.D.F.’S OF PAPER \nSCANS THROUGHOUT OUR AGENCY. \nIT’S BEEN PRETTY HELPFUL. WE \nWENT TO FULLY ELECTRONIC \nENFORCEMENT RECORDKEEPING. WE \nUSED TO HAVE PAPER FILES. AND WE \nMOVED AROUND 2020\, ESPECIALLY\, \nWE MOVED INTO REALLY TRYING TO \nBRING EVERYTHING ONLINE. WE WERE \nMAINTAINING BOTH OF THOSE FOR A \nWHILE. NOW WE ARE FULLY \nELECTRONIC. WHICH HAS MADE \nTHINGS MUCH MORE EFFICIENT. WE \nHAVE TEMPLATE LETTERS AND FORMS \nWE DEVELOPED TO SUPPORT THESE \n— \nOUR PROGRAM. WE RELY HEAVILY ON \nOUR BAY DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN \nANALYSTS AND OUR ENGINEER TO \nCONSUBJECT ON THINGS — MATTERS \nOF PUBLIC ACCESS\, DESIGN\, AND \nENGINEERING QUESTIONS. AND WE \nHAVE\, OF COURSE\, OUR STAND-BY \nCOMMUNICATION TOOLS. PHONES\, \nEMAILS\, TEAMS\, AND ZOOM. PROGRAM \nHIGHLIGHTS. SO WE ENDED 2023 \nWITH THE LOWEST CASE COUNT IN \nTHE QUEUE BEGINNING SINCE THE \nPROGRAM’S REINVIGORATION EFFORT \nIN 2019. YOU MAY RECALL IT USED \nTO NUMBER IN THE HUNDREDS. NOW \nIT’S DOWN TO ABOUT 71. NOW IT’S \nAROUND 74 BECAUSE WE GOT A FEW \nNEW ONES. WE’RE WORKING THROUGH \nTHAT. BUT PRETTY GOOD. SO I \nWANTED TO MAKE SURE I RECOGNIZED \nTHE COMPLIANCE STAFF FOR \nSTEPPING UP AND HELPING TO SHARE \nTHAT BURDEN. CERTAINLY\, THE \nENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE HAS \nPROVIDED A LOT OF SUPPORT AND \nGUIDANCE OVER THE YEAR. AND OUR \nINDIVIDUAL ANALYSTS\, ADRIAN \nKLEIN AND RACHEL COHEN\, HAVE \nBEEN DEDICATED AND HARD \nWORKING. \nRACHEL COHEN IS OUR NEW \nANALYST. \nSHE’S COME ALONG VERY WELL. OF \nCOURSE\, GREG AND LARRY\, OUR \nSENIOR STAFF\, HAVE PROVIDED \nGREAT SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE. AND \nI CANNOT — WE COULDN’T DO THAT \nWITHOUT MARGIE\, OUR \nADMINISTRATIVE STAFFER. KEEPING \nUS ON TRACK. SHE’S REALLY TAKEN \nOWNERSHIP ON THE TEAM IN TERMS \nOF TRYING TO COORDINATE \nMAILINGS\, COORDINATE OUR \nMEETINGS. REALLY VERY \nIMPORTANT. \nOH\, YEAH. SO WE COLLECTED ABOUT \n— EXCUSE ME. WE COLLECTED \n$425\,000 IN PENALTIES IN 2023\, \nDEPOSITED INTO THE BAY CLEANUP \nAND ABATEMENT FUND. AND JUST \nRECENTLY WE WERE SELECTED FOR \n— \nHONOREE FOR A 2023 GEO FOR GOOD \nAWARD THAT’S AWARDED BY GOOGLE \nEVERY YEAR FOR OUR USE OF OUR \nGOOGLE MAPPING TOOLS\, \nPARTICULARLY GOOGLE EARTH\, \nGOOGLE MAP\, TO ASSIST IN OUR \nINVESTIGATIONS\, RESEARCH\, AND \nMONITORING OF SITES AROUND THE \nBAY. AND IT’S PARTICULARLY \nHELPFUL IN THE MOST REMOTE \nLOCATIONS LIKE UP IN THE MARSH \nWHERE WE CAN’T ACCESS THROUGH \nANY ROAD. WE DON’T HAVE ACCESS \nTHROUGH BOATS OR WATER. WE’RE \nABLE TO\, FOR EXAMPLE\, VIEW \nHISTORIC IMAGERY. WHEN WE GET \nNAVIGATION\, DEPENDING HOW \nUPDATED THEIR DATABASE IS\, WE \nCAN ACTUALLY SEE ACTUAL \nCONDITIONS ARE\, CURRENT \nCONDITIONS ARE\, WITHOUT HAVING \nTO GO OUT THERE OURSELVES. AND \nBEING A SMALL STAFF\, WE REALLY \nRELY ON THESE TECHNOLOGY TOOLS \nTO HELP DO OUR JOB. SO IN \n2024\, I AIM TO PUT MUCH MORE \nHEARINGS BEFORE THE ENFORCEMENT \nCOMMITTEE AND THE COMMISSION \nTHAN WE DID LAST YEAR. ALREADY\, \nOUR DOCKET HAS ABOUT SIX \nCASES. WE’VE STRETCHED OUT TO \nABOUT MAY RIGHT NOW. AND MORE \nWILL BE COMING ON TOP OF THAT\, \nHOPEFULLY. THE WORK CONTINUES TO \nCOORDINATE ENFORCEMENT. OUR \nPROCESSES WITH PERMITS AND \nCOMPLIANCE. MORE COLLABORATION \nTHERE. MORE KIND OF PROCESS \nIMPROVEMENT WOULD BE IDEA. AND \nTHEN WE ARE ALSO REFINING \nEXISTING AND DEVELOPING NEW \nPROCEDURES AND BEST PRACTICES \nBASED ON LESSONS LEARNED IN \n2023. I MENTIONED A COUPLE OF \nTHEM SUCH AS OUR ENFORCEMENT \nDOCKET AND ONE THING I’M ALSO \nDEVELOPING RIGHT NOW IS A — \nBASICALLY A WORKBOOK TO MANAGE A \nCASE WHERE IT SHOULD MAKE IT \nMUCH MORE EFFICIENT TO BE ABLE \nTO ENTER THE INFORMATION OF A \nGIVEN CASE OR A GIVEN RESPONDENT \nAND THEIR ISSUES INTO THE \nWORKBOOK AND THEN HAVE IT \nPOPULATE OTHER TABS THAT WILL \nHELP US TO GENERATE LETTERS AND \nSO FORTH. AND HAVING GOTTEN IT \nWORKING YET BUT I’M WORKING ON \nIT\, I’M CLOSE. SO I’LL BE HAPPY \nTO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS \nTIME. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY \nQUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER \nGILMORE. \n>>MARIE GILMORE: IT’S NOT A \nQUESTION BUT A COMMENT. I REALLY \nWANTED TO THANK MATTHEW AND THE \nENFORCEMENT TEAM FOR THE \nDEDICATION AND THE HARD WORK \nTHAT THEY ALWAYS PUT IN. BUT IN \nPARTICULAR\, THE LAST YEAR\, THEY \nKEPT A STEADY STREAM OF \nENFORCEMENT CASES COMING TO US. \nAND WE’VE HAD SOME REALLY \nPRODUCTIVE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT \nJUST HOW THE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM \nHAS DONE AND IMPROVEMENTS THAT \nCOULD BE MADE. SO IT’S REALLY \nGREAT. THE ONE THING I WANTED TO \nADD WAS ABOUT OLD AND OLDEST \nCASES. I’M NOT SURE HOW MUCH \nTHE COMMISSION REALIZES THAT \nTHOSE CASES ARE REALLY TIME AND \nRESOURCE-INTENSIVE. ONE\, \nBECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF TIME \nTHAT HAS ELAPSED. AND SOMETIMES \nBECAUSE THE PROPERTY HAS CHANGED \nHANDS NOT ONCE BUT MULTIPLE \nTIMES. SO IT DOES TAKE A LOT OF \nTIME\, A LOT OF DETECTIVE WORK\, \nAND THIS IS ON TOP OF OR IN \nADDITION TO THE NEW CASES THAT \nARE COMING IN. SO IT’S — THE \nABILITY TO WORK BOTH ENDS OF THE \nSPECTRUM TOWARDS THE MIDDLE\, \nWORKING THE OLDEST AND OLD CASES \nVERSUS THE NEW CASES THAT ARE \nCOMING IN ON ESSENTIALLY A DAILY \nBASIS AND TRYING TO BALANCE THE \nRESOURCES NEEDED FOR BOTH TO \nKEEP THE PROCESS FLOWING ALONG \nIN A REASONABLE MANNER. AND THAT \nBALANCE IS NOT ALWAYS EASY TO \nSTRIKE\, BUT I THINK THE TEAM \nDOES A REALLY GOOD JOB. AND I \nLOOK FORWARD TO — AND THE REST \nOF THE COMMITTEE LOOKS FORWARD \nTO WORKING WITH YOU AND THE TEAM \nAS WE MAKE EVEN MORE PROGRESS \nOVER THIS YEAR. SO THANK YOU. \n>>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nOTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM \nCOMMISSIONERS? AND I ASSUME WE \nHAVE NO PUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO PUBLIC \nCOMMENT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. COMMISSIONER NELSON. \n>>BARRY NELSON: JUST AN \nENCOURAGING COMMENT THAT THIS IS \nREALLY IMPRESSIVE AND \nENCOURAGING THAT — IF WE STEP \nBACK AND LOOK BACK FIVE YEARS TO \nWHERE — HOW OUR ENFORCEMENT \nPROGRAM LOOKED\, WE MADE ENORMOUS \nSTRIDES. \nWE’RE MAKING PROGRESS BOTH IN \nTERMS OF PROTECTING PUBLIC \nRESOURCES AND IN TERMS OF \nPRESENTING COHERENT COMPLIANCE \nAND ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM TO THE \nPUBLIC. OVER TIME I’M CONFIDENT \nTHAT’S GOING TO MEAN WE HAVE \nLESS ENFORCEMENT PROBLEMS IN THE \nFUTURE. THAT’S REALLY \nENCOURAGING\, ESPECIALLY THE \nDISCUSSION OF COMPLIANCE. THANK \nYOU. \n>>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: YES\, \nSIR. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: THANK YOU\, \nCHAIR GILMORE\, FOR THOSE \nREMARKS. I KNOW THE ENFORCEMENT \nTEAM TAKES HEART IN THAT BECAUSE \nTHEY HAVE A JOB THAT IS REALLY \nDIFFERENT CANDIDLY THAN ANYBODY \nELSE AT BCDC. THEY HAVE TO BE \nTHE BAD GUYS. AND IT’S NOT EASY \nTO DO THAT WITH A SMILE ON YOUR \nFACE THROUGH THE DAY. BUT THEY \nSOMEHOW DO. AND I WILL SAY THAT \nTHINKING OF STRATEGIC PLANS AND \nTHE LIKE\, THERE WAS NO \nCONSIDERATION\, REALLY\, OF \nPUTTING ENFORCEMENT IN REALLY A \nSTRATEGIC PLAN WHEN WE STARTED \nBECAUSE THERE REALLY WASN’T \nANYTHING TO TALK ABOUT EXCEPT WE \nNEED TO DO IT BETTER. AND NOW I \nTHINK WE’RE DEMONSTRATING TO THE \nPUBLIC\, I KNOW WE’RE \nDEMONSTRATING TO THE RESOURCES \nAGENCY THAT WE’RE DOING IT \nWELL. \nAND I THINK IT’S REALLY\, REALLY \nIMPORTANT TO KEEP ON HEARING \nFROM MATTHEW THROUGH THE YEAR TO \nGIVE UPDATES BECAUSE I WANT — I \nWANT US TO SEE THAT 71 NUMBER \nGETTING DOWN TO 50. I MEAN\, \nYOU’RE NEVER PROBABLY GOING TO \nGET BELOW 50\, BUT IF YOU CAN GET \nIT DOWN TO 50\, THAT IS — THAT \nWOULD JUST BE REMARKABLE. AND \nTHE PROBLEM WITH THAT OR THE \nDIFFICULTY WITH THAT — AND IME \nLOOKING — AND I’M LOOKING AT \nMATTHEW AND I THINK I AGREES — \nTHE OLDER CASES AND THE OLDEST \nCASES TAKES SO LONG TO DO\, YOU \nHAVE TO HAVE A PORTFOLIO OF \nDOING THOSE WITH OTHER THINGS AT \nTHE SAME TIME. SO I DON’T KNOW \nWHEN WE’RE GOING TO GET DOWN TO \n50\, BUT I THINK IT’S A GREAT \nGOAL TO DO\, ESPECIALLY \nCONSIDERING\, MATTHEW\, THAT WE \nWERE AT 230-SOMETHING WHEN WE \nSTARTED THIS\, IS THAT RIGHT? \n>>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: YEAH\, JUST \nABOUT. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: SO I THINK \nTHAT SAYS A LOT ABOUT STAFF AND \nSTAFF’S WORK SO THANK YOU VERY \nMUCH FOR ALL YOUR SUPPORT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: AND \nI CERTAINLY WANT TO ECHO THANKS \nTO THE STAFF FOR ALL THAT WORK \nAND THIS FAVORABLE REPORT AND \nTHANK COMMISSIONER GILMORE AND \nOTHER MEMBERS OF THE ENFORCEMENT \nCOMMITTEE FOR THEIR EFFORTS IN \nTHIS AS WELL. ALL RIGHT. THAT \nBRINGS US TO ITEM 10\, BRIEFING \nON THE SAN FRANCISCO WATERFRONT \nCOASTAL FLOOD STUDY DRAFT \nPLAN. \nBCDC’S PLANNING DIRECTOR JESSICA \nFAIN WILL INTRODUCE THE MATTER. \n>>JESSICA FAIN: THANK YOU AND \nGOOD AFTERNOON\, COMMISSIONERS. \nI’LL KEEP THIS BRIEF AND LET THE \nPORT AND ARMY CORPS DO MOST OF \nTHE TALKING BUT OUR NEXT ITEM IS \nON THIS DRAFT\, SAN FRANCISCO \nWATERFRONT COASTAL FLOOD STUDY \nPLAN\, A COLLABORATION BETWEEN \nTHE PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO AND \nTHE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS \nTO ADDRESS COASTAL FLOOD RISK \nAND THE AFFECTED SEA LEVEL RISE \nACROSS 7 1/2 MILES OF THE SAN \nFRANCISCO WATERFRONT FROM \nAQUATIC PARK TO HERRON’S HEAD \nPARK. AND WE’LL START BY TURNING \nIT OVER TO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR \nLANE FORBES FROM THE SPORT OF \nSAN FRANCISCO. \n>>LANE FORBES: GOOD AFTERNOON\, \nCOMMISSIONERS. \n>>ELAINE FORBES: I’M REALLY \nPROUD OF THIS MOMENT BECAUSE IT \nREFLECTS MANY\, MANY YEARS OF \nANALYSIS AND WORK TO BE AT THIS \nPOINT AND SO WE’RE HAPPY TO BE \nAT THIS POINT AND TALK TO YOU \nABOUT THE DRAFT PLAN. YOU \nKNOW\, PROTECTING THE SAN \nFRANCISCO WATERFRONT FROM SEA \nLEVEL RISE AND THE IMMINENT \nTHREAT OF EARTHQUAKE HAS BEEN A \nSERIOUS MATTER AND SOMETHING WE \nMUST ADDRESS BUT SOMETHING \nTHAT’S ALSO REALLY\, REALLY \nCHALLENGING TO FIGURE OUT \nEXACTLY HOW \nTO ADDRESS SO I WANT TO SAY WE \nAPPRECIATE THE GUIDANCE AND NEED \nTHE GUIDANCE OF BCDC IN THIS \nMISSION AS WE ENDEAVOR FOR A \nSAFE AND FLOOD-RESILIENT SAN \nFRANCISCO WATERFRONT. WE’VE HIT \nTHIS MILESTONE AND WE STARTED IN \n2018 ASKING THE SAN FRANCISCO \nVOTERS TO HELP US FIGURE OUT \nTHIS BIG PROBLEM WITH A \n$425 MILLION BOND AND WE’VE \nWORKED VERY CAREFULLY WITH THE \nARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WHO HAVE \nGUIDED US IN HAVING A PLAN OF \nSOLUTION. WE STARTED WITH A LOT \nOF PROBLEMS AND NOW WE HAVE A \nDRAFT PLAN OF SOLUTIONS. \nWHAT DOES THIS PLAN DO? YOU’LL \nSEE FROM OUR TEAM THAT IT WILL \nHAVE THE FLOOD RISK AND THE SEA \nLEVEL RISE ON THE WATERFRONT AND \nTHE CITY AND THE SAN FRANCISCO \nTHAT THE SEA WALL AND OTHER \nPARTS OF OUR WATERFRONT \nPROTECT. THE PLAN IS SHOWING \nHOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND \nTHE POTENTIAL FEDERAL INTEREST \nWOULD RESPOND TO THIS PROBLEM \nAND HOW THEY WOULD BUILD FLOOD \nDEFENSES THAT REALLY TALK ABOUT \nHOW HIGH WE NEED TO GO\, HOW \nWIDE WE NEED TO MAKE THAT \nADAPTATION AND WHERE WE SHOULD \nBUILD THE LINE OF DEFENSE. \nYOU’LL SEE TODAY DOING SO IS AN \nEXPENSIVE ENDEAVOR. \nMULTI-BILLION DOLLARS AT THIS \nPOINT ESTIMATED AT $13 BILLION. \nBUT THAT IS A VERY\, VERY NOT \nDEFINED ESTIMATE WITH THAT \nDESIGN\, ETC.\, BUT IT IS GOING TO \nBE AN EXPENSIVE ENDEAVOR. THE \nONE AMAZING THING IS AS WE MOVE \nFORWARD\, WE WILL HAVE THE ARMY \nCORPS POTENTIALLY INVESTING 65 \nCENTS TO EVERY DOLLAR OF THE \nPLAN — OF THIS PROJECT. AND SO \nTHAT WOULD REPRESENT FOR SAN \nFRANCISCO ONE OF OUR BIGGEST \nFEDERAL INVESTMENTS IN \nINFRASTRUCTURE. SO IT’S A \nTREMENDOUS OPPORTUNITY FOR \nPARTNERSHIP. I WANT TO SAY THAT \nTHE ARMY CORPS HAS BEEN TERRIFIC \nIN FIGURING OUT HOW TO DEVELOP A \nPLAN THAT IS RESPONDING TO \nUNKNOWN CONDITIONS OR FUTURE \nCONDITIONS THAT WILL BE \nCHANGING. AND THIS IS THE FIRST \nMAJOR PLAN WHERE THEY HAVE \nDESIGNED TO UNKNOWN CONDITIONS. \nSO YOU’LL SEE MONITORING AND \nPHASED ACTIONS\, ETC. THE ARMY \nCORPS HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THINGS \nJUST BEYOND COST BENEFITS AND \nYOU’LL SEE OUR VALUES RELATED TO \nEQUITY\, RELATED TO ECOLOGY\, \nRELATED TO A NUMBER OF THINGS \nTHAT MATTER FOR US IN TERMS OF \nHOW WE WOULD PREPARED FOR AND \nDELIVER THE WATERFRONT OF THE \nFUTURE. WE DO HAVE A MILESTONE \nHERE BUT WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK \nAHEAD. WE’RE GOING TO THE PUBLIC \nWITH THIS PLAN AND\, OF COURSE\, \nWE WILL BE WORKING VERY \nCAREFULLY WITH YOUR STAFF AND \nWITH YOU\, COMMISSIONERS\, ON HOW \nTHIS PLAN EVOLVES. WE — WHILE \nWE HAVE A SENSE OF THE \nFOUNDATION AND THE WORK WE NEED \nTO DO TO PREPARE FOR THE SEA \nLEVEL RISE\, WE DON’T HAVE \nDESIGNS FOR WHAT IS ON TOP YET. \nSO WE WANT OUR FUTURE WATERFRONT \nTO BE AT LEAST AS WONDERFUL AND \nPUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE AS WE HAVE \nTODAY SO WE WANT TO LEVERAGE \nOTHER PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE \nINVESTMENTS\, OUR UPGRADES\, OTHER \nPUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND \nUNDERSTANDING WHAT THE CITY AND \nSTATE WANT TO ACCOMPLISH FOR \nTHIS WATERFRONT. I ALSO WANT TO \nLET YOU KNOW CONSTRUCTION WILL \nINEVITABLY HAPPEN OVER DECADES. \nTHERE WILL BE SEQUENCES AND WE \nWILL BE LEVERAGING OPPORTUNITIES \nTO DO THIS SO THE PUBLIC \nMAINTAINS MAXIMUM EXPERIENCE OF \nTHE SAN FRANCISCO WATERFRONT AS \nWE FIGURE OUT HOW TO \nADAPT. OF COURSE\, THE \nIMPLEMENTATION PLAN WILL\, OF \nCOURSE\, TAKE DECADES — \nTHE IMPLEMENTATION IS CRITICAL \nAND WILL TAKE DECADES TO \nIMPLEMENT. SO WE HAVE AMPLE TIME \nTO LOOK AT THE REGULATORY AND \nPOLICY CHANGES THAT INEVITABLY \nWILL NEED TO HAPPEN IN ORDER TO \nBUILD A RESILIENT WATERFRONT\, \nAND WE’RE LOOKING FORWARD TO \nDOING THAT WORK. SO I THINK I \nWILL END WITH AND TURN IT OVER \nTO MY STAFF TO SAY THANK YOU. \nTHANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP TO \nDATE. THANK YOU FOR THE WORK \nTHAT IS TO COME. AS WE MARCH \nFORWARD AND FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO \nVERY — HOW TO TACKLE A VERY BIG \nCHALLENGE ON AN OLD CITY’S HARD \nURBAN EDGE AND SOUTHERN \nWATERFRONT WITH INDUSTRIAL USES \nBUT ALSO MAJOR OPPORTUNITIES FOR \nCOMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT. SO WE \nAPPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT AND WE \nAPPRECIATE YOUR GUIDANCE AS WE \nMOVE THROUGH THIS PROJECT. SO \nWITH THAT I’LL TURN IT OVER TO \nMY TEAM. \n>>BRAD BENSON: THANK YOU\, \nELAINE. I AM THE WATERFRONT \nDIRECTOR. WE WANT TO THANK YOU \nFOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT \nAND ENGAGE WITH STAFF. I \nAM ONLINE IS MELINDA FISHER WHO \nIS THE ENVIRONMENTAL LEAD FOR \nTHE ARMY CORPS TEAM. MELINDA IS \nAVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ON \nTHE PRESENTATION\, AND WE JUST \nREALLY WANT TO EMPHASIZE THE \nPARTNERSHIP ELEMENT OF THIS \nWORK. THIS REALLY IS \nCOLLABORATION BETWEEN THE PORT \nAND THE ARMY CORPS TO PRODUCE \nBOTH THE REPORT AND THE DRAFT \nPLAN THAT I’M GOING TO GO \nTHROUGH. AND I’LL TRY AND MOVE \nTHROUGH QUICKLY SO WE CAN GET TO \nPOLICY DISCUSSION WITH THE \nCOMMISSION. NEXT SLIDE\, \nPLEASE. \nSO AS I THINK MANY OF YOU KNOW\, \nTHE WAY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT \nDECIDES TO INVEST IN WATER \nRESOURCES PROJECTS IS THROUGH \nTHE ARMY CORPS\, THROUGH A \nVARIETY OF GENERAL \nINVESTIGATIONS. WE WERE LUCKY TO \nGET THIS GENERAL INVESTIGATION \nOF COASTAL FLOOD RISK IN 2018. A \nLOT OF HELP FROM OUR \nCONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION IN \nTHAT. THE STUDY IS LOOKING AT AN \nUNUSUALLY LONG PERIOD OF TIME. \nINSTEAD OF 50 YEARS\, 100 YEARS \nFROM 2040 TO 2140. IT’S REALLY \nAN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS TO GUIDE \nTHE RECOMMENDATION TO CONGRESS \nABOUT WHETHER TO INVEST FEDERAL \nFUNDING. AS ELAINE MENTIONED\, \nIT’S A VERY HIGH LEVEL DRAFT \nPLAN AT THIS STAGE. VERY LITTLE \nENGINEERING. JUST ENOUGH TO GET \nTO THIS HIGH LEVEL COST ESTIMATE \nOF $13.5 BILLION. WE EXPECT THAT \nNUMBER TO CHANGE\, AND WE WILL \nKEEP ON SAYING THAT BECAUSE WE \nDON’T WANT FOLKS TO BE SURPRISED \nBY CHANGES IN THE NUMBERS OVER \nTIME. EXCITED THAT THERE IS SUCH \nA POTENTIALLY LARGE FEDERAL\, YOU \nKNOW\, COST SHARE OF 65%. EVEN \nTHE 35% THAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT \nHERE IS A HUGE AMOUNT OF FUNDING \nFOR THE CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO TO \nCOME UP IN THE CONTEXT OF THE \nCITY’S 10-YEAR CAPITAL PLAN. \nWE’LL NEED OTHER SOURCES\, \nINCLUDING STATE SOURCES\, TO \nACCOMPLISH A MATCH ON THIS \nSCALE. I MENTIONED THE \nCOLLABORATION. THE PORT IS THE \nCITY’S LEAD AGENCY\, BUT WE’RE \nVERY KEEN TO INVOLVE OTHER CITY \nAGENCIES. THE WAY SAN FRANCISCO \nIS BUILT OUT\, WE HAVE MAJOR \nINFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS RIGHT UP \nAT THE SHORELINE SO WE NEED \nSFPUC\, PUBLIC WORKS AT THE \nTABLE HELPING US THINK ABOUT \nTHIS PLAN\, HOW TO REFINE IT \nGOING FORWARD. NEXT SLIDE\, \nPLEASE. \nWE’D LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE \nARE ON UNCREDITED ANCESTRAL \nHOMELAND OF THE RAMAYTUSH \nOHLONE WHO ARE THE ORIGINAL \nINHABITANTS OF THE SAN \nFRANCISCO PENINSULA. \nIN ACCORDANCE TO THEIR \nTRADITIONS\, THE RAMAYTUSH \nOHLONE HAVE NEVER CREDITED — \nCEDED\, LOST NOR FORGOTTEN THEIR \nRESPONSIBILITIES AS THE \nCARETAKERS OF THIS PLACE\, AS \nWELL AS FOR ALL PEOPLES WHO \nRESIDE IN THEIR TRADITIONAL \nTERRITORY. AS GUESTS\, WE \nRECOGNIZE THAT WE BENEFIT FROM \nLIVING AND WORKING ON THEIR \nTRADITIONAL HOMELAND. WE WISH TO \nPAY OUR RESPECTS BY \nACKNOWLEDGING THE ANCESTORS\, \nELDERS\, AND RELATIVES OF THE \nCOMMUNITY. NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. \nSO WE HAVE JUST PUBLISHED A LOT \nOF INFORMATION ABOUT THIS STUDY \nAND THE DRAFT PLAN. WE’VE TRIED \nTO MAKE IT ACCESSIBLE ON THE \nPORT’S WEBSITE. FOLKS CAN SEE A \nSTORY MAP THAT WALKS THROUGH THE \nPLAN AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. WE’VE \nALSO GOT THE FULL REPORT \nAVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD\, \nINCLUDING ALL OF THE TECHNICAL\, \nENG ENGINEERING — ENGINEERING\, \nENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS\, \nINCLUDING THE IMPACT ANALYSIS. \nNEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. WE’RE IN \nTHIS VERY CRITICAL PUBLIC \nCOMMENT PERIOD. WE’VE GOT A \nDRAFT PLAN. THE WAY TO THINK \nABOUT THIS PLAN\, IT’S THE WORK \nOF THE DELIVERY TEAM\, THE ARMY \nSTAFF AND PORT STAFF AND \nCONSULTANT TEAM AND IT’S A \nDRAFT. SO WE NEED PUBLIC \nENGAGEMENT AND PUBLIC COMMENT \nDURING THIS PERIOD AND GOING \nFORWARD TO MAKE THIS A BETTER \nPLAN. WE’VE GOT FOUR ARMY \nCORPS-HOSTED NEPA WORKSHOPS \nCOMING UP IN THE LATTER PART OF \nTHE MONTH. AND WE’VE GOT \nMULTIPLE OTHER WAYS FOR MEMBERS \nOF THE PUBLIC TO ENGAGE. NEXT \nSLIDE\, PLEASE. SO I’M GOING TO \nGO OVER BRIEFLY WATERFRONT RISKS \nAND HAZARDS\, WHICH I THINK \nYOU’RE VERY FAMILIAR WITH. I’LL \nTALK ABOUT WHERE WE ARE IN THIS \nSTUDY AND NEXT STEPS. GO OVER \nTHE DRAFT PLAN AT THE HIGHEST \nLEVEL AND THEN\, YOU KNOW\, TALK A \nLITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW WE’RE GOING \nTO BE FURTHER ENGAGING WITH THE \nPUBLIC. NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. SO \nAS WE’RE THINKING ABOUT \nWATERFRONT RISKS AND HAZARDS\, \nWE’RE THINKING ABOUT IT THROUGH \nTHE LENS OF HOW PEOPLE USE THE \nWATERFRONT TODAY. NEXT \nSLIDE. AS DIRECTOR FORBES \nMENTIONED\, WE HAVE AN AMAZING \nWATERFRONT THAT IS HOST TO A LOT \nOF VISITORS SERVING USING\, \nMARITIME FUNCTIONS\, INDUSTRIAL \nUSES ACROSS THE WATERFRONT\, \nNATURAL AREAS LIKE THE HERON’S \nHEAD PARK AREA AND WETLANDS. SO \nWHEN WE’RE TALKING ABOUT RISKS\, \nWE’RE LOOKING AT IT THROUGH THIS \nLENS AND WE’RE ALSO LOOKING AT \nTHE INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITY THAT \nWE’RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY AS AN \nOPPORTUNITY TO LEAVE THE PLACE \nEVEN BETTER THAN IT IS TODAY. \nNEXT SLIDE. SO WE KNOW THAT WE \nHAVE CURRENT FLOOD RISKS IN THE \nCREEKS\, BOTH MISSION CREEK AND \nISLAIS CREEK. THE \nCITY’S RECYCLING FACILITY IS \nLOCATED. \nTHEY GET REGULARLY FLOODED \nDURING KING TIDE EVENTS. ON THE \nLEFT-HAND SIDE OF THIS SLIDE IS \nTHE BOMB CYCLONE THAT OCCURRED \nIN MARCH\, 2023. HAD THIS \nOCCURRED AT AN EXTREME TIDE \nELEVATION\, WE WOULD HAVE \nEXPERIENCED MUCH MORE IN THE WAY \nOF FLOOD DAMAGES. AND WE’RE \nMOSTLY CONCERNED IN THIS AREA \nRIGHT NOW WITH THE EMBARK DARROW \n— EMBARCADERO PORTAL AND THAT \nCONNECTS DOWN TO THE SUBWAY AND \nBART. WE’RE BEING REMINDED OF \nPOTENTIAL FIRST ACTIONS THAT \nCOULD DEAL WITH THE CURRENT \nFLOOD RISK SO WE DON’T HAVE A \nSANDY TYPE OF EXPERIENCE WITH \nOUR SUBWAY. NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. \nWE’VE LEARNED THROUGH THE STUDY \nTHAT SAN FRANCISCO IS VERY \nVULNERABLE TO SEA LEVEL RISE. \nESSENTIALLY WITHOUT ACTION\, \nFEDERAL ACTION\, MUCH OF THE AREA \nTHAT WAS FILLED OVER THE LAST \nCENTURY AND MORE FROM MARITIME \nAND RELATED PURPOSES WOULD BE \nRECLAIMED BY THE BAY ON THE HIGH \nSEA LEVEL RISE PROJECTIONS. \nWITHOUT A FEDERAL PROJECT\, THE \nMODELING IN THE STUDY SHOWS BY \n2050 WHEN WE EXPECT UP TO A FOOT \nOF SEA LEVEL RISE UP TO 500 \nSTRUCTURES AND ASSETS WOULD BE \nVUL VERBAL NO — VULNERABLE TO \nFLOODING. AND BY 2140\, DAMAGES \nCOULD AMOUNT UP TO $23 BILLION. \nAND THAT’S ONE OF THE FACTORS\, \nNOT THE ONLY FACTOR\, THAT WILL \nLEAD THE ARMY CORPS TO A \nPOTENTIAL FEDERAL INTEREST \nFINDING EFFORT. NEXT SLIDE\, \nPLEASE. \n>>SPEAKER: CAN I MAKE ONE POINT \nON THE SLIDE AND APPRECIATE \nTHIS? ONE OF THE THINGS WE’VE \nDONE IN PRESENTATIONS ABOUT SEA \nLEVEL RISE\, THE BAY AREA \nGENERALLY\, IS COMPARE THE COST \nOF DOING NOTHING TO THE COST OF \nATTEMPTING TO MITIGATE OR FIX \nIT. AND THIS WOULD BE A GOOD \nSLIDE FOR YOU TO MAYBE PUT DOWN \nTHE NUMBERS OF WHAT THE \nESTIMATED COST WOULD BE TO THE \nINFRASTRUCTURE AND THE CITY IF \nNOTHING IS DONE. I KNOW YOU \nPROBABLY TALK ABOUT THAT\, \nGENERALLY. I KNOW YOU HAVE. IT \nJUST SEEMS TO ME — IT’S ALWAYS \nSTARK WHENEVER WE SAY HOW MUCH\, \nWHEN WE TALK ABOUT THIS\, WE \nALWAYS SORT OF REPEAT THIS IF \nWE’RE GOING TO TRY TO GET \nSUPPORT IN THE BAY AREA NOR ANY \nFUNDING — FOR ANY \nFUNDING. \n>>BRAD BENSON: AND WE HAD \nSEISMIC HAZARD ON THE \nEMBARCADERO WATERFRONT. WE KNOW \nTHE FILL AREAS BEHIND THE SEA \nWALL AND UNDER THE SEA WALL ARE \nWEAK AREAS THAT WILL NOT PERFORM \nWELL IN AN EARTHQUAKE AND YOU \nSEE THE POTENTIAL DAMAGE THE \nBOTTOM RIGHT PHOTO HERE IS \nLATERAL SPREADING ALONG THE \nEMBARCADERO POST-1909 RIGHT NEAR \nTHE PIER 26 CRUISE TERMINAL \nTODAY AND THOSE SOIL CONDITIONS \nCONTINUE TO EXIST. THE ARMY \nCORPS STUDY QUOTES THE PORT’S \nMULTI-HAZARD RISK ASSESSMENT AND \nTHE REASON I’M SHARING IT TODAY \nIS THE ARMY CORPS DRAFT PLAN \nDOESN’T DEAL WITH ALL OF THE \nEARTHQUAKE RISK ALONG THE \nWATERFRONT. BUT THIS INFORMATION \nIS HELPING US THINK ABOUT HOW TO \nDESIGN COASTAL FLOOD DEFENSES SO \nTHAT THEY WON’T FAIL IN A MAJOR \nEARTHQUAKE. AND THAT’S A BIG \nIMPROVEMENT TO THE WATERFRONT \nTHAT WE HAVE TODAY. NEXT SLIDE\, \nPLEASE. SO THIS STUDY IS REALLY \nLOOKING AT THE 7 1/2 MILES OF \nTHE PORT INJURIES DICTION FROM \nHERON’S HEAD PARK UP TO AQUATIC \nPARK. THERE ARE OTHER EFFORTS \nONGOING IN THE CITY LED BY OTHER \nCITY DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE \nLOOKING AT THE OTHER AREAS OF \nTHE CITY’S PENINSULA. AND THE \nCITY’S SEA LEVEL RISE ACTION \nPLAN POINTS TO A UNIFIED PLAN \nFOR COASTAL FLOOD DEFENSE ON \nBOTH BAY AND OCEAN SIDE. THIS IS \nA BIG STEPPED TOWARD — BIG STEP \nTOWARDS THAT BUT IT’S GOT THE \nWHOLE EFFORT. NEXT SLIDE\, \nPLEASE. SO GETTING INTO THE \nFLOOD STUDY — NEXT SLIDE\, \nPLEASE. WE’VE BEEN AT IT SINCE \n2018. WE’RE AT THIS GREAT \nMILESTONE WHERE WE HAVE A DRAFT \nPLAN. WE ACTUALLY HAVE SOMETHING \nTO SHOW TO THE PUBLIC TO GET \nFEEDBACK ON. WE’RE GOING TO BE \nGETTING TECHNICAL FEEDBACK \nTHROUGH AGENCIES\, INCLUDING \nTECHNICAL FEEDBACK FROM OTHER \nELEMENTS OF THE ARMY CORPS. AND \nTHAT WILL HELP US BUILD A BETTER \nPLAN THAT CAN BE A RECOMMENDED \nPLAN THAT THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS \nWOULD RECOMMEND TO CONGRESS IN \n2026. IT’S ONLY IF CONGRESS \nAUTHORIZES THE PROJECT THAT THAT \nWOULD OPEN THE DOOR TO FUNDING \nFOR DESIGN AND LATER \nCONSTRUCTION. AND WE DON’T \nEXPECT CONSTRUCTION TO START \nUNTIL AFTER 2030. AND\, AGAIN\, \nLIKELY IT WOULD OCCUR OVER \nDECADES. NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. SO \nWE HAVE ASSESSED MULTIPLE \nSCENARIOS FOR SEA LEVEL RISE. \nTHE ARMY CORPS HAS ONE SET OF \nPROJECTIONS THAT THEY TYPICALLY \nUSE IN THEIR PLANNING. WE’VE \nALSO USED THE O.P.C. PROJECTIONS \nTO LOOK AT DIFFERENT SCENARIOS. \nAND ESSENTIALLY\, THE WAY TO \nTHINK ABOUT THE PLAN IS WE’RE \nNOT PICKING ONE SCENARIO TO \nINFORM THE PLANNING PROCESS. \nWE’RE LOOKING AT HOW PLANS \nRESPOND TO A RANGE OF SEA LEVEL \nRISE SCENARIOS AND COMING UP \nWITH AN ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT \nSTRATEGY THAT CAN RESPOND TO ALL \nOF THOSE SCENARIOS. NEXT SLIDE\, \nPLEASE. SO ESSENTIALLY\, THE PATH \nTO THE DRAFT PLAN HAS BEEN THAT \nRISK ANALYSIS\, LOOKING AT THE \nFLOOD RISK AND IMPACTS TO \nCOMMUNITIES. WE’VE BEEN OUT \nPUBLICLY TRYING TO ENGAGE AND \nUNDERSTAND PUBLIC VALUES FOR THE \nWATERFRONT OVER THE LAST SIX \nYEARS. IN LATE 2023\, WE ISSUED \nSEVEN DRAFT STRATEGIES THAT \nLOOKED AT THINGS FROM RETREATING \nTO DEFENDING AT THE CURRENT \nSHORELINE TO LIVING WITH WATER \nIN SOME LOCATIONS. WE GOT \nFEEDBACK ON THOSE DIFFERENT \nSTRATEGIES. AND THEN WENT INTO \nSORT OF A PROCESS WITH CITY \nAGENCIES AND THE ARMY CORPS’S \nCOST AND BENEFIT ANALYSIS \nPROCESS TO SELECT THE BEST \nELEMENTS OF THOSE STRATEGIES TO \nCOME UP WITH THE DRAFT PLAN. \nNEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. SO THESE ARE \nTHE PUBLIC VALUES THAT WE’VE \nHEARD MOST REPEATED IN THE \nPUBLIC PROCESS. I WON’T GO \nTHROUGH EACH OF THESE\, BUT IT’S \nBEEN THE JOB OF THE PORT’S \nPLANNING TEAM TO BRING THESE \nVALUES FORWARD IN THE PLANNING \nPROCESS\, AND NOW WE’RE GOING TO \nGO THROUGH A PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT \nPROCESS TO SEE HOW THE PUBLIC \nTHINKS ABOUT HOW WE’VE \nINCORPORATED THOSE IN THE PLAN. \nNEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. THE ARMY \nCORPS\, HISTORICALLY\, HAS LOOKED \nAT THE MOST ECONOMICALLY \nEFFICIENT PROJECT TO ADDRESS THE \nFLOOD PROBLEM. IT’S SOMETHING \nCALLED THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC \nDEVELOPMENT PLAN. AND THAT HAS \nGOVERNED CORPS PLANNING FOR MUCH \nOF THE PAST 30 YEARS. THEY’RE AN \nORGANIZATION IN CHANGE. THEY \nHAVE NEW GUIDANCE FROM THE \nA.S.A.\, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF \nTHE ARMY\, TO LOOK AT \nCOMPREHENSIVE BENEFITS. THIS IS \nWHAT DIRECTOR FORBES WAS TALKING \nABOUT EARLIER. SO WE’RE LOOKING \nAT REGIONAL EFFECTS OF THE PLAN\, \nENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES\, LIKE \nHABITAT AND ENVIRONMENTAL \nIMPACTS\, AND THEN OTHER SOCIAL \nEFFECTS THAT PARTICULARLY \nIMPACTS VULNERABLE POPULATIONS. \nSO THE STUDY HAS METRICS IN EACH \nOF THESE CATEGORIES THAT HELPED \nINFORM PLAN SELECTION AND WE \nTHINK THIS IS A BETTER WAY TO \nGET TO A MULTI-BENEFIT PLAN. \nNEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. THIS IS — \nTHIS IS A FIRST\, A BIT OF A \nFIRST FOR THE ARMY CORPS. \nTYPICALLY WHEN THEY COME INTO A \nLOCAL JURISDICTION\, THEY’RE \nIDENTIFYING A FLOODING PROBLEM. \nTHEY COME UP WITH A PLAN\, \nIMPLEMENT IT\, AND HAND IT OFF \nFOR LOCAL MAINTENANCE. SO \nKIND OF A ONE AND DONE \nSCENARIO. HERE WE’RE LOOKING AT \nMANAGING RISK OVER TIME. SO THE \nPLAN INCLUDES FIRST ACTIONS THAT \nREPRESENT THAT $13.5 BILLION \nTHAT WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER. \nAND THEN\, MONITORING\, LOOKING AT \nGREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS\, RATES \nOF ICE SHEET MELT\, OTHER FACTORS \nINFLUENCING SEA LEVEL RISE TO \nDETERMINE THE TIMING OF \nSUBSEQUENT ADAPTATIONS TO \nADDRESS HIGHER RATES OF SEA \nLEVEL RISE. AND THEN THE EARLY \nPROJECTS THAT YOU SEE HERE ARE \nRELATED TO THE PROP AND FUNDING \nWE — PROP A THAT WE GOT FROM \nSAN FRANCISCO VOTERS. NEXT \nSLIDE\, PLEASE. DIRECTOR FORBES \nREALLY WENT OVER THIS. THE PLAN \nIS TRYING TO ANSWER THESE VERY \nHIGH-LEVEL QUESTIONS ABOUT WHERE \nTO BUILD FLOOD DEFENSES\, HOW \nHIGH. AND YOU’LL SEE THAT VARIES \nIN DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE \nWATERFRONT. HOW MUCH SPACE TO \nUSE. WE’RE TRYING TO GAIN \nELEVATION OVER SPACE TO MAINTAIN \nTHE CONNECTION WITH THE BAY. \nTHAT ALSO HELPS US ADDRESS THOSE \nWEAK SOIL CONDITIONS THAT I \nSHOWED YOU EARLIER. AND THEN HOW \nFLOOD DEFENSES CAN BE ADAPTED \nTHROUGH SUBSEQUENT ACTION. NEXT \nSLIDE\, PLEASE. WE’RE VERY EARLY \nIN THE PROCESS SO WE DON’T HAVE \nANY DETAILED DESIGN OF THESE \nFLOOD DEFENSES. WE HAVEN’T \nDESIGNED THE PUBLIC REALM YET. \nWE DON’T HAVE THAT CONSTRUCTION \nSEQUENCES OR PLAN FOR THE LOCAL \nMATCH. WE TEND TO DEVELOP THAT \nIN LATER STAGES OF WORK WITH \nROBUST PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT. AND WE \nNEED TO THINK ABOUT — OTHER \nINVESTMENTS THAT ARE HAPPENING \nALONG THE WATERFRONT\, WHETHER \nIT’S IN PIERS ALONG THE PORT\, \nWHETHER IT’S OTHER \nINFRASTRUCTURE. AND THEN HOW DO \nWE KNIT THIS ARMY CORPS \nINVESTMENTS WITH OTHER \nINVESTMENTS THAT ARE HAPPENING \nAROUND THE WATERFRONT IN A \nRATIONAL WAY? NEXT SLIDE\, \nPLEASE. SO THE DRAFT REPORT THAT \nIS OUT ON THE STREET RIGHT NOW \nINCLUDES AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT \nSTATEMENT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE \nNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY \nACT. AND THERE’S OTHER FEDERAL \nLAWS THAT THE ARMY CORPS WILL \nHAVE TO COMPLY WITH IN ORDER TO \nGET THIS PROJECT AND STUDY OFF \nTHE GROUND INCLUDING COMPLIANCE \nUNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT\, THE \nNATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION \nACT AND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES \nACT. AND BCDC IS WORKING WITH \nOUR WORKING GROUP. AND WE \nAPPRECIATE THE STAFF AND OTHER \nAGENCIES WHO ARE PROVIDING \nFEEDBACK ON THE PLAN. NEXT \nSLIDE\, PLEASE. THIS IS A LOT OF \nINFORMATION ON THIS SLIDE\, BUT \nWE WANTED TO SUMMARIZE JUST THE \nVERY HIGH LEVEL ENVIRONMENTAL \nIMPACT ANALYSIS. IT’S INFORMED \nBY THE LEVEL OF DESIGN THAT WE \nHAVE RIGHT NOW. SO WE HAVE A \nLOW-LEVEL OF DESIGN. THE IMPACT \nANALYSIS FOLLOWS WHAT WE KNOW \nTODAY. YOU KNOW\, IT HAS LOOKED \nAT APPROXIMATELY 50 RESOURCES \nLOOKING AT BAY FILL\, YOU KNOW\, \nETC.\, ACROSS THE TOP. WE ARE \nSEEING IN THE PLAN VERY LIMITED \nBAY FILL. ACTUALLY\, THE EIGHT \nACRES YOU’RE SEEING HERE RELATES \nTO SOME POTENTIAL ADDITIONS TO \nTHE PLAN THAT ARE OPTIONS FOR \nTHE FERRY BUILDING. AN AREA JUST \nSOUTH OF THE FERRY BUILDING THAT \nIS VERY CONSTRAINED. YOU HAVE \nTHE TUNNEL RIGHT NEAR THE \nSHORELINE. SO WE’RE TRYING TO \nPROVIDE SOME FLEXIBILITY IN THE \nENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FOR \nFUTURE DESIGN. NEXT SLIDE\, \nPLEASE. SO JUST GOING THROUGH \nTHE DRAFT PLAN\, NEXT \nSLIDE. THIS PRESENTS THE DRAFT \nPLAN AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. WHAT \nYOU’RE SEEING HERE IN YELLOW IS \nTHE GENERAL AREA ALONG THE \nEXISTING SHORELINE THAT WOULD BE \nELEVATED TO DEAL WITH EITHER A \nFOOT AND A HALF OF SEA LEVEL \nRISE OR 3 1/2 FEET OF SEA LEVEL \nRISE. THAT 3 1/2 FEET IS REALLY \nBETWEEN THE BAY BRIDGE AND \nTELEGRAPH HILL AND I’LL GET INTO \nWHY. THE SHORELINE WOULD BE \nSTABILIZED IN THAT AREA. WE’RE \nLOOKING TO ADD NATURE-BASED \nFEATURES WHEREVER WE CAN. \nADOPTING THE HISTORIC RESOURCES \nTHAT STRADDLE THE SHORELINE. \nTHEN\, AS WE RAISE THE SHORELINE \n— AND I THINK YOU’RE AWARE OF \nTHIS — WE HAVE A STORMWATER \nISSUE. THE CITY OPERATES NOW \nRELYING ON THE COMBINED SEWER \nSYSTEM BUT EXTREME RAIN EVENTS \nTRAVEL ALONG THE STREETS AND \nFIND LOW POINTS IN THE \nSHORELINE\, WE’RE GOING TO HAVE \nTO COME UP WITH A NEW SYSTEM FOR \nMANAGING THAT STORMWATER THROUGH \nSTORAGE AND PUMPING\, GREEN \nINFRASTRUCTURE\, AND OTHER \nSTRATEGIES. AND THE PLAN \nINCLUDES FUNDING FOR THAT. \nAND THEN I’LL POINT OUT IN THE \nFISHERMAN’S WHARF AREA\, IT’S A \nBIT HIGHER THERE. WE’RE SEEING \nLESS FLOOD DAMAGES IN THE NEAR \nTERM. SO THE INITIAL STRATEGY IN \nTHE WHARF AREA IS FLOOD-PROOFING \nOF INDIVIDUAL BUILDINGS AND \nPIERS. LET ME GO INTO SOME OF \nTHOSE DETAILS AND THEN I’LL WRAP \nUP. NEXT SLIDE\, \nPLEASE. \nSO THE WHARF AREA IS A FOOT OR \nMORE THAN OTHER AREAS OF THE \nSHORELINE. YOU SEE ON THIS \nSLIDE\, IT’S ALSO PROTECTED IN \nSOME AREAS BY BREAKWATERS WHICH \nKNOCK DOWN WAVE ACTION. AND SO \nTHE PROPOSAL IS FOR A SMALLER \nINITIAL INVESTMENT IN THE WHARF \nTHAT WOULD FLOOD-PROOF \nINDIVIDUAL BUILDINGS AND PUT \nSHORT FLOOD WALLS AROUND PIERS. \nNEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. AS A \nRESULT\, WE’RE REALLY NOT SEEING \nA BIG SORT OF INVESTMENT IN THE \nSHORELINE THAT WOULD DEAL WITH \nTHAT SHORELINE STABILITY \nPROBLEM. AND WE’RE REALLY GOING \nTO HAVE TO RELY ON CITY \nINVESTMENT LIKE OUR PROP A \nPROJECTS TO IMPROVE THE \nSHORELINE. WE HAVE ONE GOING NOW \nTHAT WILL STABILIZE PART OF THAT \nSHORELINE. THROUGH MONITORING\, \nTHE ARMY CORPS PLAN INCLUDES \nMORE LATER\, ROBUST ACTIONS FOR \nTHE WHARF THAT WOULD ELEVATE THE \nSHORELINE. NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. \nIN THIS EMBARCADERO AREA OF THE \nWATERFRONT\, WE’RE SEEING A VERY \nROBUST FIRST MOVE THAT WOULD \nELEVATE THE SHORELINE TO DEAL \nWITH 3 1/2 FEET OF SEA LEVEL \nRISE\, STABILIZE THE SOILS\, RAISE \nTHE FERRY BUILDING\, BUILD NEW \nWHARFS AND PUT BULKHEAD \nBUILDINGS AT HIGHER ELEVATION \nWITH A TRANSITION DOWN TO \nEXISTING PIERS. SO THE PLAN \nDOESN’T ELEVATE THE PIERS\, BUT \nIT PROPOSES TO PUT SHORT FLOOD \nWALLS AROUND THE PIERS. \nTHIS IS PARTLY BECAUSE IT’S \nSUCH A HIGHLY DEVELOPED AREA OF \nTHE WATERFRONT. THE THINK WAS \nGOING ONCE\, DO MAJOR DISRUPTION\, \nAND HAVE IT LAST FOR A MUCH \nLARGER PERIOD OF TIME AND GET \nINTO THIS AREA RATHER THAN \nDISRUPT MULTIPLE TIMES. NEXT \nSLIDE\, PLEASE. THIS SHOWS YOU A \nBIT HOW WE WOULD IMPROVE\, YOU \nKNOW\, THE SOILS UNDER THE \nEMBARCADERO. \nGAIN ELEVATIONS TOWARDS A HIGHER \nSHORELINE TO NEW HIGHER WHARVES \nWITH THE BULKHEAD BUILDINGS \nNEAR THE TOP AND HELP WITH THE \nPIERS. \nNEXT SLIDE. AS A RESULT OF THIS \nROBUST INVESTMENT\, THE PLAN \nDOESN’T INCLUDE A PROPOSED \nSECOND ACTION IN THIS AREA BUT \nWE’RE LOOKING AT SPENDING \nPROPOSITION A FUNDING FOR THINGS \nLIKE DOWNTOWN COASTAL RESILIENCE \nPROJECTS THAT WOULD PROTECT THE \nPORTAL. NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. \nMISSION BAY IS VERY VULNERABLE \nTO FLOODING. THE PLAN HERE WOULD \nRAISE THE SHORELINE TO ADDRESS A \nFOOT AND A HALF OF SEA LEVEL \nRISE WITH GROUND IMPROVEMENTS \nAND STABILIZING THE SHORELINE. \nTHERE’S A LOT MORE OPPORTUNITIES \nFOR NATURE-BASED ADAPTATION. \nTHERE WOULD BE SHORT FLOOD WALLS \nAROUND THE PIERS IN THIS AREA. \nAND THEN NEXT SLIDE. WE HAVE THE \nUNIQUE FEATURE OF THE BRIDGES \nACROSS THE CREEKS\, WHICH ARE A \nPOTENTIAL ENTRY POINT FOR WATER \nDURING EXTREME EVENTS TO GET \nINTO SURROUNDED NEIGHBORHOODS. \nSO AS WE RAISE THE BANKS OF THE \nCREEKS\, WE HAVE TO HAVE \nDEEMPLOYABLES FOR THE BRIDGES \nTO\, YOU KNOW\, THAT CAN BE \nTEMPORARILY DEPLOYED DURING \nEXTREME EVENTS. NEXT SLIDE\, \nPLEASE. SO THAT THE ACTIONS HERE \nGET UP TO A FOOT AND A HALF OF \nSEA LEVEL RISE WITH LATER \nACTIONS TO RAISE THE SHORELINE \nTO ADDRESS 3 1/2 FEET OF SEA \nLEVEL RISE BASED ON THAT \nMONITORING EFFORT. I’LL GO TO \nTHE NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. AND \nFINISH UP WITH THE PORT’S \nSOUTHERN WATERFRONT WHICH IS \nWHERE OUR MARITIME INDUSTRIAL \nFACILITIES ARE. WE GOT LIGHT \nINDUSTRY AND BUS FACILITIES \nAROUND THE CREEK IN THIS AREA. \nHERE WE WOULD BE RAISING THE \nSHORELINE TO DEAL WITH A FOOT \nAND A HALF OF SEA LEVEL RISE \nWITH GROUND IMPROVEMENTS\, \nNATURE-BASED FEATURES IN THE \nCREEKS. THE GATE CLOSURE \nSTRUCTURES ONLY ON THE ILLINOIS \nSTREET BRIDGE BECAUSE THE CITY’S \nIN THE PROCESS OF REPLACING THE \nTHIRD STREETLIGHT RAIL BRIDGE AT \nA HIGHER ELEVATION. SO THAT’S A \nSEPARATE ADAPTATION OUTSIDE OF \nTHE PROJECT. I THINK I’M GOING \nTO TRY AND WRAP UP NOW AND GET \nTO BACK AND FORTH WITH THE \nCOMMISSION. CAN WE GO TO THE \nNEXT SLIDE AND LET’S SKIP OVER \nTHIS? AND SO THE SUBSEQUENT \nACTIONS GO TO A FOOT AND A HALF \nOF SEA LEVEL RISE WITH \nADAPTATION SUBJECT TO MONITORING \nWITH A LATER MOVE AT 3 1/2 FEET \nOF SEA LEVEL RISE. NEXT SLIDE\, \nPLEASE. NEXT \nSLIDE. SO WE’RE REALLY THINKING \nABOUT NEXT STEPS HERE WITH YOU \nAND YOUR STAFF. \nWE’VE GOT THE RESOURCE AGENCY \nWORKING GROUP. WE’RE GOING TO BE \nGOING BACK TO THE WORKING GROUP \nIN THIS PERIOD OF TIME TO MAKE \nSURE THAT WE GET TECHNICAL \nCOMMENT FROM EACH AGENCY. SO \nTHAT WOULD INCLUDE THE REGIONAL \nWATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD\, ALL \nTHE NATURAL RESOURCE AGENCIES AT \nTHE FEDERAL AND STATE LEVEL TO \nINFORM BOTH THE IMPACT ANALYSIS \nAND MITIGATION AS WELL AS \nPOTENTIAL CHANGES TO THE PLAN. \nWE’RE GOING TO BE GOING UP TO \nTHE CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS \nCOMMISSION AND PRESENTING TO \nTHEM ON MONDAY. WE’RE \nPARTICIPATING IN YOUR REGIONAL \nSHORELINE ADAPTATION EFFORT. \nADAM AND LUIS ARE BOTH MEMBERS \nOF THE WORKING GROUP. AND SO \nWE’RE REALLY EAGER TO LEARN HOW \nTHE REGIONAL EFFORT CAN INFORM \nWHAT WE’RE DOING AND HOW WE CAN \nALSO EDUCATE PEOPLE ABOUT THE \nARMY CORPS PROCESS. NEXT SLIDE\, \nPLEASE. WE’RE SUPER EXCITED \nABOUT THIS. EVEN THOUGH IT’S \nGOING TO UNFOLD OVER A LONG \nPERIOD OF TIME\, IT’S A LEVEL OF \nINVESTMENT IN THIS WATERFRONT \nTHAT CANNOT ONLY DEAL WITH THE \nRESILIENCE ISSUES THAT WE’RE \nTALKING ABOUT TODAY\, BUT IT \nCOULD LEAD TO EXCITING \nINVESTMENTS IN NEW RAIL \nIMPROVEMENTS\, ADAPTATION OF \nRESOURCES\, IMPROVE \nTRANSPORTATION ALONG THE \nWATERFRONT. SO IT REALLY IS A \nGENERATIONAL OPPORTUNITY. IT’S A \nBIG CHALLENGE IN TERMS OF THE \nFUNDING\, BUT ALSO A GREAT \nOPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY. SO I \nTHINK I’LL CLOSE THERE AND \nWELCOME QUESTIONS FROM THE \nCOMMISSION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC \nCOMMENT? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO PUBLIC \nCOMMENT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nQUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS. \nCOMMISSIONER PESKIN. \n>>AARON PESKIN: THE MAGNITUDE IS \nHARD TO GET YOUR HEAD AROUND. AS \nMR. BENSON SAID\, SUBJECT TO \nPLENTY OF CHANGE. THIS IS A VERY \nPRELIMINARY PLAN. MAYBE 20 \n30 FEDERAL FUN. I GUESS MY \nQUESTION IS\, MR. BENSON\, HOW DO \nYOU ENVISION THE PUBLIC \nENGAGEMENT AND PUBLIC COMMENT IN \nTHE 60 DAYS? LIKE\, WHAT IN THE \nHECK — \nEVEN AN ORGANIZATION LIKE BCDC \n— LIKE\, HOW DO YOU EVEN MAKE \nCOMMENT ON THIS? YOU CAN SAY\, \nYES\, I THINK THIS IS GREAT THAT \nYOU’RE FLOOD-PROOFING IN THE \nFISHERMAN WHARF’S AREA AND DOING \nADAPTATION IN THE CREEK AREA. I \nMEAN\, HOW DO YOU EVEN COMMENT ON \nTHIS? AND ARE THERE \nOPPORTUNITIES FOR MORE COMMENT \nAS THINGS BECOME MORE REFINED \nAND BECOME FINE GRAINED? \n>>BRAD BENSON: THAT’S ACTUALLY \nAN ISSUE WE’VE BEEN REALLY \nWORRIED ABOUT. IT IS SUCH AN \nOVERWHELMING SET OF ISSUES AND \nTHE PLAN\, IT EFFECTS SUCH A \nLARGE PART OF THE WATERFRONT. \nIT’S HARD FOR THE PUBLIC TO HEAR \nTHE INFORMATION AND THEN HAVE AN \nIMMEDIATE REACTION TO \nIT. IT’S A BIT MORE CHALLENGING \nGIVEN THE PLAN. WE’RE OFFERING \nWHEN WE ARE REPORTING WITH PORT \nTENANTS OR NEIGHBORHOOD-BASED \nORGANIZATIONS TO BRAINSTORM WITH \nFOLKS ABOUT THE PLAN. IF THEY \nDON’T REALLY KNOW HOW TO RESPOND \nTO THE PLAN BUT\, LET’S SAY AS AN \nEXAMPLE\, THEIR INTEREST MIGHT BE \nHISTORIC PRESERVATION\, WE’RE \nOFFERING TO MEET WITH FOLKS\, \nTALK IN A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL \nABOUT HOW THE PLAN AFFECTS \nHISTORIC RESOURCES\, WHAT THE \nIMPACTS ARE WE’RE SEEING\, HOW \nIT’S INVESTIGATING IN THOSE \nHISTORIC RESOURCES AND THEN JUST \nBEING AVAILABLE FOR A \nBRAINSTORMING ABOUT HOW THEY \nMIGHT COMMENT HOW THE PLAN IN A \nWAY THAT MIGHT ACTUALLY AFFECT \nTHE PLAN. SO THAT’S ONE STRATEGY \nTHAT WE’RE \nUSING. I THINK GOING TO MAYBE \nTHE OTHER POINT EMBEDDED IN YOUR \nQUESTION\, THIS IS NOT THE ONLY \nOPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. \nTHIS IS THE NEPA PUBLIC COMMENT \nPERIOD. AND WE REALLY SEE A \nPROCESS WHERE WE GET INTO THE \nDESIGN PHASE OF THE WORK. \nDIRECTOR FORBES TALKED ABOUT\, \nLIKE\, WE HAVEN’T DESIGNED WHAT \nGOES BACK ON TOP YET\, THE PUBLIC \nREALM. I THINK IN TERMS OF OUR \nSAN FRANCISCO PLANNING EFFORTS\, \nWHEN WE CAN GET INTO A SPECIFIC \nDISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT’S \nHAPPENING IN A SPECIFIC LOCATION \nALONG THE WATERFRONT\, HOW IT’S \nGOING TO AFFECT HOW PEOPLE USE \nTHAT AREA OF THE WATERFRONT\, I \nTHINK WE’LL GET MUCH MORE \nENGAGEMENT AND SORT OF FEEDBACK \nAS TO HOW TO FURTHER SHAPE THE \nPLAN. SO WE’RE NOT LOOKING AT \nTHIS AS THE ONLY PUBLIC COMMENT \nPERIOD. WE’RE LOOKING AS THE \nFIRST OF MANY. \n>>AARON PESKIN: AND THEN MAYBE \nTHIS IS A QUESTION TO \nOURSELVES. \nWHAT IS THE ROLE IN BCDC? ARE WE \nGOING TO SPECIAL AREA PLAN\, BAY \nFILL QUESTIONS\, 50% RULES? I \nMEAN\, WHERE — THIS — I MEAN\, \nARE WE GOING TO TOTALLY — 2030 \nIS ACTUALLY NOT VERY FAR AWAY. \nAND THIS IS UNDERGOING FEDERAL \nENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. WHAT’S THE \nROLE OF BCDC — I UNDERSTAND \nWE’RE INVOLVED. BUT WHAT’S OUR \nROLE? \n>>ELAINE FORBES: I’D LIKE TO \nMAKE SOME COMMENTS AND ALSO GO \nBACK TO YOUR PRIOR QUESTION\, \nCOMMISSIONER PESKIN. THE ROLE OF \nBCDC IS ENORMOUS HERE BECAUSE WE \nHAVE TO MAKE THESE IMPROVEMENTS \nCONSISTENT WITH THE VISION OF \nBCDC AND THE PUBLIC WATERFRONT \nWE’RE SEEKING TO RETAIN. AND \nTHERE’S CERTAINLY LEGISLATIVE \nAND POLICY CHANGES THAT NEED TO \nBE MADE TO DELIVER A \nCOST-EFFECTIVE PROJECT HERE AND \nTO MAXIMIZE PUBLIC BENEFITS. \nWE’LL NEED THIS COMMISSION AND \nSTAFF WILL NEED TO RETHINK \nTHINGS LIKE THE FILL REMOVAL \nREQUIREMENTS AND WHAT PUBLIC \nACCESS LOOKS LIKE IN A \nWATERFRONT THAT REQUIRES A \nHIGHER — A HIGHER AND BROKEN \nFABRIC FROM THE HISTORIC \nSHORELINE HEIGHTS. AND SO THERE \nIS JUST MANY\, MANY \nCONSIDERATIONS HERE. AND I THINK \nTHAT IS THE DIALOGUE THAT WILL \n— WE WILL NEED TO HAVE THE \nCOLLABORATION AND DIRECTION WE \nWILL NEED TO HAVE ALONG WITH THE \nSTATE LANDS COMMISSION TO GET \nTHIS RIGHT. SO IT IS AN ENORMOUS \nCHALLENGE MOVING FORWARD. AND \nONE OF THE KEY CHALLENGES\, \nACTUALLY I THINK\, TO HAVE A \nSUCCESSFUL PROJECT COMPLETED. \nAND BACK TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT\, \nI THINK MR. BENSON SAID IT \nRIGHT. IT IS A CONCERN WE’RE \nHAVING. I DO WANT TO RECOGNIZE \nTHAT PRIOR PUBLIC COMMENT WE \nHEARD VERY\, VERY STRONGLY THE \nCONNECTION AND ATTACHMENT TO THE \nFERRY BUILDING AND THE ARMY \nCORPS OF ENGINEERS FOUND \nPRELIMINARY FEDERAL INTEREST IN \nTHE IMPORTANCE OF THIS HISTORIC \nRESOURCE NATIONALLY TO \nCONTRIBUTE TO RAISING THAT \nBUILDING. SO THAT IS AN EXAMPLE \nOF — \n>>AARON PESKIN: THAT’S RAISING \nWITH AN S AND NOT A Z? \n>>ELAINE FORBES: YES. I WANT TO \nTELL YOU HOW PUBLIC COMMENT \nWHILE WE’RE IN THE CONCEPTUAL \nPHASES HAS AN IMPACT. \n>>AARON PESKIN: I CAN SEE FOR \nBCDC AND FOR THE PORT A LOT OF \nINHERENT CONFLICTS IN BOTH OF \nOUR ARGUABLY SHARED MISSIONS. I \nMEAN\, ON THE ONE HAND\, WHEN YOU \nTALK ABOUT CONNECTION TO THE \nWATERFRONT AND ON THE OTHER HAND \nYOU TALK ABOUT HISTORIC \nPRESERVATION WHICH AT LEAST IN \nTHE CASE OF THE ICONIC FERRY \nBUILDING MEANS RAISING IT UP \nSEVERAL FEET\, YOU’RE ALSO \nCUTTING OFF CONNECTION TO THE \nWATERFRONT. THERE’S A LOT OF \nCOMPLEX STUFF HERE. HOW HIGH ARE \nYOU TALKING ABOUT? SIX FEET? \n>>BRAD BENSON: I DON’T WANT TO \nGET INTO EXACT NUMBERS BECAUSE \nIT VARIES DEPENDING ON THE AREA \nYOU’RE AT. THERE IS A LOW POINT \nJUST SOUTH OF THE FERRY BUILDING \nTHAT’S ABOUT EIGHT OR NINE \nFEET. \nOUR CURRENT DESIGN ELEVATION \nTHAT WE’RE LOOKING AT FOR THAT \nAREA IS TO GET UP TO ABOUT 15 \n1/2 FEET. FROM URBAN DESIGN PER \nEXPECT\, YOU CAN IMAGINE HOW \nDIFFICULT IT IS TO GET UP TO \nTHAT HIGHER LEVEL. WHICH IS PART \nOF WHY WE’RE LOOKING AT HOW MUCH \nSPACE THAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT\, \nGAINING ELEVATION OVER SPACE \nHELPS WITH THAT. SO THAT’S AN \nEXAMPLE OF ONE LOCATION. \n>>AARON PESKIN: YEAH\, THAT’S \nTOUGH. BEFORE I RELINQUISH THE \nMICROPHONE\, HOW MUCH OF THIS IS \nBEING DRIVEN BY THE PORT AND HOW \nMUCH IS THIS BEING DRIVEN BY THE \nCORPS AND HOW DOES THAT DYNAMIC \nWORK GIVEN 65 CENTS OF THEIR \nPENNIES TO THE DOLLAR? \n>>ELAINE FORBES: I CAN ATTEMPT \nTO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. MUCH IS \nDRIVEN BY THE CITY AND THE \nPORT. \nSO THE INITIATIVE REALLY STARTED \nAS A CITY INITIATIVE. YOU’LL \nREMEMBER THIS VERY WELL FROM THE \nPRESIDENT OF THE BOARD CHAIR \nTHAT WE WANTED TO INITIATE THIS \nPROCESS TO FIGURE OUT A PLAN. SO \nIT IS THE CITY AND THE PORT \nDRIVING THE PROCESS. THE ARMY \nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\, THROUGH THE \nNEW START\, IS OUR PARTNER. AND \nIT IS NOW THEIR INTEREST TO \nFIGURE OUT HOW TO SOLVE THIS \nPROBLEM AND REDUCE THE COST OF \nNO ACTION AND SO THEY ARE OUR \nPARTNER IN THIS. IT WILL BECOME \nTHEIR PLAN WITH US. THEY MADE \nCLEAR WHEN WE MOVE FORWARD WITH \nTHE FEDERAL APPROPRIATION\, WE \nWORK HAND IN HAND TOGETHER IN \nTERMS OF IMPLEMENTATION. SO I \nHOPE THAT DESCRIBES WELL THE \nRELATIONSHIP AND WHO’S BEHIND IT \nAND HOW THE PARTNERSHIP WORKS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: SO \nMELINDA\, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU \n— \n>>BRAD BENSON: AND SO\, MELINDA\, \nIS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD \nLIKE TO ADD TO THAT ANSWER? \n>>MELINDA FISHER: NO. I THINK \nTHE ARMY CORPS POLICIES AND THE \nVARIOUS LAWS THE FEDERAL \nGOVERNMENT MUST FOLLOW ARE IN \nPLAY HERE SO AT TIMES THERE’S \n— \nTHERE’S FEDERAL POLICY AND STATE \nPOLICY THAT MOST — BOTH MUST BE \nFOLLOWED. SEA LEVEL IS GOING TO \nBE A CHALLENGE BETWEEN THE TWO. \nULTIMATELY\, IT WILL BE UP TO \nCONGRESS TO DECIDE. SO THIS GOES \nREALLY HIGH. MUCH\, MUCH HIGHER \nTHAN ALL OF US HERE. AND SO IT \nIS\, AS DIRECTOR FORBES SAID\, \nIT’S BEEN A GREAT PARTNERSHIP SO \nFAR. AND THERE’S A LOT OF \nDIFFERENT PLAYERS GOING ON AND \nDECISIONMAKERS INVOLVED. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU\, \nMELINDA. — \n>>BRAD BENSON: THANK YOU\, \nMELINDA. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT \nBCDC PLANS AND POLICIES BECAUSE \nI DON’T KNOW IF WE ANSWERED THAT \nAT ALL. JESSICA\, DO YOU WANT TO \nTALK ABOUT SPECIAL AREA PLAN\, \nETC.? \n>>JESSICA FAIN: AS YOU RECALL\, \nIN THE STRATEGIC \nPLAN\, WE TALKED ABOUT THE \nEFFORT OF THE PORT AND BCDC TO \nUPDATE THE SAN FRANCISCO SPECIAL \nAREA PLAN AND WE DID THAT WITH \nTHIS IN MIND. WE DECIDED FOR NOW \nTO TRY TO TAKE A MORE NUANCED \nAND TARGETED APPROACH TO SOME \nNEAR-TERM ACTIONS THAT WE CAN DO \nTOGETHER. \nBUT TO PAUSE A LITTLE BIT \nBECAUSE WE KNOW THERE ARE SOME \nPOLICY — LARGER\, AS YOU POINTED \nOUT\, LARGER POLICY ISSUES THAT \nWE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO WORK \nTHROUGH. AND RIGHT NOW WE — WE \nHAVE A STAFF TEAM THAT IS \nPUTTING TOGETHER COMMENTS. SO \nWE’LL BE REALLY DIGGING INTO OUR \nLAWS AND POLICIES SO THAT WE’RE \nPROVIDING THOSE TO THE PORT AND \nCORPS DURING THIS COMMENT \nPERIOD. AND WE HAVE\, AS \nMENTIONED\, HAD A CHANCE TO SHARE \nWITH A LOT OF THOSE ALREADY AS \nWE’VE BEEN ALREADY GOING THROUGH \nTHIS PROCESS AND \nPARTICIPATING. \n>>MELINDA FISHER: IF YOU DON’T \nMIND\, I WANTED TO ADD THAT THIS \nIS AN ONGOING PROCESS. WE’LL \nCONTINUE WORKING WITH BCDC AND \nALL OF THE AGENCIES IN THE BAY \nAREA INCLUDING U.S. FISH AND \nWILDLIFE\, THE WATER BOARD\, OTHER \nAGENCIES THROUGHOUT THIS WHOLE \nPROCESS AND THEN WHEN WE GET \nINTO OUR PRECONSTRUCTION\, \nENGINEERING\, DESIGN PHASE\, WHERE \nWE WILL HAVE MORE THAT DETAILED \nLEVEL DESIGN AVAILABLE\, THAT’S \nWHEN WE’RE REALLY GOING TO BE \nCOMING TO BCDC AND REQUESTING \nTHE CONSISTENCY\, DETERMINATIONS \nWE’RE NEEDING TO UPDATE THE \nSPECIAL PLANS AND DIFFERENT \nTHINGS LIKE THAT AND \nSO AT THIS PHASE IN THE STUDY \nOR THE STUDY PHASE\, EVERYTHING \nIS BEING TAKEN INTO \nCONSIDERATION. WE’RE TRYING TO \nMODIFY OUR PLAN AS MUCH AS WE \nCAN TO BE COMPLETELY COMPLIANT \nNOW. HOWEVER\, WE DO NOT EXPECT \nTO ACHIEVE FULL COMPLIANCE PRIOR \nTO THE CHIEF’S SIGNING OR PRIOR \nTO CONGRESS AUTHORIZING THE \nPROJECT BECAUSE WE JUST DON’T \nHAVE THE DETAIL AND WE WON’T AT \nTHIS PHASE. SO WE’LL CONTINUE \nTHAT IN THE FUTURE. AND AS \nEVERYONE HAS SAID\, THIS IS A \nLONG PROCESS. IT’S NOT DONE. BUT \nWE HAVE BEEN WORKING CLOSELY \nTOGETHER AND WE’LL GET THERE\, \nFOR SURE\, PRIOR TO \nCONSTRUCTION. \nI MEAN\, WE CAN’T PROCEED \nBEFORE. \nSO WE HAVE TO HAVE COMPLIANCE \nWITH EVERYTHING. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I’M \nGOING TO RECOGNIZE COMMISSIONER \nPESKIN — SORRY — COMMISSIONER \nGIOIA. \n>>JOHN GIOIA: I HAVE TO LEAVE SO \nNO DISRESPECT FOR THE PORT BUT \nTHANKS FOR THE PRESENTATION. SO \nI MEAN\, I KNOW FINANCING IS \nREALLY THE SUBJECT OF OTHER \nDISCUSSIONS\, BUT THE PORT IS THE \nLARGEST REAL ESTATE ALONG THE \nWATERFRONT. ARE YOU ALREADY \nANTICIPATING FINANCING — \nFINANCING PLANS AS PART OF \nDEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE APPROVED \nALONG THE WATERFRONT TO PAY ANY \nLOCAL SHARE FOR THIS? \n>>ELAINE FORBES: WE DO SOME \nPUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND \nWE ALSO HAVE A LOT OF FACILITIES \nDIRECTLY MANAGED THAT DON’T HAVE \nPUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS \nDEVELOPED. WE ARE THINKING OF \nOUR DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS THAT \nHAVE COME THROUGH. MOST \nRECENTLY\, WE HAD A LOT OF \nDISCUSSIONS AROUND PIERS 30-32. \nTHAT’S WHERE THE PROJECT WILL \nLIFT AND PREPARE FOR SEA LEVEL \nRISE AND PROVIDE SEISMIC \nIMPROVEMENTS AND WE’RE LOOKING \nINTO WHETHER THAT CONTRIBUTION\, \nTHAT INVESTMENT CAN COUNT FOR \nOUR 35 CENTS AS A WAY TO MAKE \nOUR MATCH SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD \nWITH OTHER PROJECTS. WE TRY TO \nLEVEL PUBLIC-PRIVATE \nPARTNERSHIPS WHEREVER WE CAN TO \nPAY FOR SEA LEVEL RISE TAX \nWHENEVER WE PAID FOR THE \nINFRASTRUCTURE NEEDED SO WE HAVE \nANOTHER SOURCE FOR OTHER \nIMPROVEMENTS IN THE AREAS. WE’RE \nVERY MUCH UNDERFUNDED\, VERY\, \nVERY UNDERFUNDED. SO WE ARE \nGOING TO LOOK FOR PUBLIC-PRIVATE \nPARTNERSHIPS SO WE CAN LEVERAGE \nTHAT PRIVATE INVESTMENT AND — \nTO ENABLE US TO PAY FOR MORE \nPUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. BUT THERE \nARE MANY\, MANY AREAS WHERE WE’RE \nGOING TO RELY ON STATE GRANTS\, \nCITY GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS\, \nAND OTHER WAYS TO FIND FUNDING \nBECOMES THIS IS OVERWHELMINGLY A \nPUBLIC COST AS WE SEE \nIT. \n>>JOHN GIOIA: THANKS. \n>>SPEAKER: I THINK MY FIRST \nRESPONSE IS HOLY COW. THERE’S A \nLOT IN HERE FOR US TO CHEW ON SO \nTHANK YOU FOR THE BRIEFING. A \nCOUPLE OF QUESTIONS AND A COUPLE \nOF COMMENTS. \n>>BARRY NELSON: DETAILED \nQUESTION AND THEN A BROADER \nONE. \nWHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE \nPIERS\, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT \nBUILDING FLOOD WALLS AROUND THE \nPIERS SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE I \nUNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS. THAT \nMEANS NOT RAISING THE DECK OF \nTHE PIERS UP. THAT MEANS \nBUILDING FLOOD WALLS SO THAT WE \nWOULD HAVE PIERS THAT WOULD BE \nBELOW WATER LEVEL WHICH I HAVE A \nHARD TIME WRAPPING MY BRAIN \nAROUND. DO I HAVE THAT RIGHT? \n>>BRAD BENSON: LARGELY RIGHT\, \nYES. THINK OF IT AS ASSET LEVEL \nPROTECTION. SO THE FLOOD WALLS \nAROUND THE PIERS ARE PROTECT — \nAREN’T PROTECTING THE CITY. \nTHEY’RE PROTECTING THE PIERS. \nTHE REASON THAT THEY’RE SHORT \nFLOOD WALLS IS BECAUSE WE\, LIKE \nYOU\, ONLY SEE THAT WORKING TO \nKNOCK DOWN SORT OF EXTREME \nEVENTS AND WAVES THAT CAN’T \nMANAGE WATER THAT IS LIKE \nROUTINELY HIGHER THAN THE PIER \nDECK. WE GOT ANOTHER ISSUE WITH \nMAINTENANCE OF THE PIER \nUNDERNEATH THAT BECOMES \nPROBLEMATIC. \n>>BARRY NELSON: THAT WAS MY NEXT \nQUESTION. WILL THE PIERS TAKE \nTHAT? \n>>BRAD BENSON: SO WE’RE LOOKING \nAT ALL OF THESE ISSUES. IT’S A \nFEDERALLY RECOGNIZED DISTRICT. \nWE HAVE CONSTITUENTS THAT HELPED \nUS REGION STRAIGHT IT IN THE \nNATIONAL REGISTER. THERE’S SOME \nREAL CHALLENGES WE’RE LOOKING AT \nHERE IN TERMS OF HOW SEA LEVEL \nRISE CAN AFFECT THE PIERS. \n>>BARRY NELSON: NEXT QUESTION IS \n— IT’S ABOUT COST. THE $13 \nBILLION PRICE TAG BOTH IS AN \nENORMOUS PRICE TAG AND IT’S NOT \nA SURPRISING PRICE TAG. AND WHEN \nYOU PRESENTED ONE OF THE MAPS \nTHAT SHOWED THE SAN FRANCISCO \nWATERFRONT\, THIS IS ONE OF FOUR \nREACHES AROUND THE WATERFRONT \nTHAT WOULD HAVE A COMPLETE PLAN \nFOR THE CITY SHORELINE SO THAT’S \nIMPORTANT CONTEXT. CAN YOU HELP \nUS AT ALL UNDERSTAND WHAT THE \nBIG COST DRIVERS ARE OF THAT $13 \nBILLION PRICE TAG? IS IT MOST OF \nIT ONE THING? IS IT SPREAD OUT \nOVER TWO DOZEN CATEGORIES? JUST \nSO WE HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT’S \nDRIVING THE COST OF PLANS LIKE \nTHIS. \n>>BRAD BENSON: THE WEAK SOIL \nCONDITIONS ALONG THE SHORELINE \nARE A BIG DRIVER OF THOSE \nCOSTS. \nYOU KNOW\, DEALING WITH\, YOU \nKNOW\, CITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND \nTRYING TO NAVIGATE AROUND CITY \nINFRASTRUCTURE. THINKING ABOUT \nTHE ACTIONS THAT ARE BEING TAKEN \nRELATED TO THE FERRY BUILDING \nAND THE SORT OF HISTORIC PIER \nCONNECTION TO THE SHORELINE \nAREA. THOSE ARE SOME OF THE \nTHINGS THAT ARE DRIVING COSTS IN \nTHE PLAN. \n>>BARRY NELSON: OKAY. AND JUST A \nCOUPLE COMMENTS. WE’VE SPENT A \nLOT OF TIME\, ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF \nTIME OVER THE LAST SEVEN YEARS \nIN — SEVERAL YEARS IN \nDISCUSSION ABOUT SEA LEVEL \nRISE. \nA LOT OF WHAT WE’VE DONE IS \nPLANNING TO PLAN. THIS IS ACTUAL \nPLANNING FOR OUR A VERY COMPLEX \nURBAN WATERFRONT AND IT’S \nSOBERING. AND THIS IS JUST A \nFRACTION OF SAN FRANCISCO WHICH \nIS A FRACTION OF THE BAY \nSHOWLINE WHICH IS A FRACTION OF \nWHAT CALIFORNIA WILL HAVE TO DO \nAS JUST ONE STATE. IT JUST GIVES \nA REALLY IMPORTANT SENSE OF THE \nCOLLECTIVE CHALLENGE WE FACE IF \nWE DON’T GET CLIMATE CHANGE \nUNDER CONTROL. AND IF WE DO \nINDEED FACE A WORST-CASE \nSCENARIO. THIS IS THE — SAN \nFRANCISCO IS A WEALTHY CITY IN \nAN AREA THAT’S WEALTHY IN A \nSTATE THAT’S WEALTHY COMPARED TO \nTHE REST OF THE COUNTRY AND\, \nYET\, LOOKING AT THOSE COSTS IS \nSOBERING WITHOUT WRESTLING WITH \nHOW AS A GOVERNMENT WE DEAL WITH \nENORMOUS COSTS ON THE SOUTHERN \nATLANTIC COAST\, ON THE GULF \nCOAST. SO IT’S JUST A REALLY \nIMPORTANT CONTEXT WHEN WE \nREALIZE AS BIG AS THIS PLAN \nLOOKS\, IT’S TINY\, IT’S TINY \nCOMPARED TO CALIFORNIA AND THE \nNATIONAL CHALLENGE WE’RE \nFACING. \nTHANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER RANDOLPH. \n>>SEAN RANDOLPH: THANKS VERY \nMUCH\, BRAD. AND THANKS\, ELAINE. \nMY QUESTION HAS BEEN PARTIALLY \nANSWERED. I WANT TO GO FURTHER \nON A COUPLE OF THEM. ONE IS ON \nTHE PIER. IT SOUNDS LIKE THE \nPLAN IS NOT JUST ABOUT THE SEA \nWALL BUT IT INCLUDES THE \nSTRUCTURES AND THE PIERS. CAN \nYOU SAY A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT \nTHE WALLS AROUND THE PIERS\, \nBECAUSE I WORK ON THE WATERFRONT \nEVERY DAY. IN THE LAST MONTH I \nSAW THE WATER LAPPING RIGHT AT \nTHE BOTTOM OF THE PIER. EVEN \nWITH THE WALL\, HOW DO YOU DEAL \nWITH THE CHALLENGE OF WATER \nCOMING UP DIRECTLY UNDERNEATH \nTHE BASE OF THE PIER OVER TIME? \nAND THE OTHER QUESTION RELATED \nTO THE PIERS IS — I THOUGHT I \nHEARD YOU SAY THAT YOU WOULD \nMOVE THE BULKHEAD STRUCTURES \nHIGHER BUT HOW DO YOU MOVE A \nBULKHEAD STRUCTURE HIGHER THAT’S \nCONNECTED TO A PIER? \n>>BRAD BENSON: THAT’S A GOOD \nQUESTION. I’LL TACKLE THE LAST \nONE FIRST. WE HAVEN’T DONE ALL \nOF THE ENGINEERING WORK THAT WE \nWOULD DO TO REALLY ANSWER THIS \nQUESTION. BUT ESSENTIALLY WHAT \nYOU WOULD DO IS LIKELY PICK\, YOU \nKNOW\, DISCONNECT THE BULKHEAD \nBUILDING FROM THE PIER SHED. \nTHAT’S SOMETHING YOU DO ANYWAY \nTO INSTALL A SEISMIC JOINT FOR \nTHESE PIERS. THEN\, YOU WOULD \nBRACE THE BULKHEAD\, MOVE IT \nOFFSITE\, REBUILD THE WHARF AT A \nHIGHER ELEVATION AND PUT THE \nBULKHEAD BACK WITH TRANSITIONS \nDOWN TO THE EXISTING PIER \nLEVEL. \nAND WE’VE DONE SOME CONCEPTUAL \nSTUDIES LOOKING AT THAT. AS \nDIRECTOR FORBES MENTIONED\, THAT \nCREATES AN IMPACT IN THE \nDISTRICT BECAUSE YOU’RE CHANGING \nELEVATIONS IN THE DISTRICT BUT \nIT ALSO REPLACES A VERY \nVULNERABLE PART OF THE \nDISTRICT. \nTHE WHARVES ARE THE OLDEST PART \nAND AGING FAST. \n>>SEAN RANDOLPH: THE OTHER \nQUESTION IS RELATING TO WHAT \nDIRECTOR PESKIN HAD\, OUR \nJURISDICTION AS BCDC. SO WE’RE \nGOING TO BE PERMITTING PROJECTS \nTHAT WILL HAVE A LIFE SPAN THAT \nWILL GO BEYOND 2030. IT’S NOT \nJUST PIER 30\, 32\, BUT THINKING \nOF THAT SPECIFICALLY\, HAVE YOU \nTHOUGHT IN DETAIL YET HOW YOU \nWOULD FACTOR IN THE KIND OF \nINVESTMENT THAT MIGHT BE MADE BY \nPRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERS TO \nREINFORCE THE WATER — RATHER \n— \nREINFORCE THE SEA WALL\, SEGMENTS \nOF THE WATERFRONT\, OF COURSE\, \nINTEGRATED INTO THE ENTIRE PLAN \nBUT WHERE THERE IS AN \nOPPORTUNITY TO BRING PRIVATE \nFINANCE IN TO CONTRIBUTE TO PART \nOF THE CHALLENGE? HOW ARE YOU \n— \nHOW ARE YOU THINKING ABOUT THAT\, \nBECAUSE I THINK IT WILL COME UP \nAS WE GO THROUGH VARIOUS \nPROJECTS. AND I THINK IT MAY \nTAKE A FAIR AMOUNT OF \nRETHINKING\, JUST THE STRATEGY OF \nTHE WATERFRONT AND STATE LANDS \nAND HOW DO WE ADAPT OUR POLICIES \nAND OTHER POLICIES TO MEET THIS \nNEW SET OF ISSUES? \n>>BRAD BENSON: WELL — \n>>ELAINE FORBES: SORRY\, BRAD. I \nWANT TO TALK ABOUT THE FINGER \nPIERS AND THEN TRY TO ANSWER \nYOUR VERY GOOD QUESTION. THE \nFINGER APPROXIMATE PIERS\, WHILE \nTHE PLAN IS RECOMMENDING MOVING\, \nYOU KNOW\, ESTABLISHING THAT LINE \nOF DEFENSE AT THAT WHARF AREA\, \nAT THAT BULKHEAD AREA\, RETURNING \nTHOSE HISTORIC BULKHEADS AND \nSIMPLY LEVELING DOWN TO THE \nPIERS AT THEIR HISTORIC LEVELS\, \nTHAT’S VERY UNLIKELY TO BE WHAT \nTHE CITY AND THE PORT WILL \nPROPOSE ULTIMATELY ABOUT WHAT \nGOES ON TOP WHEN THE PROJECT \nGETS IMPLEMENTED. WE WILL BE \nEXPLORING WHICH HISTORIC PIERS \nHAVE CAPABILITY AND WE WOULD \nWANT AS A CITY TO SEE HE WILL \nBRIGHTED AND WHICH — TO SEE \nELEVATED AND WHICH WILL BE \nDEMOLISHED\, ESSENTIALLY\, OR NOT \nMOVE BEYOND A CERTAIN POINT. AND \nTHE CHALLENGE OF HOW TO DO \nINVESTMENTS OVER TIME. SO WE \nWILL WANT OUR PUBLIC-PRIVATE \nPARTNERSHIPS TO COME AND MAKE \nINVESTMENTS IN THESE HISTORIC \nPIERS DURING THIS LONG TAIL OF \nTIME WE HAVE LEFT WITH THE \nDISTRICT. AND WE DID A STUDY\, \nHOW DO WE MOVE THE HISTORIC \nPIERS OUT FURTHER AND HELP THESE \nFLOOD WALLS SUBSTANTIALLY? THERE \nIS EPISODIC CHALLENGES. THIS \nCOULD SAVE THE PIERS FOR 30 \nYEARS FOR PUBLIC ENJOYMENT. \nTHERE IS OPTIONALITY IN WHICH WE \nHAVE TO ADVANCE AND ANALYZE. SO \nWE KEEP THE PIERS AS LONG AS WE \nCAN FOR THE PUBLIC’S ENJOYMENT \nAND LOOK AT WHAT OTHER HISTORIC \nDISTRICT WE SAVE AND WHICH ONES \nWE LET FALL TO SEA LEVEL RISE? I \nWANT TO MAKE SURE THE COMMISSION \nUNDERSTOOD THAT. AS TO THE \nQUESTION — AND BRAD WILL HELP \nMORE — AS TO THE QUESTION OF \nTHE PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS\, \nONE OF THE BIGGEST CHALLENGES IS \nHOW DO WE PHASE THE PROJECT’S \nIMPLEMENTATION? SO IF WE HAVE A \nPUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP THAT \nCAN ADVANCE\, SAY\, A PIER 70 \nPROJECT\, RAISE THE LEVEL OF THE \nSHORELINE\, PREPARE FOR SEA LEVEL \nRISE\, HOW DO WE — HOW DO WE \nMAKE THAT PROJECT WORK WITH THE \nFUTURE LINE OF DEFENSE THAT THE \nARMY CORPS PLANS TO IMPLEMENT \nWITH THE CITY? SO THAT IS A \nCOMPLEX SET OF QUESTIONS. WE’LL \nNEED TO RESOLVE THAT IN PIERS \n30\, 32\, SO ESSENTIALLY OUR \nINVESTMENTS FIT TOGETHER BUT IN \nDIFFERENT SEQUENCES OVER TIME. \nSO THAT’S ONE OF THE CHALLENGES \nWE’RE FACING AND WE’LL HAVE TO \nSOLVE. \n>>BRAD BENSON: COULD I ADD ONE \n— DOFL \n>>SEAN RANDOLPH: COULD I ADD ONE \nTHING TO THAT? AND NOW THE COST \nIS JUST — HAS JUST GONE WAY\, \nWAY UP. SO IT DOES SEEM THERE IS \nHISTORICAL DEBATE\, COULD YOU \nPUT HOUSING OR OTHER FACILITIES \nON THE PIERS? AND THERE DOES \nAPPEAR TO BE A BIG CHALLENGE OF \nADEQUACY OF CAPITAL AND \nFUNDING. \nSO EVEN WITH THE PRIVATE \nDEVELOPER COMING IN ON A \nPROPERTY\, IT LOOKS LIKE IT’S \nGOING TO BE MORE EXPENSIVE OVER \nTIME. BUT IT IS A SOURCE OF \nFINANCE. AND TO IT TRIKES ME \nTHAT’S ONE OF THOSE ISSUES — \nSTRIKES ME THAT’S ONE OF THOSE \nISSUES\, COMPLEX ISSUES THAT HAS \nTO BE FIGURED OUT. DOES OUR \nFRAMEWORK FOR NOT HAVING HOUSING \nOR OTHER OFFICE SPACE ON PIERS \nACTUALLY FIT WITH THE CAPITAL \nREQUIREMENTS FOR THIS SET OF \nCHALLENGES IF WE HAVE THE \nABILITY TO ADDRESS IT WITH THE \nPRIVATE PARTNERS? \n>>BRAD BENSON: I THINK I WANTED \nTO ADD ONE THOUGHT. THINKING \nABOUT PIERS 30\, 32\, OBVIOUSLY\, A \nLOT OF EFFORT HAS GONE INTO THAT \nWITH STATE LEGISLATION IN \nCOLLABORATION WITH YOU AND YOUR \nSTAFF. WE ARE LUCKY TO HAVE A \nCOASTAL CONSERVANCY GRANT TO \nLOOK THAT SORT OF LARGER SEGMENT \nOF THE SOUTHERN EMBARCADERO SO \nWE CAN DO MORE REFINED PLANNING \nTO THINK ABOUT HOW THIS PLAN \nFITS WITH THAT INVESTMENT \nKNOWING THERE THE 3032 \nINVESTMENT COULD PROCEED THE \nARMY INVESTMENT FOR QUITE A \nWHILE. WE’VE \nGOT SOME TIME TO DOING THAT \nPLANNING EFFORT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: THANK YOU. I \nREALLY APPRECIATE THIS \nPRESENTATION. \n[INDISCERNIBLE] \nWHAT’S GOING TO BE A VERY\, VERY \nLONG PATH THAT WE CAN’T EVEN \nUNDERSTAND YET. SO I REALLY \nAPPRECIATE YOUR [INDISCERNIBLE] \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nANDY\, WE LOST YOUR VOLUME. \nEITHER YOU MUTED — WE CANNOT \nHEAR YOU. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: I AM IN A \nDIFFERENT ROOM. CAN YOU HEAR ME \nNOW? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: I AM TRYING TO \nUNDERSTAND THE PRESENTATION \nABOUT [INDISCERNIBLE] \nANALYSIS THAT WILL BE UNDERLYING \nTHE CORPS’ PARTICIPATION AND I \nBELIEVE — I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU \nSAY THERE IS NEW GUIDANCE WITH \nTHE CORPS THAT IS GOING TO ALLOW \nFOR THE INCORPORATION OF \nNONMONETARY OR DIFFICULT TO \nMONETIZE BENEFITS AND COSTS. DID \nI UNDERSTAND THAT \nCORRECTLY? OUT OF THE FRAME OF \nOVER THE YEARS WITH \nUNDERSTANDING COST AND BENEFITS\, \nTHERE IS A VERY\, VERY PARTICULAR \nSTRUCTURE THAT THE CORPS USES \nAND IT SEEMS TO BE A LITTLE MORE \nAFFECTED WHEN BOTH STRUCTURES \nTHAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING AND THAT \nWILL ALLOW US TO REALLY GET OUR \nARMS AROUND ALL OF THE \nECONOMIC IMPACTS — \nTHE PROJECT OR THE \n[INDISCERNIBLE] \nWILL INCLUDE? \n>>BRAD BENSON: MELINDA\, WOULD \nYOU LIKE ME TO ANSWER OR YOU? \n>>MELINDA FISHER: YOU HEARD \nRIGHT\, THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY \nOF THE ARMY HAD ISSUE GUIDANCE \nTHAT PROVIDES A COMPREHENSIVE \nLOOK AT OUR FOUR ACCOUNTS. TWO \nOF THEM ARE MONETARY. SO THE \nNATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT\, \nWHICH IS WHAT YOU’RE MORE \nTYPICALLY USED TO SEEING\, FOR \nEXAMPLE\, WITH THE DREDGING\, A \nCOST BENEFIT RATIO\, SOMETHING \nVERY DEFINED. BUT THEN WE GET \nINTO THESE SOCIAL EFFECT \nCATEGORIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL \nQUALITY. SO WE’LL LOOK AT THINGS \nLIKE LIFE SAFETY OR BENEFITS TO \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE \nCOMMUNITIES\, TRANSPORTATION \nBENEFITS THAT AREN’T RELATED TO \nCOSTS OF THE TRANSPORTATION \nBEING DOWN OR SOMETHING. IT’S\, \nCAN PEOPLE GET TO WORK? CAN THEY \nNOT — HOUSING. LOTS AND LOTS OF \nFEATURES. THE ENGINEERING WITH \nNATURE FEATURES THAT ARE \nINCORPORATED THROUGH SOME OF \nTHIS. WE CAN BENEFIT FROM THE \nVALUE OF THAT OR THE POTENTIAL \nFOR REDUCING STORMWATER \nOVERFLOWS FROM THE COMBINED \nSEWER SYSTEM\, THINGS LIKE THAT \nCAN NOW BE INCORPORATED AND \nLOOKED AT AND ACCUMULATE \nTIFFLY — CUMULATIVELY USED TO \nJUSTIFY BEYOND A COST-BENEFIT \nRATIO. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: AND SO WE CAN \nALWAYS USE THE LOSS OF — IF WE \nDON’T DO SOMETHING\, THE LOSS OF \n[INDISCERNIBLE] \nTHE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS\, THE \nIMPACT OF THE — AND ONE OF THE \nLARGEST COST WAS THE LOSS OF \nPEOPLE WHO GO TO THE BEACH\, YOU \nCOME UP WITH SOME VALUE IF YOU \nADD UP — [INDISCERNIBLE] \nI’M EXCITED TO HEAR HOW THE \nCORPS — I KNOW IT’S GOING TO BE \n— IT’S A STRUGGLE FOR YOU GUYS \nTO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO IT BUT I \nTHINK IT’S A MUCH MORE REALISTIC \nBASIS FOR WHICH WE CAN THINK \nABOUT THE COST-BENEFIT FOR \nIMPLEMENTING THE PROJECT OVER \nTHE COMING DECADE. THANK YOU. \n>>MELINDA FISHER: DEFINITELY. \nTHE MAIN REPORT AND ECONOMIC \nAPPENDIX\, ENGINEERING APPENDIX \nHAVE DETAILS HOW WE IDENTIFIED \nTHE COST-BENEFITS AND TRADEOFFS \nOF THE SOCIAL EFFECTS\, VIERMAL \nQUALITY\, THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT \nTO YOUR POINT\, SPECIFICALLY\, \nABOUT LOOKING AT WHAT WOULD HAVE \nHAPPENED\, ABSOLUTELY. WE COMPARE \nALL OF OUR COSTS WHAT WE CALL \nTHE FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT \nCONDITIONS. THAT WOULD BE\, IF WE \nDID NOTHING. AND THAT’S OUR \nBASELINE. AND SO EVERYTHING \nABOVE THAT IS WHAT WE CONSIDER A \nBENEFIT OR A POSITIVE IMPACT AND \nFOR MONETARY STAFF\, THAT’S WHAT \nCONTRIBUTES TO THE BENEFIT COST \nRATIO. FOR THINGS THAT ARE \nNONMONETIZED\, THAT’S HOW WE CAN \nDEMONSTRATE\, LOOK\, THIS IS A \nREALLY POSITIVE THING. IF WE \nWERE ABLE TO SAVE 20\,000 JOBS \n— \nI AM MAKING UP NUMBERS. I DON’T \nKNOW WHAT IT WAS IN THE REPORT. \nIF YOU’RE ABLE TO SAVE THAT \nBECAUSE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN \nLOST\, WE WOULD SAY\, THIS IS \nREALLY VALUABLE TO GET TO THE \nNEXT PLAN WHICH HAS ALL THESE \nOTHER BENEFITS TO IT. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER EKLUND. \n>>PAT EKLUND: THANK YOU VERY \nMUCH\, CHAIR. I THINK \nCOMMISSIONER PESKIN HIT IT RIGHT \nON THE NOSE. THIS PROJECT IS \nHUGE. AND THE COMPLEXITY OF THE \nPROJECT IN AND OF ITSELF LET \nALONE LOOKING AT THE REGULATORY \nAND ALL THE COMPETING INTERESTS \nIS JUST OVERWHELMING. HAVING \nWORKED FOR THE ARMY CORPS OF \nENGINEERS FOR EIGHT YEARS AND \nTHE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL \nPROTECTION AGENCY FOR 35\, I CAN \nREALLY UNDERSTAND AND I CAN SEE \nBCDC HAVING TO — AND OTHER \nREGULATORY AGENCIES TO REALLY \nRETHINK SOME OF OUR \nREQUIREMENTS. AND I\, MISS \nFORBES\, I AGREE THAT ALL OF US \nWILL HAVE TO SIT DOWN AND FIGURE \nOUT HOW WE CAN\, YOU KNOW\, \nIMPLEMENT AS MANY NONSTRUCTURAL \nIMPROVEMENTS AND MAINTAIN THE \nHISTORICAL STRUCTURE AND STILL \nMAINTAIN THE JOBS AND THE \nQUALITY OF LIFE AND EVERYTHING \nFOR SAN FRANCISCO. BECAUSE IT’S \nWHAT DRAWS PEOPLE. WHAT YOU ARE \nDOING IN SAN FRANCISCO\, IT’S \nDRAWING MORE PEOPLE TO SAN \nFRANCISCO. BUT THE QUESTION I \nHAVE\, MISS FORBES\, OR YOUR \nCOLLEAGUE THERE\, IS THAT SAN \nFRANCISCO CAN’T BE THE ONLY PORT \nOR THE ONLY CITY THAT’S DEALING \nWITH THIS. SEA LEVEL RISE. AND \nHAVE YOU REACHED OUT TO OTHER \nSMALL AND LARGE CITIES \nTHROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA OR EVEN \nTHE UNITED STATES ON WHAT \nTHEY’RE DOING IN ORDER TO TRY TO \nBALANCE ALL THE COMPETING \nINTERESTS WHILE MAINTAINING \nENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS AND \nALL THE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS \nTHAT YOU CAN \nMEET? \n>>ELAINE FORBES: WE HAVE REACHED \nOUT. THERE ARE LESSONS LEARNED \nALL OVER NATIONALLY\, AND THE \nARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS\, \nMELINDA\, HAS BEEN ESPECIALLY \nATTUNED TO HELPING US UNDERSTAND \nTHE WAY OTHER JURISDICTIONS HAVE \nRESPONDED. AND BRAD BENSON WILL \nHELP ME WITH THIS\, BUT WE DO \nHAVE SOME VERY KEY EXAMPLES THAT \nARE HELPING US FIGURE OUT THE \nPATH. THIS IS A HARD-EDGE \nHISTORIC OLD WATERFRONT. HAS ALL \nTHE UTILITIES COMING TO ITS EDGE \nSO ECOLOGY GETS HARDER. RETREAT \nIS HARDER BECAUSE OF THE \nINFRASTRUCTURE. AND THESE ARE \nTHINGS THAT WE ARE LEARNING AND \nWE’LL SHARE WITH OTHER \nJURISDICTIONS\, ACTUALLY\, OLD \nCITIES ON WATER’S EDGE. SO WE’RE \nAHEAD\, BUT WE ALSO HAVE \nEXAMPLES\, SPECIFIC PROJECTS\, \nESPECIALLY THOSE WHO HAVE \nRESPONDED TO DISASTERS\, KATRINA\, \nSANDY\, LESSONS LEARNED\, \nNORFOLK\, GREAT COLLABORATION. \nAND THE CORPS HAS GIVEN US THESE \nTOOLS TO LEARN FROM OTHER \nEXPERIENCES. \n>>PAT EKLUND: THAT’S GREAT. \nMELINDA\, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR \nTAKING THAT ONE. I WORKED FOR \nTHE CORPS. IT WAS A DIFFERENT \nORGANIZATION. BUT I HAVE A TON \nOF OTHER QUESTIONS\, BUT THESE \nQUESTIONS ARE MORE DETAIL \nORIENTED AND IT’S NOT \nAPPROPRIATE FOR THIS BUT I \nREALLY LOOK FORWARD TO \nCONTINUING TO BE ENGAGED IN \nTHIS. AND TRYING TO THINK \nOUTSIDE THE BOX ON HOW WE CAN DO \nA WIN-WIN FOR NOT ONLY THE \nENVIRONMENT BUT ALSO FOR THE \nFUTURE OF THE CITY AND THE \nCOUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO AND THE \nPORT AS WELL. \n>>MELINDA FISHER: THIS IS \nMELINDA. SORRY. I WANTED TO ADD \nTO WHAT DIRECTOR FORBES SAID\, WE \nHAVE REACHED OUT TO A NUMBER OF \nGROUPS. AS MR. BENSON ALSO \nMENTIONED\, WE ARE LEADING THE \nPACK AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL WITH \nTHIS PROJECT. A LOT OF OTHER \nPROJECTS\, THERE WERE A FEW \nPROJECTS SLIGHTLY AHEAD OF US \nBUT THEY DIDN’T INCLUDE THE \nADAPTATION OVER TIME\, THE \nMONETARY PROTOCOLS SO WE ARE \nPAVING THE WAY AT THIS SCALE\, \nBUT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF \nPROJECTS ON OUR HEELS. WE’RE ALL \nWORKING VERY\, VERY CLOSELY. FOR \nEXAMPLE\, BOSTON\, CHARLESTON\, \nMIAMI\, ALL OF US HAVE BEEN \nCOLLABORATING AT THE CORPS \nLEVEL\, THE FEDERAL LEVEL TRYING \nTO FIGURE OUT HOW DO WE EVEN \nDEAL WITH SUCH A SITUATION AND \nAS YOU KNOW\, ALL OF THOSE \nDIFFERENT COMMUNITIES ARE — \nHAVE DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT \nECOLOGIES\, HISTORIC VALUE\, \nFLOODPLAINS\, EVERYTHING ABOUT \nIT. SO IT’S BEEN A LEARNING \nCURVE\, BUT I KNOW OUR LEADERSHIP \nAND EVERYONE NOW SEEMS TO BE \nVERY PLEASED SO FAR. SO SAN \nFRANCISCO DEFINITELY WILL \nPROBABLY BE ON THE MAP IF THIS \nTHING FULLY GOES THROUGH. \n>>PAT EKLUND: MELINDA\, THANK YOU \nSO MUCH FOR ADVOCATING FOR \nTHAT. \nI KNOW IT’S DIFFICULT SOMETIMES \nIN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BUT \nREALLY APPRECIATE IT. THANK \nYOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \nCAN’T QUITE TELL WHETHER \nCOMMISSIONER AMBUEHL HAS HIS \nHAND UP OR IF THIS IS \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER’S HAND — \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \nAPOLOGIZE\, WHEN YOU’RE IN THESE \nROOMS IT’S A LITTLE HARD. GO \nAHEAD. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. FIRST OF \nALL\, WE WANT TO \n[INDISCERNIBLE] \nI THINK I GOT A LITTLE BIT LOST \nIN SOME OF THE \nCOMPLEXITY. \n>>SPEAKER: ALICIA\, CAN YOU SPEAK \nTO WHEREVER DAVID HAS HIS \nCOMPUTER OR WHEREVER ANDY HAS \nHIS COMMUTER? \n>>ALICIA JOHN-BAPTISTE: IS THAT \nBETTER? I WAS SAYING THAT I \nTHINK I GOT A LITTLE BIT LOST IN \nSOME OF THE COMPLEXITY OF THIS. \nSO THERE’S SOMETHING TO ASK\, \nJUST A COUPLE OF — SOME \nQUESTIONS. MY FIRST QUESTION IS\, \nWHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE \nENGAGEMENT BETWEEN THE PORT AND \nTHE CORPS AND THE PROJECT\, ARE \nYOU — IS THE PROJECT \nESSENTIALLY THE UBER-PROJECT OF \nRESPONDING TO SEA LEVEL RISE? SO \nLET’S CALL THAT THE CAPITAL P \nPROJECT. UNDERNEATH THAT THERE \nARE A SERIES OF SMALLER PROJECTS \nWHICH COULD INCLUDE THINGS LIKE \nLIFTING THE FERRY BUILDING UP TO \nADAPT? OR IS THERE A DEFINED \nKIND OF SET OF INTERVENTIONS \nTHAT THE PARTNERSHIP PERTAINS \nTO? AND IS THERE A TIMELINE ON \nTHIS BODY OF WORK\, EITHER BY \nWHEN IT NEEDS TO BE COMPLETED OR \nSOME OTHER MILESTONE OR \nDEADLINE? SO THAT’S SORT OF ONE \nQUESTION. JUST THE NATURE OF THE \nPARTNERSHIP AND HOW IT APPLIES \nTO THE — YOU KNOW\, THE REALLY \nCOMPLEX SET OF INTERVENTIONS \nTHAT WILL BE REQUIRED. AND THEN \nANOTHER QUESTION RELATES TO \nFUNDING. I BELIEVE THAT THERE \nWAS A PERIOD OF TIME WHERE \nYOU’RE LOOKING TO SECURE \nCOMMITMENT — FEDERAL COMMITMENT \nTO SUPPORT THIS WORK. IS THAT A \nONE-TIME ASK THAT ESSENTIALLY \nGETS BANKED FOR THE LIFE OF \nIMPLEMENTATION? OR IS IT \nINTENDED TO BE MORE OF A KIND OF \nA ROLLING BASIS OF THERE WILL BE \nPROJECTS COMING THROUGH OVER THE \nCOURSE OF DECADES THAT WILL NEED \nTO SEEK FUNDING AUTHORITY AT THE \nTIME OF WHICH MATCHES\, ETC.? \n>>ELAINE FORBES: I’LL START THAT \nONE. I THINK THE FUNDAMENTAL \nANSWER IS\, WE DON’T KNOW ANSWERS \nTO YOUR QUESTIONS YET. BECAUSE \nWE’RE AT THE PHASE WHERE WE NEED \nTO DEFINE WHAT THE ACTIONS ARE \nIN THIS OVERALL PROJECT. SO I \nWOULD DESCRIBE IT AS AN OVERALL \nBIG-SCALE PROJECT TO PROVIDE \nFLOOD PROTECTION TO SAN \nFRANCISCO BASED ON THE SEA LEVEL \nRISE CURB. THAT’S THE PROJECT. \nHOW WE IMPLEMENT THE PROJECT IS \nTHE NEXT BIG PIECE OF \nWORK FOR THE CITY AND THE ARMY \nCORPS TO UNCOVER. WE WILL NOT DO \n— IT’S VERY UNLIKELY WE’LL DO \nTHE WHOLE 7 1/2 MILES OF \nWATERFRONT AT ONE TIME. WE’LL \nLOOK AT FIRST ACTIONS WE CAN \nTAKE THAT WILL FIT INTO THE \nCITY’S INTERESTS WHERE WE \nUNDERSTAND HOW THE UTILITY \nSITUATION WILL WORK\, WHERE WE \nHAVE A GOOD PLAN OF \nIMPLEMENTATION\, AND I BELIEVE WE \nWILL HAVE SEQUENTIAL \nAPPROPRIATIONS\, I BELIEVE\, FOR \nSTAGES OF THE PROJECT. \nMELINDA WILL HELP HERE. IN TERMS \nOF HOW TO PHASE FOR THE ARMY \nCORPS\, IT’S GOING TO BE WHERE \nTHERE IS THE MOST FLOOD RISK AND \nWHERE WE NEED TO TAKE ACTIONS \nEARLY. SO IT WILL BE ANALYSIS OF \nDEALING WITH RISK EARLIEST IN \nTHE AREAS THAT NEEDS MORE URGENT \nACTION. WE’LL ALSO BE LOOKING \nFOR PHASING IN IMPLEMENTATION \nTHAT ALLOWS US ENOUGH SPACE AND \nROOM TO TAKE BIG ACTIONS TO COME \nDOWN THE ROAD. LIKE YOU’LL SEE \nIN THE HISTORIC EMBARCADERO\, THE \nACTIONS PROPOSED IN THE PLAN ARE \nTO HIGH LEVELS — TO 3 1/2 FEET \nINSTEAD OF A LOWER LEVEL. THE \nANALYSIS SAYS\, YOU DO THAT ONE \nTIME. YOU DON’T TAKE \nSUBSEQUENTIAL PHASES TO ADAPT \nBECAUSE IT’S TOO MUCH. WE LOOK \nAT PHASING\, I ALMOST CALL IT A \nPROGRAM\, PHASING THE PROGRAM SO \nWE DO ENOUGH DESIGN TO PROJECTS \nARE READY TO IMPLEMENT. BUT \nTHESE ARE ALL THE BIG WORK OF \nMOVING FROM THIS CONCEPTUAL \nCONCEPT OF HOW TO PROVIDE FLOOD \nPROTECTION INTO SPECIFIC \nDISCREET PROJECTS WHERE WE KNOW \nWHAT’S ON TOP AND HOW TO \nCOORDINATE THE INFRASTRUCTURE \nMOVES THAT HAVE TO OCCUR AND \nTHAT COULD INCLUDE FLOODING \nCONCERNS FROM THE P.U.C. THAT’S \nONE EXAMPLE. THESE ARE THE \nPIECES TO WORK THROUGH AND THE \nARMY CORPS HAS SHARED WITH US \nIMPLEMENTATION AND THE STRATEGY \nAROUND IMPLEMENTATION IS ONE OF \nTHE — IS REALLY KEY\, KEY WORK \nTO GET RIGHT IN SOMETHING OF \nTHIS SCALE. \n>>ALICIA JOHN-BAPTISTE: THANK \nYOU. \n>>MELINDA FISHER: WHATEVER’S \nRECOMMENDED TO CONGRESS\, THAT \nFIRST ACTION\, IF IF IS \nAUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS\, IT \nIS APPROVED\, I GUESS YOU COULD \nSAY. \nWE ALL KNOW CONGRESS. WE ARE \nDEPENDENT ON THE FUNDING \nSTREAM. \nIF WE GET A HUGE SPLEL BILL — \nSUPPLEMENTAL BILL\, THE 35% COST \nSHARE IS WHEN IT BECOMES FEDERAL \nAND — AVAILABLE AND THE FEDERAL \nWOULD BE PUT IN A BANK. IF NOT \nIT WILL COME IN WORK PLANS AND \nSO WE HAVE TO REQUEST THE \nMONEY. \nAS TIME COMES ON — HOPEFULLY \n— \nIDEALLY THAT WILL MATCH WHAT THE \nCOST SHARE AVAILABILITY IS AT \nTHE TIME. AND WHATNOT. \nTHAT FIRST ACTION IS \nGUARANTEED\, DEPENDENT ON FEDERAL \nFUNDING\, OF COURSE\, IN CONGRESS \nAPPROPRIATIONS. THE SECOND \nACTION\, WE’VE BEEN ADVOCATING \nFOR TRYING TO MAKE IT MORE \nSTREAMLINED SO THE SECOND WOULD \nBE THE ADAPTATION FEATURES OR \nTHE ACTIONS. WE’VE BEEN ROUGHLY \nASSUMING TO HAPPEN IN THE \n2090’S. IT COULD BE SOONER OR \nLATER. DEPENDING ON THE \nRESULTS. \nWE’RE TRYING TO ADVOCATE THAT \nTHE AUTHORIZATION OF CONGRESS \nWOULD STREAMLINE IT SO WE DON’T \nHAVE TO WAIT AS LONG\, SO WE’RE \nKIND OF SET UP IN THE QUEUE. BUT \nBECAUSE THIS IS THE FIRST OF THE \nNATION\, FIRST OF THE CORPS\, OF \nCOURSE\, AS YOU CAN IMAGINE\, \nTHERE’S CHALLENGES TO THAT SO \nWE’RE GOING TO KEEP FIGHTING FOR \nTHAT. BUT WE DON’T KNOW WHAT \nWILL HAPPEN 100% WITH THAT — \nTHAT SECOND ACTION. THE FIRST \nACTION\, IF CONGRESS APPROVES IT\, \nAND IS SUBJECT TO FUNDING STREAM \nWOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR FUNDING \n— FROM FEDERAL \nFUNDING. \n>>ALICIA JOHN-BAPTISTE: THANK \nYOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO. IT’S \nHARD TO TELL. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: I WAS \nGOING TO ASK THE QUESTION THAT \nALICIA JUST ASKED SO THANK YOU \nVERY MUCH. I’D LIKE TO OFFER MY \nCOMPLIMENTS TO THE CORPS FOR \nTAKING SUCH A COMPREHENSIVE \nVIEW. I THINK THAT’S VERY \nVALUABLE BECAUSE IF THESE \nPROJECTS DO NOT FIT TOGETHER ON \nA HYDROLOGIC — A HYDRAULIC \nBASIS\, THEY WILL FAIL. WE DON’T \nWANT THAT TO HAPPEN. LOOKING AT \nTHEM TOGETHER IS EXTREMELY \nVALUABLE SO THANKS FOR DOING \nTHAT. \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: WELL\, I’LL \nJUST ADD MY ONE QUICK COMMENT \nWHICH WE — I ALSO AGREE\, IT’S \nVERY\, VERY IMPRESSIVE TO SEE \nTHIS VERY THOUGHTFUL\, \nCOMPREHENSIVE\, MULTI-BENEFITED \nAPPROACH. SO REALLY HATS OFF TO \nALL OF YOU. ONE QUESTION I’LL \nASK IS — HAS TO DO WITH — \nTHERE WAS A COMMENT THAT THEY \nTHOUGHT THE BENEFIT WAS GOING TO \nBE ALL PUBLIC BENEFIT AND I \nGUESS MY QUESTION IS\, WHO OWNS \nTHE WATERFRONT? IS IT ACTUALLY \nTHE PORT THAT ACTUALLY HAS \nOWNERSHIP OF THE WHARVES AND \nPORTS OR ARE WE LOOKING AT 1\,000 \nOWNERS? \n>>ELAINE FORBES: IT’S THE CITY \nTHAT OWNS THE PORT OF SAN \nFRANCISCO\, BUT UNDER TRUST TO \nTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. SO WE \nARE STATUTORILY A TRUSTEE OF THE \nSTATE OF CALIFORNIA. BUT WE ARE \nAN ENTERPRISE DEPARTMENT OF THE \nCITY AND COUNTY OF SAN \nFRANCISCO\, BUT THE PORT \nCOMMISSION AND THE PORT \nORGANIZATION IS CHARGED WITH THE \nMAINTENANCE AND DEVELOPMENT AND \nREPAIR AND OPERATIONS OF THE \nHARBOR. \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: THE WHARVES \nCAN BE OBVIOUSLY INDIVIDUALLY \nOWNED? \n>>ELAINE FORBES: IT’S ALL PUBLIC \nOWNERSHIP. IT’S LONG-TERM \nLEASES. IF THERE IS NOT A TRUST \nBENEFIT FOR SOME SEA WALL LOTS \nOR SOME OTHER PURPOSE\, WE \nSOMETIMES HAVE A PROPERTY SALE \nBUT IT’S VERY\, VERY RARE. IT IS \nALL UNDER PUBLIC TRUST\, PUBLIC OWNERSHIP. \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: I SEE. OKAY. \nGREAT. THAT’S ONE THING I DIDN’T SEE IN YOUR REPORT. YOU MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER ADDING THAT. \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: COMMISSIONER ECKERLE. \n>>JENN ECKERLE: THANK YOU. I WANT TO THANK THE PORT AND THE CORPS FOR THE FANTASTIC PRESENTATION AND OUR RESPONSES TO ALL OF OUR QUESTIONS. IT’S REALLY ENCOURAGING TO SEE THIS PLAN THAT HAS — IT’S INNOVATIVE\, IT’S SCIENCE-BASED. IT HAS THAT PHASED RESILIENCE PLANNING COMPONENT AND EMBEDDED MONITORING SO WE CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT’S HAPPENING AND ADAPT OVER TIME. I JUST WANTED TO BETTER UNDERSTAND — THIS MIGHT BE GETTING WEEDY. ARMY CORPS PROJECTIONS IN THAT ONE SLIDE THAT COMPARED IT WITH THE OTHER PROJECTIONS\, THEY LOOK LIKE THEY \nWERE LOWER THAN THE NATIONAL REPORT SCENARIOS. AND MAYBE WE DON’T NEED TO GET INTO THAT RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THE PLAN COME TEMPLATES RESILIENCE UP TO SEVEN FEET. MY MAIN QUESTION IS\, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT IF THOSE PROJECTIONS ARE SHOWN LOWER THAT THERE WOULD BE — THAT FUNDING FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WOULD NOT SUPPORT PLANNING UP TO THAT SEVEN-FOOT LEVEL? \n>>BRAD BENSON: MELINDA\, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO STAKE A FIRST STAB AT THAT? \n>>MELINDA FISHER: SURE. \n>>BRAD BENSON: AND THEY CAN YOU CAN ADD. SO WE LOOKED AT BOTH THE ARMY CORPS’ PROJECTIONS AND THE O.P.C. PROJECTIONS\, \nCOMMISSIONER ECKERLE. AND THE ARMY CORPS HIGH CURVE IS BOUNDED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA MOST LIKELY CURVE ON THE LOW END AND THE 100 AND 200 CURVE FROM THE PRIOR GUIDANCE. AGAIN\, WE’RE NOT CHOOSING A SPECIFIC CURVE. IT LOOK US A LONG TIME TO GET TO THIS. AS PLANNERS WE WANTED TO \nKNOW WHAT WE’RE PLANNING FOR AND IT IS AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE. AND SO WE’RE LOOKING AT ADAPTIVE \nMANAGEMENT TO MANAGE RISK OVER \nTIME. I THINK THE ARMY CORPS’ \nREGULATIONS REQUIRE US TO LOOK \nAT THE THREE ARMY CORPS CURVES \nAND ALSO DO NOT ALLOW CHOOSING A \nSPECIFIC CURVE OR AT LEAST OUR \nSTUDY GUIDANCE DID NOT ALLOW \nTHAT. AND I HAVEN’T HEARD \nNOTHING ABOUT SORT OF A CONSTRAINT ON FEDERAL FUNDING\, YOU KNOW\, RELATED TO SPECIFIC \nSEA LEVEL RISE CURVES. BUT MELINDA\, MAYBE YOU CAN HANDLE THAT PART OF THE QUESTION. \n>>MELINDA FISHER: YEAH. SO\, AGAIN\, THE FIRST OPTION\, \nDEPENDING ON WHERE YOU’RE AT \nALONG THE WATERFRONT\, IS TIED TO \nAN ELEVATION. SO THAT MIGHT BE 1 \n1/2 OR 3 1/2\, WHICH THEN \nCORRELATES TO VARIOUS CURVES. AS \nYOU SAW THOSE CURVES IN THERE \nAND THERE WAS A GRAY LINE ACROSS \nTHAT HAD 1 1/2 AND KIND OF SHOWED YOU WHERE YOU’RE AT IN \nTHOSE. THOSE WOULD BE COMMITTED TO IF CONGRESS DID — COMMITTED\, \nTOO\, IF CONGRESS DID APPROVE THE PROJECT. SO EVEN IF THE CURVE \nWAS LOWER OR WHAT ARE ACTUAL \nEXISTING CONDITION WERE SOMEHOW \nLOWER\, WE WOULDN’T TAKE THAT \nBACK OR TAKE THE STRUCTURE OFF \nTHE LAND. WHERE THE FUNDING \nMIGHT BE TIED TO MAYBE THE \nMONITORING AND IF THE \nMONITORING IS MAYBE INDICATING \nTHAT SEA LEVEL RISE IS MORE \nAGGRESSIVE\, MAYBE IT’S ON A \nHIGHER CURVE SOONER THAN WE \nTHOUGHT IT WOULD BE\, THAT’S \nWHERE FEDERAL FUNDING\, WE’D NEED \nTO GO BACK TO CONGRESS\, ASK THEM \nFOR MORE AND THEN WE WOULD DO \nTHE ADAPTATION. \nTHE ADAPTATIONS FOR THE DRAFT \nPLAN DO — DOES INCLUDE UP \nTO THAT SAFE HIGH CURVE AND AS \nBRAD SAID IT’S BETWEEN THE TWO \nCALIFORNIA CURVES. SO THAT’S \nKIND OF HOW THE FUNDING IS TIED \nTO CURVES. AND I WOULD BE \nGETTING WAY OUTSIDE MY LANE IF I \nEVEN TRIED TO EXPLAIN HOW \nTHE USACOE’S. IT’S TIED LOCALLY ON \nWHAT IS TIED TO SOME TIDE GAUGE \nSOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE NATION OR \nALONG THAT PARTICULAR COASTLINE \nOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND THEN \nTHE OTHER PIECE I WANTED TO \nMENTION\, OUR ELEVATIONS WE HAVE \nCOME UP WITH ARE ACTUALLY BASED \nON WHAT I LIKE TO CALL A PERFECT \nSTORM\, WHERE WE HAVE HIGH TIDE\, \n1% STORM\, PLUS SEA LEVEL RISE. \nSO THE LIKELIHOOD OF EVERY \nSINGLE ONE OF THOSE HAPPENING\, \nIT COULD HAPPEN. BUT IT IS LOWER \nPROBABILITY. IN A SENSE\, WE \nCOULD BE OVER — WE ARE \nOVERESTIMATING IF ONLY ONE OF \nTHOSE HAPPENS SO THERE’S A \nLITTLE BIT OF A WIGGLE ROOM \nTHERE IF THAT CURVES ARE OFF OR \nSOMETHING LIKE THAT. \n>>BRAD BENSON: I WANT TO OFFER \nONE QUICK CORRECTION. WE ARE NOT \nRAISING THE SHORELINE 1 1/2 OR \nTHREE FEET. WE ARE COMING UP \nWITH AN ELEVATION THAT WILL DEAL \nWITH SEA LEVEL RISE AND THAT \nTRANSLATES TO ON OUR — LIKE 13 \n1/2 FEET NAVD-80. FOR FEET AND A \nHALF. AND 15 1/2 FEET. NORTH \nAMERICAN VERTICAL DATA. SO JUST \nWANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. \n>>JENN ECKERLE: THANK YOU BOTH \nSO MUCH. I WAS CLEAR ON THAT \nSECOND PIECE AND REALLY \nAPPRECIATE YOUR ANSWERS TO MY \nQUESTIONS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I DO \nNOT SEE ANYTHING OTHER HANDS\, \nCOMMISSIONERS. SO WITH THAT I \nJOIN IN THANKING YOU FOR THE \nWORK AND THE REPORT. YES\, VERY \nCOMPREHENSIVE. BUT IT NEEDED TO \nBE. SO THANK YOU. SORRY. I THINK \nI ASKED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT \nTHE BEGINNING. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO PUBLIC \nCOMMENT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nALWAYS BETTER TO BE SURE. THANK \nYOU VERY MUCH. THAT CONCLUDES \nOUR BUSINESS ITEMS AND BRINGS US \nTO ADJOURNMENT. \n>>SPEAKER: I OBJECT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: YOU \nREALLY WANT ME TO SAY THAT? \n>>SPEAKER: NO. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \nWOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO \nADJOURN. COMMISSIONER GILMORE \nMOVES. COMMISSIONER NELSON \nSECONDS. COMMISSIONER PESKIN \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs 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. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant 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. \nIf 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. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf 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. \nCampaign Contributions\nState 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. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings 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.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/february-15-2024-commission-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240201T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240201T170000
DTSTAMP:20250320T190819Z
CREATED:20240118T071934Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250320T190819Z
UID:10000090-1706792400-1706806800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:February 1\, 2024 Commission Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Commissioners are located at the primary physical location and may be located at the teleconference locations specified below\, all of which are publicly accessible. The Zoom videoconference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually is also specified below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nPrimary Physical Meeting Location \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, CA 94105415-352-3600 \nTeleconference Locations \n\nSonoma County Administration Building575 Administration Drive\, Room 100ASanta Rosa\, CA 95405 \nCaltrans Building111 Grand Avenue\, Room 15-220Oakland\, CA 94612 \nMarin County Civic Center3501 Civic Center Drive\, Suite 410BSan Rafael\, CA 94903 \n\n\nPalo Alto City HallGround Floor Community Meeting Room250 Hamilton AvenuePalo Alto\, CA 94301 \n116 W 23rd Street\, 5th FloorNew York\, NY 10011 \n360 Alcatraz AvenueOakland\, CA 94618 \n890 Osos Street\, Suite HSan Luis Obispo\, CA 93401 \n\n\nCity of Novato Administrative OfficesBaget Conference Room922 Machin AvenueNovato\, CA 94945 \nSolano County Administration Center675 Texas Street\, Suite 6500Fairfield\, CA 94533 \nNapa County Administration Building1195 Third Street\, Room 310Napa\, CA 94559 \n\nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nLive Webcast \nJoin the meeting via Zoom \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/82557391023?pwd=TwTLPTiueHMXiUK3SeSsOH3acpAS3w.oivswZ_6CPmxDWEa \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers \n1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID825 5739 1023 \nPasscode407711 \nIf you call in by telephone: \n\nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourself\nPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak\n \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period (Each speaker is limited to three minutes)\nA 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.\n(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nApproval of Minutes for December 21\, 2023 Meeting\n(Reylina Ruiz) [415/352-3638; reylina.ruiz@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nResolution of Senator John Laird // Resolution of Graciela Gomez\n\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters\nThere is no administrative listing\n(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing and Vote on a Recommended Enforcement Decision to Resolve Enforcement Case No. ER2000.004.00\nThe Commission will consider whether to support a recommended enforcement decision to enter into a settlement agreement to resolve a violation at 3025 Marina Drive\, City and County of Alameda.\n(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]\nStaff Presentation\nPublic Hearing and Vote on a Recommended Enforcement Decision to Resolve Enforcement Case No. ER2021.044.00\nThe Commission will consider whether to support a recommended enforcement decision to enter into a settlement agreement to resolve a violation at 5 Blanding Lane\, Belvedere\, Marin County.\n(Rachel Cohen) [415/352-3661; rachel.cohen@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing on Updates to the California Sea-Level Rise Guidance\nRepresentatives 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.\n(Jessica Fain) [415/352-3642; jessica.fain@bcdc.ca.gov]\nDraft California Sea Level Rise Guidance\nhttps://opc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SLR-Guidance-DRAFT-Jan-2024-508.pdf // Presentation\nBriefing on the Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan Progress\nThe Commission will receive a briefing from staff on the Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan and the plan’s draft “One Bay Vision\,” which was developed based on extensive public engagement in Fall 2023. The briefing will also include an update on the project’s relationship with SB 272 (Laird 2023) and plans for spring outreach.\n(Jaclyn Mandoske) [415/352-3631; jaclyn.mandoske@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Comment // Presentation\nBriefing on Plan Bay Area 2050+\nThe Commission will receive a briefing by staff from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission/Association of Bay Area Governments on Plan Bay Area 2050+\, a limited and focused update to Plan Bay Area 2050\, the region’s long-range plan. The briefing will include a general overview of the update\, with a focus on the plan’s sea level rise adaptation\, conservation\, and parks and open space strategies.\n(Jessica Fain) [415/352-3642; jessica.fain@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPresentation\n2023 Enforcement Program Annual Progress Report\nThe Commission will receive a progress report on the program improvements and developments in 2023.\n(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]\nCommission Strategic Plan Progress Report\nSenior staff will present an update on the progress associated with the Commission’s 2023-2025 Strategic Plan.\n(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3653; larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov]\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Articles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nSolano County billionaires’ utopia: Seeking support but picking fights\nIs the Bay Area entering a ‘golden age of ferries’?\nCalifornia coastal protections versus housing: The battle is on\nHow S.F.’s Embarcadero could be transformed by this $13.5 billion proposal\nAs abandoned boats pile up in Bay Area waters\, who’s responsible for the environmental damage?\nRICHARDSON BAY REGIONAL AGENCY RECOGNIZES BANNER YEAR FOR PROTECTING LOCAL ENVIRONMENT AND COMPLYING WITH STATE MANDATES\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Meeting Minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				Audio Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2024/01/2024-02-01-audio-recording.mp3\nTranscript \nBoardroom SX80: Good afternoon and welcome to our once again. Hybrid VCDC. Commission meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: My name is Zach Wasserman\, and I am the chair of BCDC. \nBoardroom SX80: Our first order of business is to call the role Commissioners. If you are participating virtually\, please unmute yourselves when you’re called\, and then mute yourselves again after responding \nBoardroom SX80: a new\, ragged. \nBoardroom SX80: sorry\, Ragathaan. \nBoardroom SX80: Close enough\, Ragan. Thank you. Thank you. Our Hr. Analysis will be sitting in for Alina today. Anu\, will you please call the roll \nBoardroom SX80: chair? Wasserman here? \nBoardroom SX80: Vice Charizon \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Adiego\, here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner on here\, Commissioner\, Bird \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eklan. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: present \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Goren. \nSusan Gorin\, Commissioner: present \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Haas. \nKarl Hasz\, Commissioner: Yeah. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Freskin\, present Commissioner Pine. present Commissioner Randolph \nBoardroom SX80: here \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Zapida. here Commissioner Beech. present Commissioner Kimball. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: here \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Kishimoto \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: here \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: here’s Nervousness \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner\, Gallagher\, here. Commissioner Gilmore\, here. Did I miss anyone? \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Yes\, Commissioner\, show Walter is here \nBoardroom SX80: now. Bask was this here. \nDavid Ambuehl\, Commissioner: Thank you. Commissioner. Commissioner Gunther is here. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Here. I’m meeting \nDavid Ambuehl\, Commissioner: Commissioner. Ambul is here. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Decisions happen. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Did I miss anyone else? \nBoardroom SX80: We have 20 who attended the roll call? \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. We have a quorum\, and so we may conduct our business. \nBoardroom SX80: That brings us to item 3\, which is public comment period. If anyone wishes to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not yet held a public hearing or is not on today’s agenda. You may have 3 min to do so\, and I’m going to start with and not impose a strict time limit and recognize \nBoardroom SX80: John Coleman. \nBoardroom SX80: Some of you will know this\, if you may not. He has an announcement\, I won’t steal his thunder. \nBoardroom SX80: I might make a few comments after he speaks. John\, the floor is yours. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Now it’s on. Thank you. Chair Wasserman Commissioners and BC. DC. Staff. Some of you may have read or heard A week ago\, Tuesday last week I made an announcement at East Bay mud that I’m resigning from East\, famous board of directors\, and I’m leaving the Bay planning coalition at the Effective. I think. March 6 or so. \nBoardroom SX80: and it’s for new opportunity. It’s a new\, really a new opportunity. I’m going to becoming become the manager of natural resources at the Calaveras County Water district. The other Ccwd up in the mountains. And what’s unique is for 33 plus years I’ve created policy. \nBoardroom SX80: Now\, I have to implement policy\, and it’s gonna be a big change\, but one I’m really looking forward to. It’s gonna afford me the opportunities. My first years of college at Oregon State in the forestry program and after transferred to Uc. Berkeley in the natural resources department working on water policy. So I get to actually finally put all those together and work in an area that I’ve not had that chance in in a different realm. And I need to really think. \nLarry and Zach! And actually the Commission and the entire Bcd. C. Staff. When I came here 13 years ago\, I guess it might be \nBoardroom SX80: okay to say our relationship was not \nBoardroom SX80: always real good\, and we still disagree with some things. However\, having said that we’re able to work through the issues in a plight\, cordial manner\, and work to get solutions to problems and be able to support many of the programs that you’re working on. And you’ve done a great job. And I think Bpc has done a really good job in terms of working with this regulatory agencies and others like the corps of Engineers and \nBoardroom SX80: State water resource. San Francisco Regional Water Quality control board. \nBoardroom SX80: I’ve loved it. I have many friends from who I’ve done the work with Bpc. Annie Spay mud\, and I hope that those friendships will continue going into the future. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m going to be living in Calaveras County\, moving up there in March. And yes\, it’s a little bit different\, and will take 45 min from my place to the office\, but it won’t be like what it took to go from my home to here this morning. It’ll be a little different. It may take more than 45 min\, depending on the elements\, if it’s a heavy snowstorm. \nBoardroom SX80: or whatever. But I have the vehicle to make sure I can get through all that\, and don’t have to put chains on\, and that’ll put me closer to next year. Skiing when I can resume skiing at Bear Valley. Yes\, Aaron\, we’ve talked about that. And one of your board members is not here today. That’s John Joya and John and I go back 33 years when we served together on East Bay. Mud board\, I believe\, is \nBoardroom SX80: San Diego now\, and Senator Laird’s up there\, and I worked with Senator Laird\, who was at the California Conservation Corps\, and he was great to work with\, and so many of you were\, and it’s an opportunity I could not pass up \nBoardroom SX80: for a lot of reasons. I leave with some \nBoardroom SX80: reluctance\, I guess\, because I’ve really enjoyed what I’ve done in working with the people I’ve worked with\, and I am leaving Bpc. In good stead\, like Cameron car to stand\, and hopefully you’ll be taking a greater role at the Bay planning coalition. \nBoardroom SX80: and Robert Rogers if he could stand behind me\, and he’s doing our legislation and taking over more responsibilities. So Bpc. Is not going away in any measure to act. We’re becoming more active and are getting new members and taking on new challenges. As I’m gonna take on a new challenge. \nBoardroom SX80: They’re taking on more challenges. But it’s one that I’m really looking forward to\, and I’d like to thank \nBoardroom SX80: all of you and the staff \nBoardroom SX80: for working with me at Bpc. In a very proactive role\, and if you’re ever in Calaveras County\, look me up because I have a house\, and Arnold might work in San Andreas\, and it’s little different. You may notice I’m Maureen sort of \nBoardroom SX80: blue\, gray blue jeans \nBoardroom SX80: down there up there. You don’t wear a tie. You don’t wear a sports coat\, and blue jeans are the norm. So I’m so really gonna fit in because I won’t have to wear a suit anymore unless it’s something really special\, but probably won’t be up there that I having to wear the suit\, because then I’ll be people. Look at you with suspicion going! \nBoardroom SX80: What are you doing? You’re in a suit and a tie that doesn’t look right. What are you up to? So I’m gonna go from suit and tie\, giving you a look of what it’s gonna be like in terms of more casual. And with that I’d like to again say thank you to everybody for the great opportunity I’ve had over the last 13 years in this role. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, John. Thank you. You most certainly will be missed. We \nBoardroom SX80: from my perspective. \nBoardroom SX80: In addition to our individual constituencies as as commissioners. We have a number of specific constituencies\, but sort of the 2 leading ones\, if you like our Bay planning Council and save the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: and you have done\, I think\, an an excellent job\, not only representing your constituents and your group\, but also working with us and helping us steer our ship and ships as we go through the various issues that bring us together. So I thank you for that. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Cool\, and I \nBoardroom SX80: wait. I can sit down now. You may sit down now. I’d just like to say Thank you very much. I’ve been honored and loved doing what I’ve been doing so. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: I have no other cards. Are there any virtual public speakers? There is one public comment. \nBoardroom SX80: oh. \nBoardroom SX80: caller\, unmute yourself and you and you have 3 min. \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): Hi\, thanks very much. This is David Lewis\, executive director at Save the Bay. \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): And I also wanna add my congratulations. And\, thanks to John Coleman. I’m particularly disappointed that he’s stepping out\, because now I can’t avoid confronting the fact \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): that\, I am probably the longest continuously serving BC. DC. Stakeholder at 26 years with save the day. I wanted to briefly. Add to my to probably 2 year history of \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): flagging concerns with cargill storage of bittern and open ponds. Next to the bay south of the Dunbar Bridge. As many of you know\, Staff has been working for several years to try to to finalize a new permit for operation and maintenance of Cargill salt making operations\, especially focusing on \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): their maintenance of the levees and burns that separate their material from the bay. \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): One of the optimistic signs that we had was that cargo is developing a plant \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): or a pipeline to move their toxic bittern from open ponds. There’s 60 million tons of bitter and stored there just south of the Dunbarton Bridge\, right next to the bay\, and the plan was a pipeline to connect with the East Bay dischargers \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): authority\, facility and dilute that material and get it \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): back into the day in a safe manner. \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): however\, as soon as the environmental impact report last year was completed\, to authorize a preferred alternative route for that pipeline\, Cargill decided not to pursue that. And they’re basically going back to the drawing board to come up with a new route and a new Eir and new permits and new construction\, and the bottom line is the soonest that pipeline could be reducing the bitterness in those ponds. Is 8 to 10 years from now. \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): so this makes it even more urgent for Vcdc. And the Regional Water Board to strengthen the protections for the bay by insisting on stronger integrity\, and of the berms that separate this highly toxic material from the bay \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): and from the marshes right next to those ponds that contain endangered species assault marsh\, harvest mouse so as this permit\, slowly moves along the the delay of this pipeline makes it even more important for BC. DC. To ensure that those berms have integrity\, not only in the event of an earthquake\, but in the \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): expected and anticipatable higher tides during king tides and with sea level rise. Thanks very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Any other public speakers. There are no more public comments. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: That brings us to item 4. Approval of the minutes of our December 20\, first\, 2023 meeting. We have been furnished a draft of these\, and I would appreciate a motion\, and second\, to approve the minutes. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: I’ll move approval of the minutes. \nBoardroom SX80: I’ll take Commissioner Eklan’s motion\, and I’ll take Commissioner Pescin’s second \nBoardroom SX80: is there any objection to the minutes. \nBoardroom SX80: any abstentions? The minutes are approved unanimously. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: That brings me to my report. I’m going to start on what is certainly a high note we have a \nBoardroom SX80: I’m not telling you. I’m going to get to low notes\, but I’m starting on a high note that we have prepared a resolution of appreciation for the tremendous work that State Senator John Laird has done to preserve and enhance the California coast\, including the San Francisco Bay shoreline. In particular\, we are gratefully acknowledging his steadfast work to move. SP. 272\, through the State Legislature last year. \nBoardroom SX80: This measure will ensure that coastal local governments will prepare plans to address and prepare for rising sea level. \nBoardroom SX80: As we stated\, the resolution\, the legislation signed by the Governor is entirely consistent with\, and will significantly move forward. Our Bay adapt initiative and our upcoming regional shoreline adaptation plan. \nBoardroom SX80: I think one of the keynotes in the resolution\, and and that\, in fact\, is a hallmark of Senator Laird’s career is persistence. I’m sure he learned it in many places\, but one of them is what the University of California\, Santa Cruz\, which we share. So banana slugs may move slowly\, but we are persistent. I would we all have the resolution. \nBoardroom SX80: and I’m not going to read it in full. But again\, the most important part is the vision that this measure contains in it the practical application and the persistence in getting it passed and approved by the Governor. \nBoardroom SX80: I would appreciate a motion\, and second\, to approve the resolution. Happy to move it. I think when I was there\, John? Was the Mayor. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Is there a second \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eklan? Seconds the \nBoardroom SX80: Please raise your hand? I’m sorry. Do I hear any objection to the motion. hearing and seeing none\, it is approved. \nBoardroom SX80: We thank you very much\, Senator Laird\, and the virtual floor is yours. \nSenator John Laird: Well\, thank you very much. I really appreciate it\, and I appreciate the recognition of the persistence because it took 2 years. And until I sort of threw down the gauntlet. In the last week\, before \nSenator John Laird: amendments I had to throw down the gauntlet to people that wanted to to move it on\, and I think the thing that really helped make a difference was the fact that we had the storms last year. \nSenator John Laird: Because that’s while this was going on\, and and the central coast really took an incredible hills wharves trashed see? Walls wiped out\, roads wiped out\, and I think it really made the case. And in one hearing I said\, this\, bill’s important\, because to have those conversations before these things happen and not after. And I just worry \nSenator John Laird: that we still won’t be having some of these discussions in time. And so \nSenator John Laird: it it also puts an onus on you and the Coastal Commission to work really hard to make this happen. And the collaboration with the cities and counties is gonna be really important. And I just stand ready \nSenator John Laird: to work together on that\, because this is just too important. And we got the money and for local assistance in the budget. And we’re gonna have to fight to hold that. So just thanks for this honor. And I just look forward to working together because some of the hardest work is still to come. \nBoardroom SX80: Amend that one. Thank you very much. With that I’m going to move to another resolution \nBoardroom SX80: which we have prepared for our now retired executive secretary\, Grace Gomez\, who needs no introduction to the Commissioners\, as you know\, or may remember. Grace retired at the end of last year\, after a long and illustrious career at VCDC. \nBoardroom SX80: She was\, when she retired\, the longest currently serving Staffer at BCDC. A little over 40 years\, and we have all enjoyed her friendly demeanour and get it done. Attitude! \nBoardroom SX80: I am going to read a couple of things from her resolution. \nBoardroom SX80: Whereas Gracie’s positive outlook\, quick smile\, and her ability to get work done well were always on display at BCDC. Allowing her to become BCD. C’s executive secretary. 11 years after she started. \nBoardroom SX80: just after high school as a seasonal clerk. Since there was a hiring freeze she has always been ready for any and all tasks with a team approach from the Friday evening mailings back in the day to supporting the Commission remotely during the Covid emergency. \nBoardroom SX80: and whereas it is widely known that VCD. C’s current Commissioners and alternates will always open an email from Gracie prior to one sent by the executive director\, vividly demonstrating who’s really more important in the big scheme of things. \nBoardroom SX80: She is our format queen\, she\, her smile and her winning ways have inspired all of us\, and she is missed. You may have poached the podium and make a few remarks if you would like. \nBoardroom SX80: Sorry! \nBoardroom SX80: Oh\, Larry wants me to vote on your resolution. First Cause\, you know\, if you talked first\, we might not approve it. \nBoardroom SX80: I would entertain a motion to\, and a second to approve the resolution. So moved Commissioner Randolph and Commissioner Eisen Seconds. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Any objections \nBoardroom SX80: approved unanimously. Thank you\, ma’am. \nBoardroom SX80: You can. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Wassaman Commissioners and Bcd staff\, and of course I can’t forget \nBoardroom SX80: our core reporters from one and her husband. \nBoardroom SX80: I can’t believe it’s been 40 years that I’ve worked at BCDC. \nBoardroom SX80: It feels like a lifetime. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s bittersweet moment embarking on a new chapter of my life\, but I’m ready to experience the new adventures of retirement will bring me. \nBoardroom SX80: Throughout my career. I’ve learned so much and worked alongside with many amazing and talented people. \nBoardroom SX80: I’ve also developed long time friendships. I will forever look back at my time \nBoardroom SX80: at BC. DC. And treasured the wonderful memories\, especially on mailing days in the mail room. We had so much fun back in the day when we had mailings we had to mail over 100 IP. Sometimes 300\, and\, thanks to Larry\, we cut those mailing lists down in half. And he said one day\, We’re gonna do emails instead of snail mail. \nBoardroom SX80: And thanks to him\, that’s all we’ve done now. And it’s cut down all that time\, but I do remember all our fun times in the mail room when it would be late. \nBoardroom SX80: But we would all have a ball of a time we would all get together and make it happen. Make sure that it was the mail was driven to the rink on center\, or trying to find out which mailing which post offices were open at that time\, and so I will remember those days \nBoardroom SX80: when I take my walks at the San Diego\, Marina. I see the public shore signs. I will always be reminded of the wonderful work Bcd. Has done so\, even though I’ve retired. I do see the public shore signs\, and it reminds me of all the wonderful work that Bcd. Has done and that I was part of. \nBoardroom SX80: and \nBoardroom SX80: some commissioners I’ve I’ve seen and known for a while in the background. I remember you\, Gilmore Peskin\, Randolph\, and I’m sure there’s some others\, Joya and I. \nBoardroom SX80: We’ll miss all of that\, sending you the quorum email. Blast and \nBoardroom SX80: I’ll still be. I’ll still be behind the scenes\, seeing what goes on and checking in with Raina\, who’s covering\, for until we fill the position\, and \nBoardroom SX80: I would treasure everything that I have learned. and take with me those beautiful memories that were created at BCDC. \nBoardroom SX80: It was my family. It’s hard to let go\, but \nBoardroom SX80: I’m gonna look over for now\, and I just thank you for for everything. \nBoardroom SX80: and I just can’t believe the 40 years is here. It’s like\, I remember back in the day\, I used to think\, oh\, it’s going to take forever to retire. But look\, it’s here. I was like\, Wow. \nBoardroom SX80: but yes\, thank you\, and take care\, and I’ll be in the background. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much\, Tracy. \nBoardroom SX80: Our we did have a meeting of our rising sea level working group on January eighteenth\, and normally I would ask for a report on that. However\, we’re going to have a staff report\, so I will defer to that. There was an article this morning in the New York Times. I commend to you nationally\, but including the West Coast\, on how coastal cities are and how they need to adapt. We get \nBoardroom SX80: a little bit of benefit from the fact that the east coast and the Gulf coast tends to be hit more by storms than we do\, but it is keeping the issues at a significant level. \nBoardroom SX80: Our next meeting will be held on February fifteenth\, under Bagley Keynes. New attendance rules at that meeting. We expect to take up the following matters\, a briefing on the draft. San Francisco waterfront coastal flood study a briefing on our 2023 Enforcement work and a briefing on our strategic plan. Progress \nBoardroom SX80: that brings us to X party reports. If any commissioner wishes to make an X party report on communications outside of commission meetings \nBoardroom SX80: on an adjudicatory matter\, they are welcome to do so now\, regardless of whether you do it orally. You do need to file a written report. \nBoardroom SX80: Any ex-party reports. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Commissioner. Yes\, I just like to report that I had a conversation with Gita Dev of this Year Club. I’ll submit the necessary report in writing as well. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: I see no others \nBoardroom SX80: that brings us to our the Executive director. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair washerman. On February first\, 1843\, \nthe Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York opened its doors for business\, and it remains the oldest continuous writer of insurance in the United States. Exactly 41 years later\, February first\, 1884\, the first volume of the Oxford English Dictionary was published. It included words starting from the beginning of the alphabet through those beginning with the letters\, a NT. \nBoardroom SX80: You’ll note that the word insurance was not included in the first volume. It took 44 more years for the final volume to be published in 1 28 \nfrom this music lover’s perspective\, perhaps nowhere and at no time\, was the absence of the word insurance felt more than February first\, 1\, 96. On that day\, 128 years ago. Today \nPuccini’s opera\, La Bohem\, premiered in Turin\, Italy\, and since then poor Mimi has died in the opera’s fourth and final act without ever having purchased a life insurance policy \nBoardroom SX80: with regard to staffing. I’m very pleased to let you know that we have 2 new hires coming into Bcd. C. This month. First\, Kate Lyons has accepted an offer for the environmental scientist position in the adapting to rising tides data and science unit. Kate is from the City of Brotherly Love\, and earned her Bachelor of Science in Geology at Temple University\, so she may be the first owl to be hired by Bcd. \nBoardroom SX80: After graduating\, she worked in the energy efficiency and renewable energy engineering field\, then joined the Civics Park Fellowship program where she worked for Mtc. And with Vcd. C. In preparing the technical analysis that was part of the funding and investment framework. She then became a planner in the Governor’s office of planning and research where she helped develop the regional resilience grant program guidelines and supported programs that provide regional resilience throughout the State of California. \nBoardroom SX80: Kate will work with our adapting to rising tide science team as it develops new and exciting products. \nBoardroom SX80: and you will soon meet Sierra Peters\, whom I have selected as Bcd’s new executive liaison a new position. When Gracie announced to us that she planned to retire\, we decided that we had to reimagine what a new role could bring to BCDC. Including acting as a commission secretary. \nSo starting in March\, Sierra will be sitting where you now see anew. And now also Raylena\, and before her Peggy Sharon\, Howard\, Russ\, and Grace. I don’t know who was before Russ\, but in any case the chair was. The chair has been\, has been sat in\, occupied\, but not \nBoardroom SX80: previously\, by what we would call a commission secretary. \nFor the past 2 years Sierra worked as a program manager\, managing the logistics and execution of multi-tiered events across the US. \nBoardroom SX80: She has led projects prepared internal and external correspondence\, and developed new processes for both her Alma Mater\, Rocky Mountain College\, in Billings\, Montana\, and for enacts U.S.A. A program for college students to develop leadership in business acumen. As I noted\, Sierra is a Batlin bear. Having earned her bachelor’s degree in business administration from Rocky Mountain with Minors Nikon and Small business. \nBoardroom SX80: I should also note that Bcd. C. Continues to search for great candidates\, to fill our open positions in the regulatory\, in the enforcement and in the planning sectors. And I’ll send you a list of those vacancies today\, and please send them to your networks also on a staffing note. Abag Ina inaugurated Napa County Supervisor\, Belia\, Ramos as its new president. \nBoardroom SX80: and Berkeley\, Mayor\, Jesse Aragine is Vp. In January\, as both serve on Bcd. C. We’re thrilled that we have even more of a direct link with that important agency. \nAnd with regard to the State’s budget situation\, Bcd. C. Is subject to a budget freeze along with all other state bodies. However\, this freeze can be categorized\, perhaps\, as somewhere between late autumn sweater weather and a major frost\, while our spending will be monitored by the Department of Finance\, we are allowed to continue expending funds\, unnecessary training expenses that actually save the State funds in the long term emergencies\, etc. We have instituted an internal process to ensure that \nwe don’t make any mistakes\, and I want to commend our financial services. Staff\, led by Sean Williamson for taking on this task so well. \nBoardroom SX80: this morning\, at a meeting of the Highway 37 Policy Committee\, led by local government representatives\, California\, State Transportation Agency\, Secretary Tokes\, omishaken and natural resources. Secretary Wade Crowfoot \nBoardroom SX80: jointly announced that Cal. State and C. Nra are launching the new partnership and leadership structure about which I spoke late last year. It is designed to improve transportation\, hasten natural resource\, restoration\, and public access strengthen equitable solutions and resolve. Climate change challenges in the North Bay along Highway 37. \nWe all know that 37 is essential to the entire bay region\, but its traffic jams are intolerable for workers trying to get to their jobs. It has no transit option. It’s already flooded during storms\, and it is at high risk from sea level rise. This new organizational structure will elevate environmental and equity goals alongside fundamental transportation goals. \nI think that it is important to recognize that this new approach is changing\, how the state of California views the rebuild\, that is\, from a series of connected projects with different timetables and outcomes to a larger scale integrated program of improvements whose outcome will be greater than the sum of its parts. \nThis is a once in a generation\, opportunity to re envision\, transportation\, infrastructure that will meet the many challenges of the century from increasing mobility to strengthening equity\, to restoring desperately needed natural habitat \nduring the next few months as Bcd’s representative on the new leadership structure. I’ll be working with my colleagues\, including David M. Buell\, who is here on the screen today to daylight a lot of information about Highway 37. And I really want to say publicly how much we appreciate David and Dina\, for all of their great work in helping us try to figure this one out. We’ll schedule a briefing for the Commission on the program’s progress this spring\, and please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. Meanwhile\, that you may have \nour sediment for Wetlands Adaptation project held day one of its 2 day stakeholder workshop last month. This was the first solely in person. Public workshop BCDC. Is held since the pandemic began\, and we think it was a success. We had over 50 attendees\, and Commissioner Gunther opened the break and opened the workshop with a stirring call to action. \nThe events included 6 breakout sessions\, in which participants engaged in conversations about barriers and challenges of beneficial reuse of sediments and soils\, and proposed actions to address them. Day 2 of the workshop is on February thirteenth\, and will focus on fine tuning proposed actions. It will also include additional breakout sections on governance\, Coalition Building and funding information on registering for the event can be found on the homepage of the Bcd. C. Website. \nAshley Tomerlin\, our Bay design analyst and senior landscape architect\, met a couple weeks ago with a group of students at Redwood City’s Design Tech High School to work through the students\, planting design and restoration project at the oracle campus. The proposal includes removing invasive species like ice plant fennel\, and black acacia\, and replanting the Slu bank with native species. \nAshley introduced the students to the principles of planting design and priorities\, and Ashley will continue to provide support as the design progresses. They’re hoping to complete the removal of the species this year\, and the group’s freshmen will continue with the project in upcoming years. \nSpeaking of freshmen or sophomores\, such as our son \nBoardroom SX80: Bcd. C. Is now live on Instagram. Please follow us and send us to your friends\, your colleagues\, your relatives\, your coworkers\, and anybody else. You know we’ve already received an awful lot of very\, very welcome messages to do that\, and we appreciate your support. \nFinally\, an announcement for our county supervisors. \nBoardroom SX80: I shall contact each of you next week with a request. We want you to arrange for you the 2 City Council members representing your county\, who sit on Bcd. C’s local elected task force and Bcd. C. Staff to brief the Mayor City Council members and planning directors in your county on Bcd. C’s plans to complete the guidelines\, they will use to begin work on their local rising. C-level \nadaptation plans as required by Sb. 272. We know that each county has regular meetings of their mayors and council members and other senior staff\, and we think it’s vital that you introduce us and join with us as we explain what we expect to occur during the remainder of the year as we develop and you all approve. Fingers crossed those guidelines. \nWe would prefer that these meetings occur sometime in March or April\, and I also want to mention that our staff and Mtca. Bag staff will be reaching out to your planning staffs and throughout your counties to update project information that’s already in our shoreline Project inventory map. \nSo all this leads me to report chair Wasserman\, that I’m happy to answer any questions. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Are there any questions for the executive director. \nBoardroom SX80: seeing none. There are no administrative listings before us today\, so we will move on to Item 8\, \nBoardroom SX80: which is a public hearing and vote on a recommended Enforcement decision \nBoardroom SX80: to resolve the enter into a center settlement agreement and resolve enforcement case number er 2\,000 point 0 0 4.0 0. \nRegarding the owner of the residential property located at 3 0 2 5 Marina drive in the city of Alameda. \nBoardroom SX80: I would like to ask Mister Roger Standridge\, the owner of that property\, to identify himself and make his presence known. \nBoardroom SX80: Is he on? Virtually \nBoardroom SX80: we were hopeful\, but we were not expecting him. All right\, that is his privilege. \nBoardroom SX80: BCDC. Enforcement staff will present the case and the proposed settlement agreement for our consideration. If Mister Standridge does appear\, you will have the opportunity to comment if you wish to do so. After all the presentations have been made\, public comment period will be open and will be limited to 3 min per person. \nBoardroom SX80: After that has been closed the floor will be opened to members of the Commission to ask\, follow up questions of ECDC. Staff\, and deliberate on the matter. All speakers must limit their presentations and comments to the evidence already made part of the Enforcement record which has been published online with this meeting’s agenda. \nBoardroom SX80: and or to the policy implications of such evidence. we will not allow the presentation of any oral testimony \nBoardroom SX80: before Adrian Klein gives her presentation. I want to do 2 things. First\, I want to open the public hearing on the matter. Second\, I invite Commissioner Gilmour\, the chair of the Enforcement Committee\, to give a brief summary of the committee’s hearing on the matter that took place on January eleventh \nBoardroom SX80: chair. Gilborn\, you have the floor. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair Wasserman. On January eleventh\, 2024\, the Enforcement Committee held a hearing and a vote on Staff’s recommendation to approve a settlement agreement between BCDC. And the respondent. Mister Standridge\, addressing an unauthorized boat dock at his home in Alameda\, Mister Standridge as of yet\, has chosen not to attend this hearing. \nBoardroom SX80: After the staff presentation\, the Enforcement Committee voted unanimously to adopt the Staff recommendation as the Enforcement Committee’s recommendation to the Full Commission \nat this time I will invite Miss Klein to make her presentation. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Good afternoon\, everyone. \nBoardroom SX80: Grace is gone. Alright\, next slide. That introduction was adequate. So\, as usual\, we’ll just have a quick outline. Or\, as you can see\, so next slide 2 location images one. This is the \nBoardroom SX80: Bay Bridge to the south\, Oakland and Alameda\, and the Red Arrow shows you 3025. Marina drive. Next slide is closer. This is an image of the residential neighborhood and the property in question next slide. \nBoardroom SX80: So just a quick timeline of events\, it’s slightly unusual. So on or before July 2\,000. A former owner of this property replaced an existing boat dock with a new boat dock \nBoardroom SX80: in roughly the same location\, but with smaller dimensions without a BCC. Permit. That same year that former owner submitted an incomplete application to replace a 336 square foot dock with a 44 square foot. Dock and staff responded\, indicating that the application was incomplete. \nBoardroom SX80: to which the former owner did not respond\, leaving it unfiled \nBoardroom SX80: between 2\,000 and the year 2\,022 Bcd. Staff did not pursue resolution of this violation\, and the former owner did not follow through several years before that in 2\,018\, Mr. Standrich purchased the property. \nBoardroom SX80: and we engaged with him. In the year 2022\, and 2023 to try and solicit an application or have the dock removed. We were unsuccessful\, despite having issued a letter commencing a standardized fine penalty clock. \nBoardroom SX80: so we terminated his opportunity to resolve using the standardized fines\, commenced a formal enforcement proceeding\, issued a violation report and complaint. And that was in October of 2023 that resulted in productive conversations. Mister Sandridge agreed to submit\, and after the fact\, application for the asbilt dock. \nand expressed interest in resolving the matter with a settlement agreement instead of an order. \nBoardroom SX80: So in November we agreed to order terms after conversation\, and during that time he submitted draft site plans and evidence that Regional Water Quality Board approval was not required for the 23 year old structure. \nBoardroom SX80: He informed us the flotation material was encased in plastic boxes which is promotes water quality protection. And he submitted site plans identifying the location of the bay and the Shirlin band. All of this is required as part of the application \nBoardroom SX80: he \nBoardroom SX80: did submit the penalty payment that the summit agreement would require if adopted\, although we do await his application\, fee and additional application materials. \nBoardroom SX80: Next slide\, please. So to resolve this single violation of a failure to obtain a permit to authorize a smaller replacement boat. Dock next slide\, please\, Angela\, thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Mister Standard has agreed to do the following\, which\, as Enforcement Committee chair\, Gilmour just mentioned as of the eleventh of January\, the Exec de \nBoardroom SX80: Enforcement Committee recommends that the Commission authorize the Executive director to execute the proposed settlement agreement which requires a respondent to remove the unauthorized Doc or submit an application by the middle of this month\, and pay an administrative penalty which has been paid. And that concludes the staff presentation. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Adrian. If Mister Sandridge is present\, I would invite him to comment if he so chooses. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, well\, I’m going to say thank you to Miss Klein for the presentation and chair. Wasserman\, would you please open public comment? Period? \nBoardroom SX80: Certainly. Do we have any public speakers? There are no public speakers. \nBoardroom SX80: Mister Standridge is not here\, but I assume he is not objected in any way. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m seeing the negative response from the chair of the committee. No\, I’m sorry to put it on the record. We have not heard any objections from Mr. Standridge. \nBoardroom SX80: public comment period is closed. Do commissioners have any questions or comments. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t see any \nBoardroom SX80: chair\, Gilmore\, would you like to move the? \nBoardroom SX80: I would like to entertain a motion\, and would offer Chair Gilmour. \nBoardroom SX80: to make the motion and seek a second closing \nBoardroom SX80: close the public hearing. Do I need to vote on a close? The public hearing voice vote the we have a little difference here. All those in favor of closing the public hearing say\, Aye\, aye\, any opposed public hearing is closed. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Now you can make the motion. Thank you. Chair Wasserman\, I would like to move the Enforcement Committee’s recommendation\, which is to accept the Settlement agreement. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: and I’ll second the motion. This is Commissioner Eklund. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Pat. \nBoardroom SX80: will you please call the roll on the motion \nBoardroom SX80: chair\, wasn’t you? Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Cheriasen\, Vice-chairizan? \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Adiego. Yes\, Commissioner on \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Burke. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Kimbo. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: Yes. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Commissioner Eklund. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Ambu. \nDavid Ambuehl\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Corin. \nSusan Gorin\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Gunther. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: Yes\, yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Haas. \nKarl Hasz\, Commissioner: Aye. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Shimoto. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Hi. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Pasquos \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: yes. \nStephanie Moulton-Peters\, Commissioner: Commissioner Malton Peters. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Prescott. Aye. Commissioner Pine\, Commissioner Gallagher. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Rancho. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Randolph\, Commissioner\, show Walter Commissioner Gilmore yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Zephyr yes. \nCommissioner Beech \nBoardroom SX80: abstain. \nBoardroom SX80: Did I miss anyone? \nBoardroom SX80: We have 22 years. no nose and one abstained. The action is approved. Thank you all for your efforts. \nBoardroom SX80: That brings us to item 9\, a public hearing and vote on a recommended enforcement decision to resolve enforcement case \nBoardroom SX80: ER. 2021.0 4 4.0 0 regarding a residential property located at 5 Landing Lane in Belvedere. \nBoardroom SX80: I would ask that Mr. Carl Johan Smyer\, or the attorney for Mr. Johan Smyr\, Mr. John Sharp to \nBoardroom SX80: make their presence known physically or virtually\, if they are here physically or virtually. I am here virtually. \n_John Sharp: Thank you very much. Sir \nBoardroom SX80: Bcd. C. Enforcement staff will present the case and the proposed settlement agreement for the Commission’s consideration\, after which time Mr. Sharp will be given an opportunity to comment\, if he wishes to do so\, after all of the public comment period. \nBoardroom SX80: After the presentations public comment \nBoardroom SX80: period will begin. The hearing will be opened\, public comments will be minutes limited to 3 min \nBoardroom SX80: after that has been closed\, the floor will be open to members of the Commission to ask follow up questions. \nBoardroom SX80: All speakers must limit their presentation and comments for the evidence already made. Part of the Enforcement record which has been published online with this meeting’s agenda and or the policy \nBoardroom SX80: implications of such evidence\, we will not allow presentation of oral testimony. \nBoardroom SX80: I will open the public hearing. And now invite Commissioner Gilmore\, the chair of the Enforcement Committee to make a presentation. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair Wasserman. \nBoardroom SX80: On January eleventh\, 2024\, the Enforcement Committee held a hearing and a vote on the Staff’s recommendation to approve a settlement agreement between BCDC. And the respondent\, Mister Joan Johansmeyer\, to resolve Enforcement case ER. 2021.0 0. \nBoardroom SX80: Excuse me point 0 4 4.0 0. Addressing an unauthorized fence at his home in the Belvedere. \nBoardroom SX80: The respondent’s attorney\, Mister Sharp attended the hearing on his behalf\, and affirmed for the committee that his client agrees to abide by the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement. \nBoardroom SX80: After hearing a presentation and comments by Staff and Mister Sharp. \nBoardroom SX80: the Enforcement Committee held deliberations and voted unanimously to adopt the staff recommendation as the Enforcement Committee’s recommendation to the full commission \nBoardroom SX80: at this time. I will invite Miss Cohen to make her presentation. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: Thank you\, Commissioner Gilmore. Just a moment while I share my screen. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: Hey? \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: Good afternoon\, sure\, Wasserman Commission members and all in attendance today I’ll present Enforcement case number er 202-14-4400\, for which the respondent is Mr. Carl H. Johansmeyer\, represented today by Attorney John Sharp. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: I’ll begin by familiarizing you with the location of the violation\, followed by a timeline of events\, and then end by summarizing the violation and finally presenting the staff’s recommendation. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: There are 2 images on this slide. The one on the left is a zoomed out vicinity map\, and the one on the right focuses in more closely on the location of the violation. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: There’s a red PIN on each image at 5 blending Lane\, Belvedere Island\, Marin County. The home is close to the southern tip of Belvedere Island\, and faces east. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: This is a photo of the property from the lower shoreline area taken facing west\, there’s a yellow oval outlining the specific location of the violation. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: This photo on the left of the screen. Is of the property from the lower shoreline area taken facing west\, there’s a yellow oval outlining the specific location of the violation. Oh\, I’m sorry it’s red to run slides or notes. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: This image on the left shows the violation more closely. The respondent has represented that there has been a fence surrounding this property for the past century\, that they needed to replace an 11 foot 2 inch long section of a 6 foot tall wire fence\, and approximately 2021. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: That 11 foot 2 inch long. Section is the section that the respondent needed. Vcdc authorization prior to placing. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: I’ll now review the timeline of events in this case. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: In starting in May of 2021 Bcd. Enforcement Staff received a report from City of Belvedere Staff\, alleging that unpermitted fencing had been installed on the property of 5 blending lane within DC. DC’s 100 foot shoreline ban jurisdiction. Bcd. Opened this Enforcement case and made initial contact with respondents authorized representative attorney\, John Sharp. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: between May and June\, of 2021\, respondent and Mr. Sharp inform staff that they were meeting with consultants in a survey\, and had hired an architect\, indicating that they were beginning to put together initial application materials to seek and obtain an after the fact permit for the fence replacement. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: In September of 2021\, city of Belvedere Staff\, and a surveyor conducted a site visit and reported their findings to BC. DC. Staff\, who were unavailable to attend \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: city staff\, confirmed that fencing had been placed on Mr. Johans Myers property without permits\, and with this information\, in October of 2021 Pcdc. Staff issued a notice of violations to the respondent\, initiating a standardized fine process which gave him 35 days to either remove the unpermitted fill\, or to seek and obtain a permit for the fence before standardized fines began accruing. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: In March of 2022\, Mister Sharp submitted an incomplete region. Wide permanent application on behalf of Mr. Johan’s Meyer seeking after the fact authorization for the fence. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: And then\, between October 2022 and October 2023\, Enforcement staff made several attempts to urge Mr. Johan’s mayor\, to complete his application. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: On October thirteenth\, 2023\, Staff notified the respondent that the executive director was rescinding the opportunity to resolve the violation using the standardized fine process. After determining that the respondent had not made a good faith effort to resolve the violation. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: Then\, on October thirtieth\, 2023\, Staff mailed a violation report and complaint for administrative civil penalties to the respondent\, and finally\, on November thirtieth\, 2023\, responded\, and Staff agreed to resolve this violation via the proposed settlement agreement. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: To briefly summarize the proposed settlement agreement. It would require Mr. Johan’s Meyer to one pay $2\,500 an administrative civil liability within 30 days of execution of the agreement\, and 2 by February 20\, eighth\, 2024. Either a remove the unauthorized fence and submit photographic evidence of the same\, or B submit a filed application seeking after the fact authorization for defense. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: When the Enforcement Committee heard this case at their meeting on January eleventh\, 2024\, committee members were curious about the Commission’s option to take action in the case of respondent noncompliance with the proposed settlement agreement due to the length of time the case has remained unresolved. So far. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: so first mentioned that Bcd. C. Can extend the deadlines in the settlement agreement. If causes beyond the respondents. Control prevent timely compliance. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: however\, in the event of failure by Mr. Johans Meyer to comply with the settlement agreement for causes within his control. BC. DC. Can recommence formal enforcement proceedings by issuing a new violation report and complaint with recalculated administrative civil penalties. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: Appendix J. Of the Commission’s regulations requires staff to consider certain characteristics of a violation when calculating the appropriate administrative civil penalty amount\, such as the cost of the state\, of pursuing the enforcement action\, and whether the violator has delayed compliance. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: using the original violation report and complaint penalty amount as a baseline. If staff issued a new violation report and complaint\, we would have the opportunity to factor in the additional days that the respondent has been out of compliance as well as the violators\, bad faith and reaching compliance. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: Lastly\, we do not expect Mr. Johans Meyer to fail to comply\, and we are entering into the settlement agreement with utmost confidence\, and Mr. Johan’s Meyers ability to comply. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: So to summarize the one violation for the failure to obtain A BC DC. Permit prior to placing fencing in BC. DC’s 100 foot shoreline ban jurisdiction in violation of the Macetier Petrus Act section 6\, 6\, 6\, 3\, 2\, a. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: And to resolve this case\, the Enforcement Committee recommends that the Commission vote to authorize the Executive director to execute the proposed settlement agreement\, which again requires respondent to one pay\, $2\,500\, an administrative civil liability within 30 days of execution of the agreement\, and 2 by February 2820 24. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: Either a remove the unauthorized fence and submit photographic evidence of the same\, or B submit a filed application\, seeking after the fact authorization for the fence. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: And that concludes the staff’s presentation. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Rachel. I now invite Mr. Sharp to comment if he so chooses. \n_John Sharp: Thank you. Members of the Commission and staff. I do not intend to go into granular detail about the timeline here unless you want me to. \n_John Sharp: I am authorized to enter into this agreement in Mr. Johan’s Myers behalf. \n_John Sharp: and I do want to emphasize that we are committed to complying with the terms of the agreement. I will say this is a complicated property\, where that fence is that you saw in. \n_John Sharp: I think it was slides one and 2 is the apex of \n_John Sharp: at least 3 properties\, one of which is on by my client\, another of which is on by the city of Belvedere\, and is open space. and another of which is owned by. \nI think it’s Sanitation. District 5. So the \n_John Sharp: the topography\, the geology. All of it is complicated. I won’t go into exhaustive detail about what led to the creation of that fence. But\, \n_John Sharp: There were some invitations by members of the public in Belvedere \n_John Sharp: and committee members for the public to \n_John Sharp: enter the open space\, which is very steep\, unimproved. \n_John Sharp: and dangerous. \n_John Sharp: and there were some events of those folks. \n_John Sharp: people entering that property\, falling off the rocks under my clients property\, and getting into the bay. \n_John Sharp: wandering out onto the dock and jumping in the water\, and that’s why the fence went in. So with that\, unless you have questions\, I will thank you\, and again commit to the terms of the agreement. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you for your comments and your affirmation of the contents of the agreement\, Mr. Sharp\, and\, thanks to Staff for the presentation chair. Wasserman\, would you please open the public comment period\, the comment period\, the public hearing is open \nBoardroom SX80: any one from the public wish to comment\, now is the time. \nBoardroom SX80: ano\, do we have any come? People who wish to comment? \nBoardroom SX80: We have Commissioner Eglin \nBoardroom SX80: any from the public before we get to Commissioner. None from the public. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Is there any objection to closing the public\, hearing. \nBoardroom SX80: hearing\, and seeing no objection? If the public hearing is closed\, I would recognize Commissioner Ekland. \nThank you very much. Chair\, Walterman. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Ii read this report a couple of times because I was really struck with the fact that the applicant was \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: non responsive to Bcd staff \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: for over a year and a half and then the what was submitted was\, that’s something that was not complete. And I do \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: thank Mr. Sharp\, for getting involved and helping to resolve this issue. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: My concern is that here\, almost 3 years later\, now\, we’re at a proposed settlement. but from what I read from the settlement agreement\, it doesn’t appear to deal with \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: the fact that if he is non-responsive and when I work for the Us. Environmental Protection Agency\, I was in charge of the Npds permitting program\, which is not only permitting but enforcement. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: When we dealt with applicants like this\, we actually\, if there was a settlement agreement\, we actually included a condition that if \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: the respondent\, or if the applicant was not responsive\, we actually included in there what would happen rather than having to issue another new violation report and and panel with penalties. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: So I guess my question for staff is that \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: has BC. DC\, tried to incorporate something like this in a settlement agreement in the past\, and \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: and if not\, why not? And then \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: you know. Just sort of like\, if if if there is not a response? \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Then\, and then just actually stating in there what what the consequences would be\, and that we will consider this to be another violation of which then we’ll be seeking penalties of such and such. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: So I’m kind of curious \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: about whether or not that’s something that’s possible\, or maybe not necessarily for this particular applicant. But \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: II am struck with the fact that what 3 years is this going on? And the city of Belvedere apparently has been dealing with this\, and probably complaints from the public for such a long time. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: So if Staff can help me to understand that I’d appreciate that \nBoardroom SX80: this is Michael Inge\, acting general counsel. We have had some internal discussions about that very topic \nBoardroom SX80: in relation to you know this case and just going forward. And it is certainly something that we can look into. I think\, you know\, if you look at various settle settlement agreements that we’ve used in the past. There may be slight deviations\, and so I think there’s an opportunity to figure out sort of a \nBoardroom SX80: you know what may be the best sort of drafting or provisions that proactively get at the concern that you just raised. So we’ll definitely take a look at that for future settlement agreements. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: II would really super really encourage folks to do that\, because when you get a recalcitrant in person or company\, or whatever it takes to have so much more time to do a new violation. And \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: and this way it’s sort of wrapped into the same in a way. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: So II did this not only when I was in charge of the Npds permitting program EPA\, but also the San Francisco pay program as well when I was working with the the regional board. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: So not not working as an employee\, but as a working as an EPA employee with the regional board and setting up the programs way back \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: in long time since I work for Eba for over 35 years. So anyway. So I just really want to encourage that. And I’d love an opportunity to talk with Staff in the future \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: if that’s something and I’d encourage the Commission to really support that idea cause. I found that it really helped facilitate compliance. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: and it also help facilitate and reduce the amount of staff time that’s devoted to it. Especially if you wait for 3 years. There’s staff turnover a lot. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: So this way\, it’s sort of like an automatic thing that happens. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: And I want to thank Mr. Sharp for getting involved. And I am hoping that you’re gonna make sure that your client does comply. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Because it is something that has adversely impacted from what I could tell. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: The public’s asset access to public waters. And the city of Belvedere has been able has had to. I don’t know this for sure\, because I haven’t talked with them\, but \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Has had to spend staff time on this\, and cities just don’t have the staff time to do this kind of stuff \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: given all the State mandates\, and that we have to comply with so comments in the panic gallery up in Nevada. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Vice chair\, eisen \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I echo everything that Commissioner Eklund\, said the Enforcement Committee was also concerned that so much staff time can be taken up with relatively small matters given the scope of what the BC. DC. Is charged with \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: doing. And that’s why we asked specifically to have the question address\, what happens if the settlement agreement is not abided by I think. Commissioner Eklins. Idea of placing something in settlement agreements that would have a kind of automaticness about it. If there’s a failure \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: to respond. I understand that there can be complications\, but would be a good idea\, and would hopefully get move some of these matters along a lot faster than they have been moved along. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: So thank you\, Pat\, for that comment. And\, believe me\, the Enforcement Committee is thinking along the exact same lines. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Molten Peters. \nStephanie Moulton-Peters\, Commissioner: Thank you. I wanna add to the 2 previous speakers and agree. And in addition to the staff time\, I wanna comment that I’m aware that \nStephanie Moulton-Peters\, Commissioner: there’s been a desire to create access to the water or the public on the publicly owned property\, and that has been held up for 3 years \nStephanie Moulton-Peters\, Commissioner: until this matter could get settled. So there’s there’s some additional issues that arise when we\, when we can’t get them to a a settlement more quickly. \nStephanie Moulton-Peters\, Commissioner: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: I see no other hands or comments from commissioners. \nBoardroom SX80: With that. \nBoardroom SX80: sure. Gilmour\, would you like to make a motion? \nBoardroom SX80: We have closed the public hearing just type. make a motion to accept the Enforcement Committee’s recommendation. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Thank you. Chair Wasserman. I make a motion that the Commission accepts the Enforcement Committee’s recommendation to approve the Settlement agreement\, and I’ll second the Motion \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Commissioner Ackland \nBoardroom SX80: Roll call\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Adiego. Yes. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Commissioner on Commissioner Berg. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Kimball. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Reclin. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Aye. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Goren. \nSusan Gorin\, Commissioner: Aye. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Gunther. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: Aye. \nKarl Hasz\, Commissioner: Commissioner Haas\, Hi. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Kishimoto. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Commissioner Raspberries. Yes. \nStephanie Moulton-Peters\, Commissioner: Commissioner Malton Peters\, yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Pesca all Right Commissioner Pine. Yes\, Commissioner Gallagher. Yes\, yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Rancho. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Randolph. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, Commissioner\, show Alder. \nBoardroom SX80: I still count that as one s. Commissioner Gilmore. Yes\, Commissioner Zephyr. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Beech abstain \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner eisen sorry\, wise chair. Eisen. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: chair Wasserman. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes. so we have 22. Yes\, no-no’s and one abstain \nBoardroom SX80: thank you the enforcement Committee’s recommendation is approved. \nBoardroom SX80: and hopefully will result in the follow up actions described. \nBoardroom SX80: That \nBoardroom SX80: brings us to Item 10\, which is a briefing on the California sea level Rise guidance issued by the Ocean Protection \nBoardroom SX80: counsel BCD. C’s planning Director Jeff Caffane will introduce the briefing. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair Wasserman. Good afternoon\, commissioners so shifting gears a little bit from enforcement to sea level Rise adaptation. So the next 3 briefings you’ll be hearing this afternoon. All have to do with sea level rise\, and it’s a particularly apt week to be thinking about this. We didn’t plan the weather\, but what we’re seeing this week is a glimpse into what we are going to be expecting to see a lot more of in the coming years and decades. So \nour first briefing that we’ll be hearing now is on the draft. California sea Level Rise guidance updates which present updated science on sea level rise across the State through the year 2\,150\, \nas well as policy guidance on how to incorporate those sea level rise scenarios into planning and projects. We’re grateful to the Ocean Protection Council for their leadership in bringing the best available science to California. And this is the guidance that Bcd uses and that we rely on as we plan for and permit projects around the bay shoreline. \nBoardroom SX80: So with that\, I’d love to turn it over to Commissioner and Dr. Justine Campbell\, senior scientists and lead for Opc’s climate change program. Who will present this item? \nBoardroom SX80: Justine. Africa? \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: Hmm. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: I’ve got some slides. Yep. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: great. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: I don’t know. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: Sancho. Right? \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: Great thank you. And good afternoon\, everyone \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: thanks for letting me present here today on the draft State of California civil rights guidance at 2024 science and policy update. It was released on January nineteenth for public comment. And so I’m here today to provide an overview flag opportunities for outreach and engagement and answer any questions. This is actually the first public presentation on the guidance. So it’s it’s exciting to be here. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: Next slide. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: So this is the fourth update since Opc released its first guidance back in 2\,010. The original and continuing purpose of this guidance is to support state and local action\, to assess vulnerability to rising seas and climate\, driven flood flooding\, and the creation of adaptation\, plans and projects that build resilience into the future. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: It was last updated in 2\,017 and 18\, and Opc. Has committed to updating approximately every 5 years in order to stay current with the most recent science. In the last iteration the Science and policy reports were separate. Rising sees. The science update was released in 2\,017\, followed by the policy guidance. The following year\, in 2\,018\, \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: the science was presented in tables for 12 noa tide gauge locations that included 3 probabilistic projections provided alongside an extreme sea level rise scenario that had an unknown probability that was referred to as H. It also included a stepwise process on how to select sea level Rise projections based on risk\, tolerance\, and recommendations for adaptation and planning. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: Since then there have been significant advances in scientific understanding and the ability to project future sea level rise which is captured in the 2024 update. And this update includes both the science and the policy reports package together next slide. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: So to leave this update\, we convened an independent Science task force in partnership with the California Ocean Science Trust. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: This is our all Star task force team here that we was assembled for the effort. And this is the format of the report. With the task force authorship clearly identified as focused on the science portions. Chapter 2 and 4. Where Opc. Was the author for the policy portions. We also closely coordinated with the State and Regional sea level rise collaborative\, which includes BC\, DC staff \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and provided them with multiple points of review and feedback during the process. Next slide \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: so\, chapter 2 is the tech technical methodology portion of how the new projections were developed. It’s a different methodology than the last guidance. Instead of the probabilistic projection approach we now use the scenario approach. This was based on the strong recommendation and decision from that science task force \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: to align with the 2022 national sea level Rise technical report shown here in the front\, the global and regional sea Level rise scenarios for the United States \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: the scenario approach relies on the Intergovernmental Panel\, on Climate Change\, 6. Assessment report\, or AR 6 projections. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: The Ipcc. Is the premier scientific body based through the United nations for assessing the science related to climate\, and the AR 6 represents the current consensus understanding on sea level rise modeling. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: So the Ipcc AR. 6 represents a step forward in scientific understanding of the IC contributions of sea level rise\, and in how this understanding should be incorporated into projections. This is the main factor in altered altering the projections. Of sea level rise. In this updated report\, compared to the previous report. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: In addition to being an important source of future sea level rise projections of future I. Sheet change represents the largest source of uncertainty in estimating sea level rise towards the end of century and beyond\, and even with this new understanding in AR 6 I see\, change is still\, still represents the largest source of uncertainty. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: so using the AR 6 framework\, a set of reduced sea level rise scenarios were developed. This methodology was used in that that 2022 National Report which underwent extensive peer review for our guidance. These scenarios were localized to California and underwent a additional peer review at that time. As well. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and then to help with interpretation. Story lines were created for each of the scenarios. Which I will cover in more detail next\, and the scenarios are available as a statewide table\, and then including local vertical land motion at 13 tide gauges\, including an additional tide gauge and Alameda that was not included in the the previous report. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: But next slide. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: So to provide a bit more conceptual understanding of the scenarios. These are the story lines\, but there’s much more information in the document. on on the storyline. So please see the full descriptions there \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and then\, just to note when I refer to low confidence processes. That is a term that is used to denote a low level of agreement on how the models represent key processes\, such as rapid and partial ice sheet disintegration. And then\, in addition\, there’s limited evidence supporting those model output. So so that’s what I mean when I \ntalk about low confidence processes. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: So the low scenario relies on the assumption that current\, the current rate of sea level rise will continue on into the future. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: This assumption is is very inconsistent with the the understanding of of acceleration\, of sea level rise and and current observation\, showing that but could still be considered plausible if there was \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: very aggressive. Emissions reduction in in the future global emission reductions the intermediate low scenario includes a range of of warming and emission pathways and can be considered a reasonable lower bound of the most likely sea level rise \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: in 2\,100. The intermediate scenario includes a range of warming and emission pathways as well. But also includes contributions from some of those low confidence processes that I mentioned\, and this could be considered a reasonable estimate of the upper bound of what is most likely to be seen in 2\,100. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: The intermediate high scenario includes intermediate to high futures\, initi emissions\, and a high warming assumptions. This scenario is heavily reflective of a world where rapid ice sheet loss processes are contributing to sea level rise. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and then the high scenario includes high future emissions and high warming with large potential contributions from rapid ice sheet loss \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: next slide. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: So with that orientation\, hopefully helpful to understand what what those 5 scenarios are. Here are the the new numbers you can see the low to high scenarios at time. Steps of decadal time steps from 2020 to 2150 \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and this is the statewide table again\, with also\, in addition those 13 tag age tables that include the the localized vertical land motion component\, and then this probability on the on the up next to it as table 2.2 in the report. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and this is to help create some understanding of probabilities. Of for the different scenarios. So this table only looks at. It’s a snapshot of 2\,100. And with global surface temperatures currently on track to reach 3°C above pre industrial levels by 2\,100. That’s why the 3°C box is\, II put there. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: And so the way to read this is to look at the 2\,100 numbers in the in the state wide table of scenarios there and then\, save for the low scenario\, you can see 2\,100 at the low scenario is one foot\, and then\, if you look at the red box. You see that there is a \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: 99% chance that sea level rise will exceed one foot in 2\,100. Again assuming 3°C of warming. And then for intermediate low\, there’s an 82% chance that that in the intermediate low is 1.6 feet that that would be exceeded. And then intermediate is is 3.1 feet\, and there’s only a 5% chance that that would \nwill be ex exceeded. So that’s how that likely range is is defined for 2\,100\, with roughly 77 chance that sea level rise would be between \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: 1.6 and 3.1 at 2\,100 \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: So \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: that\, it’s it’s a little bit hard. It’s a little bit complicated. But hopefully\, that helps provide a little bit more understanding of how to how to think about the numbers \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: next slide. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: So in terms of key takeaways\, the new science shows much greater certainty\, and the amount of sea level rise in the next 30 years. Statewide sea levels are most likely to rise 0 point 8 feet by 2050\, \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and then by 2\,100 sea levels are most likely to rise between 1.6 and 3.1 feet\, and that’s what I just covered. In that probability table. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: And then\, beyond 2\,100\, the range of sea level rise becomes increasingly large\, due to uncertainties associated with physical processes\, such as the the low confidence processes that I mentioned that earlier than expected\, I sheet lost. So by 2150\, you know\, there’s really a large range between 2.6 and 11 feet that are. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: that’s there and then. That extreme sea level rise scenario\, the h plus plus from rising fees is now considered much higher than best available science suggests\, based on that that scientific the advances in scientific understanding around modeling of ice sheet. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: And then again\, that vertical land motion component is is where you get the local numbers from next line. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: A few additional things to flag here is that similar to the last iteration. Those numbers do not include episodic events. Such as storms\, King tides El Nino and then\, unfortunately\, a direct comparison between the 2\,018 guidance and this new guidance. Oh\, sorry. Let’s say 2024 you’re hoping to release in December. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: 2024. Guidance is not possible. It’s really apples to oranges\, because the methodologies change so from a scientific point of view\, and looking at probabilities\, you you really can’t do it. A comparison to to say\, you know this change from this to this. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: but from a policy application point of view\, you\, you can take that perspective and do a comparison\, and you can see here from the tables that there is a lot of consistency\, with the exception of that h plus plus scenario at the end. So \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: if if you\, there’s that shows tables comparing the different probabilistic projections in the scenarios that (205) 021-2150. And so. Yeah\, you can see that. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: there’s still very. There’s a lot of consistency there to work with. And then\, if you were using the h plus plus numbers\, like thinking about a 2\,100 application. For instance\, you could shift that to 2150 when there’s\, you know\, roughly\, 4 to 10% chance of reaching the 2\,100 H plus plus values at 2150 for the high scenario. So \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: you know\, basically\, you can do a crosswalk from a policy application. And and that’s that’s the takeaway. With that next slide. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: So that’s the summary of the new science. There isn’t expected to be any adjustments to those scenario values\, those projections in the Co. Public comment period. They are also very consistent\, of course\, with the 2022 National report where\, you know they cheered off of so the numbers really weren’t a surprise. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: And then so chapter 3 is where the policy recommendations come in. How do you apply these numbers in planning and projects? \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: So similar to 2\,018 guidance? We’ve taken a step\, wise process to go through. And so those are the steps you can see there. But instead of going one by one through the steps\, I’m just going to flag a few takeaways \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: that for most planning and projects we’re recommending evaluation of the intermediate\, the intermediate high and the high scenarios at the you know\, at the lifespan of the project that you’re considering and then consideration of storm conditions in combination with those scenario numbers is also recommended to look at extreme water levels at appropriate. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: And then\, you know\, we’re really encouraging. You know that that existing vulnerability assessments should be used and leverage whatever pro possible. We’re not trying to keep people in a never ending\, you know\, planning process for those that already have vulnerability assessments. You should be able to use those with a crosswalk\, and will likely result in sort of shifting of time horizons back from the on the expected impacts \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: rather than having to analyze with new numbers. And that’s where I was trying to go with that table. Comparison. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: And then step 5 is is new in the stepwise process. We really tried to mirror these steps with the real world as much as possible. And we heard that there’s a really important step focused on exploring adaptation options and feasibility that occurs before the decisions are actually made. And so we added that step there to reflect that. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and then\, same as the 2\,018 guidance we are recommending that selection of sea level rise\, be guided by a risk assessment. But we also added that selection\, particularly at the project level\, is often a multi factor process. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and I have a quick example of that. If you advance one slide\, I have some photos here. These are photos from the Cardiff State Beach Living Shoreline project. Sorry I didn’t have an example in the in the bay. This is an Encinitas and the pictures a here the before and B are the after this was a first of its kind project\, a prototype \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: to use a living dune with engineered components for protection of hard infrastructure\, specifically highway 101. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: This project was many years in the making and then\, when it came time to do design final design and construction. Sea level rise was off\, obviously a very critical consideration as part of that process. But it was also one of many other factors\, including the visual impacts of of the doing construction\, the adjacent freeway engineering feasibility that all factored into the final design \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: design decision. So in the end selection of the final design specification was really a compromise and negotiation of trade offs. And so that last step in in the process. We really tried to reflect that those real world situations next slide. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and then chapter 4\, all also authored by the the task force\, includes a synthesis of of much more information on the combined impacts of sea level rise and other coastal hazards include\, including projected flood frequency\, which is expected to increase significantly in the 2030 s. Groundwater erosion and extreme coastal storms \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: next slide \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: so that’s the summary of the guidance. I wanted to end here with highlighting that the State has prioritized and continues to prioritize funding for coastal resilience. This includes the Senate Bill\, one Sea Level Rise adaptation \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: program released by Opc to support the development of sea level Rise adaptation plans. It has\, 71.4 million available for funding right now. In addition to 660 \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: 1 million maintained in the Fy. 2425 budget for critical coastal resilience programs and projects. We also have worked closely with the Bcd C. Staff to align that grant program with Bcd shoreline\, regional shoreline adaptation plan efforts\, and it also directly implements. You heard about the beginning of this meeting from Senator Laird. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and then Opc. Continues to convene the State and regional sea level rise collaborative through both an executive team and a working group. Next slide. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and then just to flag the the public comment and outreach opportunities. We have a website that includes all this information as well as registration links and instructions for how to submit public comment. We’re really excited to see what we get during public comment period. We have a webinar coming up this coming Monday\, February fifth\, that one to 2\, the science portion of that webinar will be \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: presented by Dr. Ben Hamilton\, at Jpl\, who was really the the lead in in the scenario development. And so any really nitty\, gritty technical questions on on the methodology\, you know\, I would probably pass to him. And you know\, if you’re interested in that would suggest joining for that webinar\, it’ll go into really more more detail of the modeling approach. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: And then we have regional workshops that are really meant to focus more on the application piece and really understanding how this guidance can be adjusted to be more useful. You know\, more reflective of the work on the ground. And so the San Francisco workshop. Just a flag is is February sixteenth and then any questions you can send to me\, and and then public comment \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: to our C. Grant\, fellow. But again\, there’s instructions on our website and that next slide. That’s it. Thank you. \nExcellent \nCount. \nBoardroom SX80: That concludes that presentation\, I think back to you\, Chair Wasserman\, for public comment. \nBoardroom SX80: Are there any? I have no cards? Are there any virtual \nBoardroom SX80: public speakers? \nBoardroom SX80: There is one public comment. \nBoardroom SX80: Speaker Sarah. you have 3 min to state your public comment. \nSara Greenwald: Hello\, I’m Sarah Greenwald with 3 50 Bay area\, which represents several Bay area shoreline communities around the bay. I have a brief comment \nSara Greenwald: our concern is that this document\, of course\, has to set the foundation for measures to protect shoreline communities from sea level rise\, and you know the adaptation plan is to be submitted to the State in 2034\, and I want to emphasize that you will have wanted to do all you can to protect the communities starting long before then\, because the Senator Laird mentioned. The recent floods show that sea level is rising now. Not later. \nSara Greenwald: Dr. Kibble explained that estimates are changing as research continues. Of course in general the expected rise is probably increasing. \nSara Greenwald: and therefore \nSara Greenwald: you will need to be prepared to implement measures \nSara Greenwald: sooner than expected. This is been your experience\, I’m sure. And \nSara Greenwald: build in a lot of flexibility. \nSara Greenwald: that’s all. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Comments or questions from Commissioners. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Ekland. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Thank you very much. Chair Wasserman. I’m just seeing a fantastic presentation. And I just thought an aside. I \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: happened to be in Terre Linda this morning. Which is a suburb of Santa Fe. But it’s a suburb that was developed in the sixties. and during that time the developments had\, like an open ditch \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: for drainage\, and when I saw the open ditch this morning it was almost full \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: of water\, which just really just reinforces in my mind that cities and counties really need to speed up \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: their discussions about how to deal with sea level rise\, which brings me to \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: a. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: The fact that to to what degree are you working with? Like the League of California Cities which I was past? I am past president of that organization. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: To really help to work with cities. About their plans\, especially those cities that have some coastal waters. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: of of how to incorporate some of these techniques that you’re talking about into their local plans that they have to develop? \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: So I’m kinda curious what kind of outreach are you doing with cities? And if you’re not doing too much outreach\, I’d sure love to talk with you. Offline \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: to \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: to help you\, because II have a lot of contacts and cities throughout the State because of my leadership role that I played there for many years. And II know cities are just grabbling for data and information and guidance on on how to approach this issue? \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: Can I answer the question now? \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: Okay\, we. I will say\, we don’t have any specific contact at a League of Cities. I’d love to get one if if you have one. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: okay\, great our\, the grant program that I mentioned\, is focused on specifically supporting local and regional government entities\, on their\, on incorporating sea level rise into their land use planning efforts. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and so that has been the the focus of that program. It was recently launched a couple of weeks ago. And \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: so that is\, I would say\, our sort of our main connection. Right now\, as part of that program\, we are also standing up a technical assistance program. That should be launched in the next in in March\, I believe\, which is going to be going to provide there will be a sort of an eligibility portion of the technical assistance. But we’ll \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: be providing under served communities with specific technical assistance on how to apply to the Grant program which which supports and funds\, like all stages of of planning\, and then will eventually find projects as well. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: One thing to note\, though\, is\, we don’t really want to\, you know\, BC DC. And on the Coast the Coastal Commission are really the experts in\, like the the local post coast coastal program and the the sub regional resiliency plans. And so as a staff\, we don’t really have the expertise to play guide in updating those specific plans. And we don’t want to fund something that would then not be aligned with that later on down the road. So \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: in a lot of discussions with BC. DC. And Coastal Commission Staff\, we\, we have a path forward now\, or we’re really supporting a lot of the work around that. And then. But we’re leaving the actual updating of the plans to being routed through Ecdc. And Coastal Commission. So that can be a really clean process. And we’ve developed letters of alignment as well for the other parts of the project to make sure we’re not getting out of \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: step there. And then\, you know the regional workshops that are coming up. I really\, you know we’re trying to get the word out on those to get as many you know\, representatives of local government to come to that\, and we’d be very open to hearing about other ways that we can \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: be connected and be engaged and and be providing information. We definitely see that as part of the role of the Ocean Protection Council and our convening of the the State Collaborative. As well. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Yeah\, so not not happening. I don’t know what your local experience is but based on the fact that I’ve been on the city Council since 1\,995 city staff. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Has so much to so much responsibility. And there’s not enough because we’re a poor property tech city in the bottom. So we don’t have that much staff. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: So they’re they’re really taxed to the Max. I mean in terms of the amount of work. So this kind of pre planning is very difficult for them to attend a workshop like this. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: They don’t have the necessary staff. And so I do have contacts at the League. There’s an environmental Policy Committee which I served on for decades. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: And and I know a briefing 2 elected officials. At the League of California Cities Conferences would just really help to \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: make elected officials aware of of the it. They they know it. But having your presentation just reinforces the fact that you need elected leadership \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: to really locally elected leaders. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: not only cities\, but counties\, because they’re Csac as well\, which definitely\, I’m sure can talk about. But you know\, we we need more elected officials that hear this\, the more you’re gonna get local governments wanting to get involved. And I think \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: the leadership you know\, there’s funding available. So elected officials can help lobby for more if they hear from their staff saying\, Hey\, look at! We’re not getting enough money to help do this right? So II will. Offline. I’ll get your contact information\, I guess\, from Larry. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: And so I’ll be definitely in in touch with you \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: and give you the contact information so that you can play more leadership role. In cities across the State. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: and it’ll attract a lot of people that live around the coastal waters\, I think to learn more about sea level rise. So thank you very much for your presentation. And I’m actually gonna be telling the cities\, at least in county \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: about this report. Because II think it’s something that everybody needs to know about. So thank you very much. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: Appreciate that. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Gunther. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: Thank you\, Mr. Chairman. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: Doctor Kimball. Thank you for the presentation I was. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: II found your revision of the projections for H. Plus plus to be rather good news. and I don’t want to get into the scientific weeds. But I was wondering if you might be able to provide just a little more explanation. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: I hear frequently that you know ice sheet dynamics\, or the things we know least about. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: and the highest present the highest risk \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: for extraordinarily accelerated sea level rise. So how is it that we’re able to push that that a a scenario further into the future. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: This might be a question for one of the modelers\, because my my understanding is sort of limited to what I presented on is that that h plus plus was always a \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: a\, an unknown probability\, a a speculative scenario. It was sort of like a worst case\, like\, if if all the things that you know we ha! We don’t. That modelers\, not we. The modelers\, didn’t understand very well all the worst case sort of happened at the same time. That was sort of what h plus plus was. And so in those intervening years\, you know that that AR 6 \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: framework. Basically they there was better understanding. They had higher\, you know. They gained confidence in some of the understanding around the ice sheet dynamics. And so some of those worst case scenarios with that better understanding were no longer considered plausible. And so \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: without those those really extreme things happening\, you can’t get to h plus plus. So if you understand them better to know that they’re not gonna happen\, then you’re not gonna get there. And that’s my layman’s understanding of \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: of why the H plus plus scenario. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: It’s it’s just not plausible\, based on the the advances and understanding of of the High Sheets. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Showalter. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Yes\, I wanted to. I’m sorry about. Maybe I can just turn this on \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: no. Can you hear me? \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Excellent! Okay\, great. Alright\, I just wanted to suggest another outreach opportunity which\, hopefully\, you’re already doing giving a presentation at the state of the Estuary Conference that’s coming up in March \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: that gets to get to \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: together many practitioners of flood protection in the Bay area. So it’d be great opportunity to share information about this report. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: And then I have a question. One of the things you mentioned was that storm intensity is going to increase in the 2030 s. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: And that\, of course\, is a major source of flooding as well as sea level rise. So can you talk about that a little more. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: So actually\, the new guidance doesn’t include projections for storm frequency. What I said with flood frequency. And so the projections of flood frequency are expected to increase in the coming decades. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and that is essentially a function of sea level rise and in an acceleration of sea level rise. And so \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: so essentially you can the no one. NASA\, has a flood projection viewer that you can look at for each of the tide gauges and based on the number of of flooding events. And there’s a definition\, for how a flooding event is. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: it is captured\, and then\, if they model sea level\, rise on top of that\, they can predict. You know how many flooding events are expected in the coming decades. And so that is what that is speaking to. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: Obviously\, it’s very hard to. It’s only those projections\, though\, are only for the tag gauge locations. It’s it’s very hard to localize that\, because it’s\, you know\, like flooding is so specific to a a very specific location and and shoreline. So that is what that is referring to. But \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: it the the sort of take away that the conditions that you see now\, during storm events\, you know\, can be used as an analog. For what sea level rise will be expected in the future is is sort of a takeaway as well\, but \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: in terms of just like projecting like numbers and intensities of storms. This this group didn’t didn’t do that. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Okay\, thank you. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t see any other hands or microphones. \nBoardroom SX80: That concludes the matter\, but I am sure we will be discussing it at future meetings. Thank you very\, very much\, Doctor Kimball. \nBoardroom SX80: That brings us sorry. \nBoardroom SX80: That brings us to item 11\, a briefing on the regional shoreline adaptation\, plan\, progress. The briefing will be presented by senior climate adaptation. Planner Jackie Menduski. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay. Hello and good afternoon. Chair. Wasserman Commissioners and Senator Laird\, who I don’t\, who may no longer be here\, but it was a pleasure to have him join today\, and I also wanna thank him for his important work which this project is advancing. As Commissioner Washerman said\, my name is Jacqueline Mendoskey. I’m a senior climate adaptation planner at Bcd. C. And the project manager of the regional Shoreline adaptation plan \nBoardroom SX80: last time I spoke to this group was back in October of last year\, when we were in the middle of conducting outreach to create a regional vision for the bay shoreline\, and I’m excited to share the results of that effort with all of you which we are now calling the one bay vision for a resilient future shoreline. This vision will serve as the foundation to shape our work on the Rsap throughout this year\, and our broader regional work over the coming years \nBoardroom SX80: for commissioners who attended the rising sea Level working group meeting 2 weeks ago. I want to thank you for your time and comments on the draft. One bay vision\, as you’ll see. We made a few small adjustments to these statements to incorporate your comments and feedback \nBoardroom SX80: the rsap. So regional. Sri Lankaptation Plan abbreviated is intended to serve the region\, to reduce shared flood risk for the Bay area and ensure that adaptation. Plans\, projects\, and land use decisions are coordinated and consistent to protect the values we care about protecting people\, particularly our most vulnerable populations\, ensuring healthy environments over the long term and being strategic in how we prioritize and fund projects to help us achieve our goals. \nBoardroom SX80: And through the Rsap. I want to reiterate that BCDC. Is meeting the requirements of Sb. 2\, 72\, and providing the necessary support to local jurisdictions to advance local adaptation plans and projects that work together to achieve our shared goals. \nBoardroom SX80: So what are these shared goals? And what do we mean by achieving successful adaptation for the region? This is where the one bay vision comes into play. \nBoardroom SX80: The Rsaf is implementing 4 actions in the bay\, adapt joint platform\, and the need for a regional vision was identified as the very first action which states collaborate on a one bay vision to adapt to rising sea levels. And the task below this States to create a long term regional vision rooted in communities\, Bay habitats and the economy. There are also additional actions that the Rsap is advancing which you might recognize in our approach. But I won’t elaborate on today \nBoardroom SX80: the foundations for the one bay vision were also laid in Bayadaf’s guiding principles\, which remain the North Star for all projects being implemented through Bayadapt\, including the Rsap. \nBoardroom SX80: What you’ll see to day through the one bay vision is how these principles are applied across 8 key issue areas in ways that add targeted and concrete long term adaptation outcomes in the Bay Area. \nBoardroom SX80: The one bay vision describes what successful adaptation should look like along our shorelines and reflects both our values today\, while also acknowledging that future shorelines will look different\, and that adaptation itself will be an iterative process. The one bay vision brings the guiding principles to life as it adds detail to where and how these principles apply across topic areas across society and guides the development of our remaining work. \nBoardroom SX80: How does the vision flow throughout the aspects of the Rsap to inform real on the ground adaptation. The one bay vision sets the outcomes for the region and paints the picture of the future that we’re all working to achieve. \nBoardroom SX80: The vision will guide the region’s strategic priorities which will identify key adaptation areas. The big regional moves that lay out where certain types of adaptation are most appropriate and beneficial for the region. This also informs the development of local plan guidelines which will lay out consistent regional standards for how local jurisdictions create subregional plans and develop adaptation strategies that meet minimum criteria and advance the region’s priorities. \nBoardroom SX80: And within these plans will be specific projects and land use changes with an implementation strategy to get adaptation projects in the ground \nBoardroom SX80: together. These individual projects across the region add up to our shared one bay vision. \nBoardroom SX80: Now\, how does this actually work? In practice? I’d like to provide an example. One of our vision statements includes the topic of ecosystem health and resilience\, and this statement includes language about protecting\, restoring\, and enhancing valence. Ecosystems. \nBoardroom SX80: An example strategic priority might include geographic identification of priority habitats around the region. An example. Guideline might require local jurisdictions to evaluate those habitats and plan for the long term health of those ecosystems. \nBoardroom SX80: and an example project within a plan might be the identification of a strategy such as an ecotone levy and its associated land use and implementation next steps. This example of an ecolotone levy is a piece of the puzzle that helps us advance our regional vision for ecosystem health and resilience. \nBoardroom SX80: This one bay vision that you are about to see was developed through a variety of inputs. In addition to building upon the guiding principles\, we reviewed existing regional visions\, such as planned Bay area to ensure our efforts are aligned and linked. We also conducted a series of outreach in the fall\, which you heard from me back in October\, where we spoke with over 500 people at local community events\, a public workshop\, online survey\, and expert practitioners who shared their values and visions for the future of the shoreline. \nBoardroom SX80: The one bay vision represents the distillation of that feedback\, and reflects what we heard and learned from these stakeholders about what they want. The future of the bay to look like for themselves and for future generations\, as sea levels rise. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, now we are here at the main part of the event\, where I’ll be sharing the draft one bay vision for a resilient future shoreline. \nBoardroom SX80: First\, I want to acknowledge that the one bay vision is made up of multiple parts. There’s a statement for the region as a whole and statements for each of the 8 topic areas. These topic areas reflect the categories of key issues in society that are impacted by rising sea level\, and will require adaptation\, planning\, and actions to support both local and regional long-term resilience. \nBoardroom SX80: I will go through all of the vision statements and then open the floor to discussion. I ask that as I go through each of these slides\, please keep the following questions in mind. What do you like most about the one bay vision? Is there anything missing or unclear? And are you in favor of using this draft? One bay vision as a basis for our next steps in the project. \nBoardroom SX80: As you’re listening to these\, please keep in mind that we’re hoping to get your support on the main concepts within this vision. We’re looking forward to getting your feedback today. And if you have specific comments on the wording\, please let me know in a following email. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, I’ll go ahead and read out the regional vision statement which encapsulates all of the topic areas. Our one-day vision for a resilient future shoreline. \nBoardroom SX80: As sea levels rise\, the Bay area’s diverse communities come together to transform how we live\, work\, plan\, and adapt along our changing shorelines. In this future communities are healthy\, safe\, and have greater access to the shoreline\, where they can feel connected to the bay’s edge and experience the beauty and wonder of thriving habitats that sustain our quality of life. \nBoardroom SX80: Our region remains connected so that networks of people and goods can move with ease and get to the places they need to go. \nBoardroom SX80: The services we rely upon keep our communities and economies running\, and are designed for the long term \nBoardroom SX80: achieving. This future will require governments\, the private sector and communities to make a commitment to equity\, address past harms and take on complex interrelated challenges together a resilient future for the San Francisco Bay Area starts now and continues for generations to come \nBoardroom SX80: for each of the 8 statements. I will skim through them. You have the full text in your meeting package. And these slides are also available on our website \nBoardroom SX80: as part of our one bay vision for community health and well being\, as sea levels rise\, communities are healthy and vibrant. To achieve this\, we will need to adapt our communities to safeguard them from the public health consequences of flooding and support healthy environments\, safety and quality of life \nBoardroom SX80: meaningfully engage and empower communities in adaptation\, decision making address risks to essential community assets and prioritize economic development opportunities such as workforce development in disadvantaged communities \nBoardroom SX80: for critical infrastructure and services as sea levels rise\, critical services are reliable. \nBoardroom SX80: To achieve this\, we need to adapt local and regional critical infrastructure\, to maintain service and minimize future vulnerabilities\, to flooding. integrate flooding hazards into emergency management and prioritize adaptation that addresses service deficiencies in underserved communities. \nBoardroom SX80: for ecosystem health and resilience. As sea levels rise\, healthy Baland’s ecosystems thrive. To achieve this we need to protect\, restore\, and enhance balance ecosystems to improve their function\, scale. Biodiversity and services \nBoardroom SX80: prioritize nature based adaptation where possible and incorporate habitat connectivity\, sediment\, management\, and whole watershed approaches \nand identify and facilitate opportunities for ecosystem migration to support natural adaptation processes \nBoardroom SX80: for governance\, collaboration and finance. As sea levels rise\, regional collaboration drives efficient and effective adaptation. To achieve this\, we need to ensure local and regional governments collaborate to address\, shared flood\, risk\, and identify multi benefit adaptation\, opportunities\, while avoiding harm to their neighbors\, identify and engage with indigenous partners to plan\, implement and manage adaptation projects. \nBoardroom SX80: support the range of multi-stakeholder collaborations that are equipped to plan fund and adaptively manage adaptation over time and improve funding and regulatory processes to expedite innovative and transformative projects that provide regional benefits \nBoardroom SX80: for housing\, development and land use. As sea levels rise. Places are designed for a changing shoreline. To achieve this\, we need to adapt existing development equitably and plan new and redevelopment for community safety\, equity and bay ecological health. \nBoardroom SX80: align land use\, planning with risk mitigation that considers long term economic vitality for all. and support\, affordable housing and state housing goals while preserving public trust uses of the bay and reducing populations at risk of flooding \nBoardroom SX80: for public access and recreation. As sea levels rise\, the bay shoreline is accessible to all. To achieve this\, we need to expand and improve shoreline public access\, including recreation\, opportunities and other water dependent uses \nBoardroom SX80: prioritize connecting disadvantaged neighborhoods to a healthy bay and balance the needs for human enjoyment\, sustenance\, and cultural connection to the bay with healthy ecosystems \nBoardroom SX80: for shoreline contamination. As sea levels rise\, people and ecosystems are safe from contamination risks to achieve this\, we need to collaborate with communities\, scientists\, industries and government to identify and remediate shoreline contamination \nBoardroom SX80: prioritize remediation in environmental justice communities while minimizing transfer and contamination\, burden and integrate emerging science on shallow ground water rise with planning and adaptation decisions. \nBoardroom SX80: and the last topic area for transportation and transit. As sea levels rise safe and reliable transportation connects the region. To achieve this\, we need to adapt local and regional transportation systems to ensure safe and reliable connectivity. \nBoardroom SX80: ensure continuity and equitable service in transit. Dependent communities identify and integrate multi benefit opportunities into transportation projects such as ecological health\, green infrastructure\, and public access and promote active low emissions\, mobility options for environmental and economic benefit. \nBoardroom SX80: In closing\, I want to remind you all about how the one bay vision relates to our broader work on regional adaptation. \nBoardroom SX80: Before the end of this year we will be coming back to this commission and asking asking you to adopt the final one bay vision strategic priorities and plan guidelines everything to the left of this dotted line. This timeline is in compliance with Sb. 2\, 72. Throughout the spring and summer we will continue to come back to you with updates on our progress. \nBoardroom SX80: Once this phase is complete\, there are other components that we we will need to integrate to create a truly regional adaptation strategy as called for in your plan Bay plan\, climate change policies. We’re still figuring this part out. But we know the big pieces. We’ll need an investment strategy to figure out how to pay for adaptation\, to help close the 105 billion dollar funding gap which you’ll hear about more in the next presentation. \nBoardroom SX80: We’ll need to make changes to our Bay plan policies and regulatory processes to facilitate the types of projects we need. We’ll need to support local adaptation\, to develop and submit these plans to meet the guidelines. And we’re working closely with Opc. As you’ve just heard on their SB. One grants as well as working with other regional agencies. \nBoardroom SX80: and all of this will help us develop land use changes and adaptation projects that help us strategically meet the challenges of our region in ways that provide the most benefit and make the one bay vision a reality. \nBoardroom SX80: This work is organic and iterative\, and will continue coming to the Commission with updates. As we continue on this journey \nBoardroom SX80: in terms of our next steps to day\, we are not asking for a formal vote on the one day vision. But instead\, we’re asking for your support. That these should form the basis for our work ahead. \nBoardroom SX80: We will then be transitioning into developing guidelines for local plans and strategic priorities that flow from this vision. \nBoardroom SX80: And although we didn’t talk about it today\, we’ve been hard at work to define subregional adaptation plans through meetings with stakeholders and practitioners. We’ll be holding a series of focus groups in the coming weeks to get additional feedback on what these plans should look like\, and how they can best meet the needs of our region for adaptation. Please reach out if you’re interested in having you or your staff attend one of these. \nBoardroom SX80: We’ll also be hosting a second public workshop in the spring to launch into the guidelines. Work with more stakeholders. And we’re underway in planning for a series of up to 5 local workshops centered in vulnerable shoreline communities and hosted in partnership with community based organizations. We’ll provide more information on that in the coming months. And lastly\, as our executive director mentioned in his Ed report\, we’ll be reaching out to commissioners who are currently supervisors. \nBoardroom SX80: County supervisors to set up briefings in each of your counties about all of this work. \nBoardroom SX80: With that I wanna thank you for your time\, and I’ll pass it back over to Chair washerman to facilitate the conversation about the vision statements and the questions we posed earlier\, and I’m happy to answer any questions you may have. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Jackie. Before turning to the Commission. Do we have any \nBoardroom SX80: of virtual public speakers? We have 2 \nBoardroom SX80: virtual speakers. \nBoardroom SX80: Mister Arthur Feinstein. Please go ahead and unmute yourself and stay to comment. \nMichael. \nArthur Feinstein: Hi! \nArthur Feinstein: Chair was so many Commissioners. I’m Martha Feinstein. I’m chair of the Sierra Club\, Sea Level Rise Committee. We call it Bay alive. \nArthur Feinstein: and I’m also on the Advisory Committee for the Rsap. Working with Jacqueline and Dana\, your staff people. \nArthur Feinstein: and \nArthur Feinstein: somewhat unusually for me\, but quite happily\, I’m here to say Thank you to Staff. I’m often\, you know\, looking for more\, and I am looking for a little more today. But Steph has really come along from where we began this process more a year ago. \nArthur Feinstein: And \nArthur Feinstein: we are pretty pleased with what’s come out from this process? Not totally. And myself. And did Deb was gonna follow\, is going to. Also comment on this\, we have a few \nArthur Feinstein: editorials amendments that we’d like to put into. I’m gonna do the vision statement. \nArthur Feinstein: And while the vision statement originally started out with just saying\, people should experience the beauty and wonder of thriving habitats\, wetlands\, and others. \nArthur Feinstein: We’ve been pushing for them to recognize that wetlands aren’t just pretty\, and people don’t go to the shoreline. Well\, they do go the shoreline to get recreation and and a peaceful feeling from being in a wetland habitats. But \nArthur Feinstein: wetlands actually provide services that benefit us. Aside from that in our communities\, they clean our water\, they clean our air\, they help influence the temperatures that we are \nArthur Feinstein: experiencing\, keeping the air cooler than it would be. And with global warming\, that’s gonna be real important. They help reduce storm surges. They perform\, perform a lot of services \nArthur Feinstein: to our community\, and we’ve been urging \nArthur Feinstein: Staff to recognize that in \nArthur Feinstein: all of the vision statements. And so we were quite \nArthur Feinstein: pleased to see them say. experience the beauty and wonder of thriving habitats to sustain our quality of life. \nArthur Feinstein: And so we’ve sent a letter. I guess you didn’t get a chance to see it. We sent it Monday. \nArthur Feinstein: we’re hoping that you would take one phrase and emphasize the services they provide by changing that one sentence to say. \nArthur Feinstein: experience the beauty and wonder of thriving habitats that we depend on to sustain our quality of life. \nArthur Feinstein: so that the average person reading this who’s not. \nArthur Feinstein: you know\, invest in this whole process will realize that we actually do depend on our wetlands\, not just for beauty and wonder\, but for the services that they provide us. \nArthur Feinstein: That’s my statement. I want to again thank Staff for really making this a vision statement that’s getting us towards where we need to go. If we’re gonna have \nArthur Feinstein: a healthy bay as well as healthy communities\, and our communities won’t be healthy if we don’t have a healthy bay. \nArthur Feinstein: So thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Our second speaker\, Miss Janet S. Johnson\, please unmute yourself and state your comment. \nJanet S Johnson: Thank you. Can you hear me? \nJanet S Johnson: Oh. \nJanet S Johnson: can you hear me? Okay\, great thanks. \nJanet S Johnson: Good afternoon. \nJanet S Johnson: I’ve lived in Richmond for 42 years\, and I’m representing \nJanet S Johnson: today the Richmond Shoreline Alliance and Sunflower Alliance. Both are environmental justice organizations based in the East Bay. We first want to support the comment submitted by this year Club. And then we want to take them a little bit further. \nJanet S Johnson: Richmond has 32 miles of shoreline. The most of any Bay area city. \nJanet S Johnson: Like many bay communities\, much of our shoreline bears a heavy burden of toxic waste the legacy of more than a century of industrial contamination. We’re home to 2 superfund sites on the shoreline\, plus an 86 acre Super fund qualified site that already is\, seeing the effects of sea level rise. \nJanet S Johnson: That site. The so-called Astrazeneca\, or Campus Bay site is under the jurisdiction of the Dtsc. \nJanet S Johnson: For over a century. The site was a chemical manufacturing complex that dumped its hazardous and radioactive waste out the back door\, filling in the bay with more than a hundred lethal chemicals and heavy metal\, the most abundant of which is arson \nJanet S Johnson: because of redlining and other discriminatory housing policies. \nJanet S Johnson: low income\, vulnerable communities near sites like Campus Bay will be the first to suffer health effects from the spread of contamination resulting from sea level rise and groundwater intrusion. \nJanet S Johnson: So we see an urgent need to focus \nJanet S Johnson: on your in your focus on in your deliberations to prioritize and fully address shoreline contamination. \nJanet S Johnson: we need you to oppose the present trajectory of partial clean ups and capping of unlined sites. followed by so-called mixed use housing developments on the shoreline. \nJanet S Johnson: which is Dtsc. Solution for Campus Bay. We also hope that you will advocate on a State level for bonds to be posted by contaminating industry. \nJanet S Johnson: So when and if they leave taxpayers and city governments are not left to cope with the message they’ve left behind. \nJanet S Johnson: Thank you so much. \nBoardroom SX80: Our next public comment is from Gita Day\, from Sierra club. Please go ahead and unmute yourself. \nSure. \nGita Dev SIerra Club: Thank you. Thank you\, Commissioner Wasserman\, and the entire commission \nGita Dev SIerra Club: I’m following on Arthur Feinstein’s comments. \nGita Dev SIerra Club: I want to tell you the stuff that we are so appreciative and astounded at how well you’ve been able to integrate \nGita Dev SIerra Club: important comments from public comments. And we really appreciate that in talking about some of the things that we still \nGita Dev SIerra Club: hope too cheap \nGita Dev SIerra Club: in conversation with others. I’ve noticed that \nGita Dev SIerra Club: we all over here today are all very aware of \nGita Dev SIerra Club: using nature based adaptation. Putting nature first\, however\, as an architect\, I can tell you that pragmatics overtake us when we are in the throes of projects \nGita Dev SIerra Club: as time goes by. And in 2030\, when someone’s looking at this vision statement\, if those ideas are not front and center. \nGita Dev SIerra Club: I’m afraid they will get put. Second\, nature is put second so often \nGita Dev SIerra Club: when you look at flooding and say\, Let’s put up a wall 7 feet tall. And then the second thought is\, and and and how can we put something into it? So \nGita Dev SIerra Club: I ask you to ask Staff to humor us and ask you\, as a commission to humor me as I go through \nGita Dev SIerra Club: a few very minor modifications that would bring thus ecosystem services that the bay provides into focus in all of the 8 items\, and I recognize that Staff has put it into 4 of them already. \nGita Dev SIerra Club: So please humor me. \nGita Dev SIerra Club: And I will go to them \nGita Dev SIerra Club: in the community\, health and well being \nGita Dev SIerra Club: in the port bullet\, it says\, address risks to essential community assets\, services \nGita Dev SIerra Club: and cultural resources. And \nGita Dev SIerra Club: I suggest we include after the word services\, including bay ecosystem services. \nGita Dev SIerra Club: because it’s so easy to forget that community health is based on ecosystem services as well in the critical infrastructure. Where people think of roads\, culverts. \nGita Dev SIerra Club: sewer systems \nGita Dev SIerra Club: in the second one\, where we adapt existing local and regional critical infrastructure systems. \nGita Dev SIerra Club: including natural infrastructure\, would ask that you insert those words in the governance\, one where we never think about nature. \nGita Dev SIerra Club: When in this first bullet\, multi-benefit adaptation\, app opportunities\, putting nature first whenever possible. That’s wording from. They adapt \nGita Dev SIerra Club: putting nature first wherever possible. and in the last one the shoreline contamination in the last bullet. integrating emergence. integrate emerging science on shallow ground water rise. \nGita Dev SIerra Club: and I would insert prioritizing nature based solutions because a lot of the science is on chemistry \nand \nGita Dev SIerra Club: prioritizing nature-based solutions \nGita Dev SIerra Club: brings that back into focus that there’s a lot that nature has to offer. I’m sorry I’ve run over time. I just wanted to add that the iterative processes that we’ve talked about\, involve phased projects. \nGita Dev SIerra Club: and nature takes time to keep up with our changes. and therefore. \nGita Dev SIerra Club: first is a different way of thinking than most public workspeople are used to. \nGita Dev SIerra Club: That’s the reason why \nGita Dev SIerra Club: we’re taking your time to bring up these 4 items in these 4 issues. Thank you so much. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Our next commenter is Miss Karen High. Please go ahead and unmute yourself. \nCarin High: Hi\, good afternoon\, Karen. High Citizens Committee to complete the Refuge. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. Hope you’re all staying dry. I wanted to begin by\, as others have already expressing my deep appreciation to BCD. C’s staff \nCarin High: and to the Commission members on the sea Level Rise working group for providing the opportunity to the public to comment on the draft vision goals and objectives. During the January eighteenth working group meeting\, and for incorporating some of the comments and suggestions into meaningful changes into the language we see to day. We have just a few others as Gita had mentioned\, and we’ll hope that you take those into consideration. \nCarin High: I wanted to echo the sentiment of others regarding the need to put nature first. \nCarin High: But what does that mean? So I thought I’d share some select comments from an April the Twentieth\, 23\, April the twentieth\, 23 scientific American staff editorial that reinforced why it is so important that this is reflected in all of the vision goals and objectives. \nCarin High: Those of us who are here already know. Wetlands\, coastal plains\, sand\, dunes\, forests\, and many other permeable surfaces\, do cheaply\, or even for free what engineered levee seawalls and pumps do at a cost of billions of dollars. \nCarin High: They protect the land around them from storm surge\, flooding\, flooding rains\, erosion and pollution. They are vital infrastructure \nCarin High: that makes us more resilient against climate change\, and the cost of destroying them or weakening their ability to function\, must be factored into the decisions we make to build and grow. \nCarin High: Another excerpt\, failing to measure the benefits of ecosystem services in policy and management decisions is a major reason. \nCarin High: Many of those ecosystems disappeared. \nCarin High: and lastly\, climate change makes the undervaluation of ecosystem services more dangerous. The example they provide is wetlands that mitigate flooding in a community during rare deluges will have far more economic value \nCarin High: in 2\,050\, when damaging storms arrive more frequently\, the same could be said for our tidal wetlands. The Rsap document that will be viewed and used by many. \nCarin High: may those who view it may not have been exposed to the concept of ecosystem services and the important role natural infrastructure plays in providing climate change\, resilience for the natural and built environments. \nCarin High: It is therefore important that this crucial function of the bay’s habitats is clearly identified in beginning with the vision goals and objectives of the Rsap. \nCarin High: Once again. Thank you very much. We look forward to continued participation in this very important complex regional process. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Our next public comment is from Mr. Paul Sager. Please go ahead and unmute yourself. \nMy name is Paul. See here\, I’m also from Sierra Club and \npaul seger: a member of the Bay live committee. And but I’m going to speaking from a position of basic contract pasta shoreline from straight to to Pittsburgh. And then possibly even for bay into this area. \npaul seger: so \npaul seger: regarding the regional overarching goal. \npaul seger: As sea levels rise \npaul seger: and the bay areas\, diverse communities unite to transform how we live\, work\, plan\, and adapt along our changing shore lines. \npaul seger: In this\, in this\, in view\, in this envisioned future communities\, prioritize interconnectedness \npaul seger: and recognize our dependence on the health and vitality of thriving habitats along the bay\, Delta’s edge. \npaul seger: In this future communities are not only healthy\, safe\, and equitable. \npaul seger: but also actively acknowledge the interconnectedness that binds us to the intricate web of thriving habitats along the Bay delta. \npaul seger: All residents have access to our shorelines \npaul seger: where they can immerse themselves in beauty and wonder. There’s of these vital ecosystems\, the pulse of indigenous communities within their deep understanding of interconnectedness\, guides us in preserving and benefiting from the critical ecosystem services provided by base the deltas\, natural habitats. \npaul seger: When we speak of networks of people and goods\, services and economies\, we are essentially addressing the backbone of our infrastructure. This includes transportation systems\, economic services\, and essential goods that form the foundation of our communities. \npaul seger: Let’s call it what it is\, the vital infrastructure that sustains our way of life. Recognizing this\, our future \npaul seger: are recognizing this\, our vision commits to \npaul seger: addressing infrastructure\, related items transparently. \npaul seger: we will appropriately identify and tackle issues while honoring co equal goals of environmental sustainability and economic prosperity. \npaul seger: This comprehensive approach ensures that our infrastructure not only facilitates the movement of people and goods\, but does so in harmony with the environment. By embracing co equal goals. We safeguard the resilience of the San Francisco Bay Area and Delta \npaul seger: for current generations. And thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Our final public commenter\, Ms. Caroline. please go ahead and unmute yourself. \nBoardroom SX80: Commenter. Ms. Carolyn\, please go ahead and unmute yourself and state your public comment. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, I guess. \nBoardroom SX80: we are moving on. \nBoardroom SX80: That concludes our public speaking comments and questions from Commissioners. Commissioner Eklund. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Thank you very much. I don’t have any questions but fantastic presentation. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: As I’m very much interested in being intimately involved in this when II was not only in charge of the for permitting program EPA\, but also the oceans industry’s program I worked with \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: not only in California but Hawaii in the outer islands\, America\, small Guam and Cni \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: on developing guidelines and obviously regulatory \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: programs as well. And so I’m very much interested in being engaged in this and being a new Commissioner\, I’m not exactly sure how to put my name in the \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: in in the \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: in the\, in the in the list\, but I just wanted to make sure that Staff knows that I’m very interested in would like to be it more intimately engaged. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: So thank you. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: I Hi! \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you for the great report. Thank you for the great report. I’m not sure if this is the right time to ask this particular question. But are there any guidance that’s coming out on how to work with the individuals that have property alongside the shoreline. There’s one in particular you might have heard about it. It’s pretty large oil company in Richmond. \nBoardroom SX80: They. They may or may not believe in global warming\, and they may or may not want to participate in trying to do something with our shoreline. \nBoardroom SX80: So anything that we can do to help them out? \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, if you having the answer\, I will love an answer. I want them to participate. Yeah\, I mean\, what I can say is that so? The intent of this vision is to really inform the guidelines that we create. And one of the vision statements on collaboration is really encouraging that informal to formal shoreline coalition work that needs to happen to both plan\, build\, and really maintain these types of projects over time. \nAnd so the intent is that we’ll have guidelines that flow from that vision statement and plans that are\, you know\, reviewed and approved by Bcd. C. Are eligible for funding. So I think that there’s an incentive in that sense of following these guidelines and having approved plans\, can hopefully encourage that type of work\, and having the statement here allows us to then have guidelines that we really we can encourage or require that type of collaborative work \nBoardroom SX80: so that we could do more on the require versus encouragement. I don’t think they’re going to be encouraged enough\, because if they go along with it\, from what I hear is\, if they go along with Richmond \nBoardroom SX80: to work on the shoreline\, then they might be admitting to global warming that they potentially caused. So I think we need more than just a little nudge. We need to actually force them to participate. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair\, can I? Can I venture an answer as well. I mean it. All I can think of is\, is you described? The company is\, you know\, he who will not be named \nBoardroom SX80: One of the things that happened at the first part of this meeting was that John Coleman announced his resignation in his retirement\, which is\, I think\, and I think a lot of us think is a really \nBoardroom SX80: as good as his staff is\, gonna be? It’s a really\, it’s a sad day\, because John has really brought the Bay pund and coalition really forward with regard to climate change. And with regard to working with all of us\, what I’m going to do is I want to make sure that John\, before he leaves. Here’s what you said\, because the Bay Planning coalition has been very active with us\, with the regional shoreline\, adaptation\, plan\, and bay adapt. \nBoardroom SX80: They are very\, you know\, in addition to the building Industry Association and and and a number of other private sector concerns\, and I want to make sure that we \nBoardroom SX80: talk with John\, so that he then ensures that whoever follows him understands the importance and connects those dots. I can’t promise you that they’re going to play ball. But I can promise you that we’ll make sure. Bpc. Knows of what you said\, and they’re playing ball with us that. Okay. \nBoardroom SX80: cool. Yes. Okay. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Kishimoto. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Yes. Hi\, yes\, I’m yodiko Kishimoto. Alternate to Supervisor elderly. But II also serve on the Board of Midpoints and open space\, and I just wanted to support \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: express my support for the excellent one day vision for the resilient future shoreline and also to the comments made by Sierra Club. Obviously\, II believe very strongly that nature is \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: the ultimate infrastructure. You know\, it’s it’s gonna be here when we’re we’re we’re not\, and and it’s always good to keep reminding ourselves of of that that priority. When push comes to stuff. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: To put put nature first. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Commissioner Gunther. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: Thank you. Mr. Chairman\, so I just wanna Jackie\, you and the staff. I want to congratulate you. The kinds of comments we’re hearing today shows that you guys have done a really great job of outreach and I \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: know that you’re gonna keep it up\, which is good because the questions are\, gonna get diceier and more difficult to deal with\, including a couple. I’m gonna ask you now. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: I also really liked that. You didn’t just list goals. But you then said\, to achieve this\, we have to do the following things cause. That’s a real way of forwarding the conversation. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: First. My question. First question\, I have 2 questions. First\, one is about the sub regional plans. And I have been very \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: I’m persuaded by presentations that I have seen here and in other places and in listening to people talk about how valuable \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: the the regional plan that splits our region into what are called the currently operational landscape units. But the idea of removing the political boundaries from the landscape\, putting down the physical ecological boundaries \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: and then and and that’s what we see. And then putting the political boundaries back down so that we can then see who needs to collaborate because you’re within this same sort of geophysical environment. So I wanted to first ask\, you \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: are. The is the idea of operational landscape units being being included. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: or maybe even prioritized or championed\, as we think about how to develop our sub regional plans. \nBoardroom SX80: I can go ahead and start with the answer\, and then I might pass off to Dana Breckwold\, who is leading the work that we’re doing on developing sub-regional plans. I will say we are absolutely talking about operational landscape units and the value that they bring along with the some of those other jurisdictional lines. So it is absolutely part of the conversation in in many of the conversations that we’ve had. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah. The only thing I’ll add is\, as as you correctly stated\, operational landscape unit boundaries are not same as jurisdictional boundaries. Plans occur within jurisdictional boundaries. So we’re trying to reconcile the fact that. We have these scales of planning that we don’t want to create. We don’t need to\, or want to create all new planning scales. \nBut we are also aware of the fact that operational landscape units bring a lot of value in analyzing sea level rise risk as well as identifying the appropriate adaptation strategies. \nBoardroom SX80: So we’re trying to reconcile that at the moment we do plan to come back to you all with a proposal for what those sub regional adaptation. Plans are in March\, ish or \nBoardroom SX80: soonish in the next few months. And then we’ll get your feedback there to make sure that we’ve incorporated those concepts successfully \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: great. Yeah\, I don’t mean to say that we need to get rid of counties in the Bay Area. But that that I’ve been very impressed with how\, when you think about an operational landscape unit\, who is then convened around that table. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: and and those people all need to talk to each other and share their experiences and their ideas. The second thing I just wanted to ask is about the investment strategy. And I remain convinced that our excellently developed estimate for the cost of adaptation is unfortunately it \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: painful underestimate\, and it’s going to get more expensive\, and I think that \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: the sooner we begin to engage in the discussion about \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: what gets funded first \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: the better off will be\, and I don’t have an answer to that question. Obviously\, I think we’re going to be trying to catch a lot of different balls as they appear. Maybe a little Federal money here\, a little transportation money here a little\, this a little that but I think that there is \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: going to be a need to understand that. If we’re gonna be opportunistic about obtaining funding that \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: some people are gonna get it and some people aren’t \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: and how that would then reverberate through our implementation of the plan. So it’s it is. These are the kind of things that I think we do much better on if we think about them \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: in advance\, when the winners and losers are not yet \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: fully fully formed. And so I hope that that as we move forward with the investment strategy\, you’ll be able to think about some of these tough questions\, and it and just help tee up all the stakeholders to be aware that you know these. These are these are coming down the pipe\, and we’re gonna have to deal with them as best we can. \nBoardroom SX80: I will just say that we are. We are thinking about that right now. It’s definitely on our minds as we’re preparing for all of those other buckets of work ahead\, and how we can kind of do the work. Now to make sure that we’re setting ourselves up to be able to have those conversations and make those decisions. And also note that the next presentation will talk a bit more about the investment strategy and the work happening there. \nBoardroom SX80: I see no other. No\, it’s Commissioner Kishimoto. Your hand is still up\, but I assume it’s oh\, it’s Pat show. Walter Pat’s hand is still up. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Hi\, yeah\, we’re sharing the screen now. Hopefully\, we won’t get reverberation that way. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Yeah\, I just wanted to again compliment the staff on this work and this presentation. It’s just vital. To get this going and moving and and make sure that we include the right people. I would really like to be included in the sub regional plan development for the South Bay. So I’m putting my hand up for that \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: But also I wanted to. Just ditto. The comments that in particular Gita Dev made about the importance of nature based solutions. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: I really think it is important to have that concept explicitly stated in the vision statement and sort of underlying \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: language here. So I just wanted to to support that as well. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: I see no others. I have a request. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s actually not a staff apologies. We just got an email from the public commenter who was unable to speak before. Maybe we could try again for her\, Carolyn\, she\, the Star 6\, I think\, wasn’t working\, but if she’s still on\, she might be able to try that one more time. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay. \nBoardroom SX80: so public commenter\, Ms. Carolyn\, are you on the line? \nBoardroom SX80: Are you able to hear us? \n5102354562: Hi! Now\, it just said it was unmuted. Can you hear me now? Okay\, fantastic. Thank you so much. I appreciate you recognizing the email license. Since the chat is disabled. \nI’ll start my public comment. Now then. I just wanted to point out that in the last week\, with the NASA findings that about the hottest year on record being last year. \nthere have been a number of scientists revisiting Jim Hansen’s work on climate Change. A number of scientists had had previously discounted his work because his models were showing \nmuch higher rate of climate change. And now that’s being revisited. And I just wanted to call out that the sea level rise \nused by Opc. And which BC. DC. Also factors into their work probably need to greatly relook at their work as well because of this new. These new findings. \nI also wanted to call out about the contaminated sites that are in the guidelines. I live in Richmond. Along the shoreline we have a 86 acre site that’s qualified very high as a super fun site. \nIt’s right on the shoreline. So sea level rise is a big concern. It’s there are already plumes affecting off site locations. The site is under Dts administration. It’s basically a test case\, for what could go wrong with sea level rise. So I’ll leave it at that. I greatly appreciate you\, giving me the opportunity to speak. Thank you. \n5102354562: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: So my request is for the Commissioners. I want to thank Staff for for the work and for this presentation. but my request is that you actually take a bit of time over this next \nBoardroom SX80: week. I don’t want to interfere on your weekend too much. But \nBoardroom SX80: please look at these slides. and if you have questions or comments. submit them to staff. \nBoardroom SX80: because this has been worked on a lot\, and I think it is good. \nBoardroom SX80: but that doesn’t mean it can’t be improved. And as we move \nBoardroom SX80: to what this is going to become some of these pieces of language may be very important\, so if you can\, please do that\, send in. Comments \nBoardroom SX80: could just be wonderful. I don’t think there are any changes needed. But if you do see some things that you’ve got questions about or suggestions\, please do make those. Thank you very much for the presentation. There is no action on this that brings us to item 12\, a briefing on Plan Bay area 2050 \nBoardroom SX80: sorry 2050 plus 2050 plus \nBoardroom SX80: Jessica Fane\, our planning director will introduce the briefing. Thank you. Chair Wasserman. So next\, our last agenda item is on Plan Bay Area\, and you’re probably wondering why are we talking about Plan Bay Area\, of a Bcdc. Meeting? Well\, with so many regional planning efforts going on\, we think it’s pretty important for you to be aware about what’s going on with other agencies and to the extent we can\, we really try to align our efforts to help move \nBoardroom SX80: the region forward in a sustainable and cohesive manner. So while Plan Bay area covers a broad set of topic areas or a few key areas where those policy areas intersect with what we do at Bcdc. And sea level Rise adaptation and how to fund it is a major one of those. \nBoardroom SX80: you might not know that our staff collaborate regularly with Mtc. And Abag. Staff on sea level rise adaptation work through biweekly meetings\, joint projects\, developing data and methodology and outreach. We’re grateful to have a long term funding agreement between our agencies that provide support for this work and our planning staff are now supporting Mtc. And Abag and integrating the work we’ve done together on the sea level rise funding and investment framework into Plan Bay Area 2050 plus. \nBoardroom SX80: and we anticipate continuing to work closely after 2050 plus. And after the regional shoreline adaptation plan work that Jackie was describing \nBoardroom SX80: to really think about how to develop a regional funding strategy. That grapples with key questions about how we are gonna fund the sizable adaptation needs. So with that\, I’ll turn it over to Matt Maloney\, director of regional Plans at Mtc. Aback. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Good afternoon\, Commissioners\, Jessica said a lot of what I was going to say. \nBoardroom SX80: Which is fine. I will just say that we are also at Mtc. And abag very appreciative. Of all the collaboration with with BC. DC. Staff\, and as the months. Go on. We just find ourselves working more and more closely. At a staff level with with Bcd C plan Bay Area\, which I’ll talk about\, and I’ll be brief. In in my comments. \nBoardroom SX80: Is not a plan that is statutorily required. To do a lot of consideration with sea level rise. But part of what I wanted to get across today is that although it focuses a lot on transportation and and housing and has statutory requirements with Ghg mitigation. \nBoardroom SX80: Sea level rise is definitely inter woven into how we think about the plan. And we just obviously we must have it as a high priority and consideration as we do all this work on on housing and transportation. Let’s go to the next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, we call this the Galaxy slide or kind of a a\, an ocean with waves? So II think what we wanna get across here is that we are \nBoardroom SX80: interweaving all of these efforts together. The Bay adap joint platforms\, of course\, A\, a product of BCDC. And you all just heard a a bit about the regional shoreline adaptation plan the estuary blueprint\, which is focused on the health and resilience of the San Francisco estuary\, is governed by abag. \nBoardroom SX80: And then there in the middle is Plan Bay Area 2050 plus\, which is led by Abag and Mtc. Together\, and it’s quite comprehensive in scope dealing with housing\, transportation\, the environment and the economy\, and and more and more\, as these plans roll along\, we’re doing more and more work on the climate adaptation space next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: We at Mtc. And Abac have been doing regional plans for a very long time. But on the State level. Really kind of changed a lot of this dynamic back in the 2\,008\, 2\,009 period. \nBoardroom SX80: And essentially what Sb. 3\, 75 did is it set a statutory requirement for these plans to reduce per capita. GHG. From cars and light duty vehicles. \nBoardroom SX80: And the way that the plan accomplishes that is\, via a land use pattern focused around high quality transit areas\, places where people can not rely necessarily on single occupant vehicles\, and we also develop a fiscally constrained set of transportation investments. As part of the plan. And that is essentially what we’re doing via the plan is required to be adopted every 4 years. \nBoardroom SX80: We the the plan that we’re living under today is Plan Bay Area 2050. That was adopted in 2021\, and we are now in the middle of Plan Bay area 2050 plus adopted in 2025. Why is it? Plus \nBoardroom SX80: I think\, what we’re trying to signal there is that it’s a limited and focused update Planbury 2050 has a lot in it. It was 4 straight years of pretty intense work and robust outreach \nBoardroom SX80: and 2050 plus is meant to do a few things on the margins\, but not be a. It’s not a dramatic redo of the plan \nBoardroom SX80: next slide. \nBoardroom SX80: So\, as I mentioned\, we do cover a lot of ground in the plan. This is sort of a snapshot of the 11 themes. It covers transportation and the transit network. \nBoardroom SX80: They’re in yellow. Those are some of the themes. We deal a lot with the affordable housing conundrum that is facing the Bay area. That’s sort of the red themes. \nBoardroom SX80: improving economic mobility and jobs in blue. And then the environmental strategies are the themes are shown there in green. So we have 11 themes and 35 strategies. Let’s go to the next slide. \nBoardroom SX80: And what I wanted to focus on just briefly\, today are some of the strategies in the so called environment elements. So we have 9 strategies in all \nBoardroom SX80: in that part of the plan you’ll see adapt to sea level rise is number one on that list. I’ll also mention briefly\, strategies 5 and 6 that have to do with conservation lands and urban greening. So next slide. \nBoardroom SX80: okay\, so after plan barrier 2050 Bcd. C. And Mtc. And a bag collaborated on this sea level rise\, funding and investment framework. And I know the Commission has seen. This work recently. Where this work ended up is an estimated cost of sea level rise adaptation through 2050. The estimate we came up with is 110 1 billion dollars. \nBoardroom SX80: There are some things known out there about the projects to adapt to sea level rise. So where we knew and sort of had good cost estimates\, we used those \nBoardroom SX80: but for some of these other areas which are shown in green these are really more placeholder costs. So these are places that really haven’t quite gone through all of the planning yet. So the staff work to create cost estimates for those \nBoardroom SX80: the cost is high. But I think it always makes sense to couch it against the fact that we also estimate 230 billion in assets are at risk. If the Re region does not adapt to sea level rise next slide. \nBoardroom SX80: So after that work. I wanna talk just briefly about what we’re doing in the current plan to sort of update the C-level rise\, investment work that we’ve been doing and sort of where we’re going. And I think one of your previous one of your commissioners did allude to this ultimate regional funding strategy \nBoardroom SX80: which is shown on the right hand of the slide so I mentioned the sea Level rise\, editation funding and investment framework. I will note that it was based on an estimate of 4.9 feet of inundation by 2050 \nBoardroom SX80: that was using the best available work by the Ocean Protection Council. You heard from those folks earlier today? They are still updating. Those as the years go on we will continue in the DC. DC. Staff. I’m sure we’ll continue to use the best estimates. \nBoardroom SX80: This includes sort of an estimate of the rise\, but also a hundred year storm. So that’s all kind of built into the 4.9 number. In this current plan\, cycle plan bary 2050 plus\, II think the objective that we have at this point is to work on updating what we did in that funding and investment framework\, working with local jurisdictions across the region. Making sure we get the best available information updating project costs where we can. \nAnd hopefully beginning the process of what? Of what? On the slide. We mentioned sorting projects\, as we call them\, bins where we’re trying to work towards sort of an organizational structure. \nBoardroom SX80: For some of these projects. Right now we have a fairly long list but they are not necessarily prioritized in any kind of way. So the staff are gonna begin to looking. We’re gonna begin looking at some things like project readiness. \nBoardroom SX80: Obviously\, the cost of the projects and what other kinds of funding might be committed to these types of projects just to sort of get us toward a bit of an organizational scheme\, the idea being that when we get to a regional funding strategy. We could engage in a further categorization of those projects \nBoardroom SX80: potentially updating the project inventory\, looking at updating the future revenue sources and getting a little bit towards more of organizing these sort of by year\, so that when funding opportunities do come our way we’re ready with sort of a near term list that we can draw from you know\, to start funding these projects and sort of do that necessary work. To get this done. So that is where we are headed \nBoardroom SX80: next slide. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, really\, quickly\, on the priority conservation areas. These are geographic areas. In the bay area. They they came about around the same time as the priority development areas or Pda’s. If you work in local government\, you’re probably somewhat familiar with those \nBoardroom SX80: Established back in 2\,000 7. These are you know\, lands around the region that are important to protect conservation lands\, natural lands ag lands working lands. \nBoardroom SX80: We we are engaged in a in an update or refresh of the Pca framework. And the reason why I wanted to talk to the Commission about this today is that we are adding integrating climate adaptation into the mix with the Pcas so we are the new type of Pca intended to be paired with the existing types that we’ve got \nBoardroom SX80: already. Underway. So we’re not really reinventing the wheel with this. We are looking at sort of that same map that you saw before\, with 110 billion looking at those areas. But sort of looking at these areas that are more tidal habitats and places like that. Those will also be part of the Pca geographies. It’s more than a map. We also do have a funding program associated with with Pcas that Mtc \nBoardroom SX80: funds so historically\, over the last 15 or 20 years. \nBoardroom SX80: We do a call for projects for these and we do fund improvements and enhancements. To these lands either to provide better access or to work on conserving these areas. \nBoardroom SX80: Next slide. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, final slide just next steps on the plan \nBoardroom SX80: in in terms of the this strategy en one and adapting to to sea level rise staff is working to update this data. We are working with local staff. We’re putting on webinars \nBoardroom SX80: and doing sort of robust engagement. There\, in order to identify new projects and just sort of update the inventory that we currently have. You want more information on that? You can contact Rachel Hart and Phyllis. She’s here in the audience. You can contact her directly. Also\, just in terms of where we’re going on the final blueprint. Looking into this summer\, we will be doing more engagements. With the public \nBoardroom SX80: and with local jurisdictions to kind of talk about all the strategies that are in the plan. Shrug Rabari is the guy that is the project manager. Of the plan. Ultimately we will approve a final blueprint later this year in the fall. We do have to do sequa on this plan that takes about a year. \nBoardroom SX80: And so ultimately we would adopt this plan in the fall of 2025. So that concludes my presentation for today\, and happy to take any questions from the Commissioners. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Any public comment on this matter. There are no public comments. \nBoardroom SX80: questions\, or comments from commissioners. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Gunther. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: yeah\, very quickly. Thank you for the presentation. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: I was critical about the \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: whether the number is correct. But I wanna make sure you know that I’m that’s offered just in the frame that we just need to keep. Go\, keep\, keep keep going as we iterate this to get get it more accurate. I really really appreciate that you and your colleagues are doing this\, and I encourage you to keep doing it. If someone like me says you need to improve the number\, then you can just ask me\, how should we do it? And one of the ways that I think we need to do it is to \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: try and integrate as I. As I understand it\, the the cost now does not have any. The the cost of dealing with the rising groundwater that will be part of sea level rise is not included in the 109 billion. Do I have that right? \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: Yes\, you have that right? Okay? And is W. Will 2050 plus \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: make a stab at that? Is that part of the plan. \nBoardroom SX80: II don’t believe that we’re gonna get there in this in this planning round. II don’t believe that we’re gonna be able to bring in the groundwater estimates into this. There’s also a lot of information out there with riverine flooding around the region that we don’t quite have the best data for we are working on that to do more comprehensive assessment. But I think in this period\, what we’re mostly focused on \nBoardroom SX80: are\, is that existing project inventory we have\, and and sort of seeing what kinds of updates are out there to the costs or to the scopes of those projects. To make sure we have the best information. That’s kind of where we \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: thanks. Yeah\, II recognize this is a very difficult question I’m asking. But I think that it’s important\, because \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: it could have a pretty significant influence on this number. And I and I I hope that that as soon as you guys are ready to throw a number out there just as a even as a placeholder. That you that\, you make an effort to do it. Because\, it’s going to be a really important addition \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: to our future. Need \nBoardroom SX80: any other \nBoardroom SX80: comments for questions from commissioners \nBoardroom SX80: again\, thank you for the presentation and the work\, we will continue the dialogue. \nBoardroom SX80: There is no further action on this item. \nBoardroom SX80: This brings us to adjournment\, and I would ask for a motion to adjourn in \nBoardroom SX80: recognition \nBoardroom SX80: of Graciela Gomez. Recognizing that we’ve done 2 very lovely things at this meeting we’ve passed 2 resolutions\, \nBoardroom SX80: for people who are still with us. We don’t always do that. So I would entertain a motion. \nBoardroom SX80: A Commissioner Gilmore makes the motion\, and \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner on seconds the motion. Thank you. No opposition. no exemptions. We are adjourned. Thank you very much. \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs 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. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant 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. \nIf 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. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf 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. \nCampaign Contributions\nState 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. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings 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.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/february-1-2024-commission-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240118T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240118T170000
DTSTAMP:20250320T191230Z
CREATED:20240118T044859Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250320T191230Z
UID:10000088-1705582800-1705597200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:January 18\, 2024 Commission Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:Supplemental Materials\n				Commission Mailing January 5\, 2024\n\nIssued Regionwide Permits\nApplications for permits\, federal consistency actions\, and amendments \n\nCommission Mailing January 12\, 2024\n\nDraft Minutes of December 21\, 2023 Hybrid Commission Meeting (PDF)\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC\n\nA Reborn Portal to a Great American City\nTerrific Article on CA Coastal Commission Seawall Litigation\nEditorial: Anchor-outs must abide by Richardson Bay rules\nWhat If People Don’t Need to Care About Climate Change to Fix It?\nCleaning Up After Lahaina\nFor the Billionaire Who Has Everything\, Consider an Island in the San Francisco Bay
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-18-2024-commission-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240104T080000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240104T170000
DTSTAMP:20240614T161333Z
CREATED:20240118T065653Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240614T161333Z
UID:10000089-1704355200-1704387600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:January 4\, 2024 Commission Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:Supplemental Materials\n				Articles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nLevee breach creates new tidal marshland in San Francisco Bay\nProject works to restore tidal marshlands along San Francisco Bay\nRestoring San Francisco Bay wetlands\, one industrial salt pond at a time
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-4-2024-commission-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231221T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231221T170000
DTSTAMP:20250320T190337Z
CREATED:20231017T045735Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250320T190337Z
UID:10000051-1703163600-1703178000@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:December 21\, 2023 Commission Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 143 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/82557391023?pwd=TwTLPTiueHMXiUK3SeSsOH3acpAS3w.oivswZ_6CPmxDWEa \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID825 5739 1023 \nPasscode407711 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic 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]\nApproval of Minutes for December 7\, 2023 Meeting (PDF)(Reylina Ruiz) [415/352-3638; reylina.ruiz@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\n\n\nVote on the US Army Corps of Engineers\, San Francisco District’s Proposed Phased Consistency Determination for the Oakland Turning Basins Widening Project (PDF)The Commission will vote on whether to concur with the US Army Corps of Engineers\, San Francisco District’s phased consistency determination that the proposed Port of Oakland Outer and Inner Harbor Turning Basins Widening Project\, Alameda County is consistent with the Commission’s Coastal Zone Management Plan for San Francisco Bay. 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 Landing (former Naval Annex wharves) a portion the wharves and\, land beneath them\, infrastructure\, and portions of two warehouses 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 at Howard Terminal and Alameda Landing. 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. The public hearing was heard on December 7\, 2023.(Brenda Goeden) [415/352-3623; brenda.goeden@bcdc.ca.govPublic Comment Letter (PDF)\n\n\nCommission Consideration of a Contract with the Port of San Francisco to Fund Planning Activities (PDF)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]Presentation (PDF)\n\n\nBriefing on Planning Activities in the Suisun MarshThe Commission will receive a briefing by the Long-Range Planning team on recent planning activity by Commission staff in the Suisun Marsh\, including an overview of the Commission’s authority in the Marsh\, a summary of recent updates to Plan in the Marsh\, and future planning work.(Erik Buehmann) [415/352-3645; erik.buehmann@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nBriefing on Updates to the California Sea-Level Rise GuidanceRepresentatives 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]\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				This report lists the administrative matters that have been filed and are pending with the Commission. The Executive Director will take the action indicated on the matters unless the Commission determines that it is necessary to hold a public hearing. The staff members to whom the matters have been assigned are indicated at the end of the project descriptions. Inquiries should be directed to the assigned staff member prior to the Commission meeting. \nAdministrative Permit Applications \n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nCity of Mill Valley Parks Recreation and Waterfront 26 Corte Madera Avenue Mill Valley\, California 94941 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.030.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\n12/15/23\n\n\n90 Day\n03/14/24\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Commission’s Bay jurisdiction\, at the Hauke Pedestrian Bridge\, 498 Sycamore Avenue\, in the City of Mill Valley\, Marin County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nReplace a 145-foot-long\, 3-inch-diameter galvanized pipe with a 145-foot-long 3-inch-diameter HDPE pipe on an existing bridge. The project will not alter the bridge\, as the pipe runs underneath the bridge deck. Construction will require the temporary closure of the bridge for approximately two weeks\, and the bridge will be reopened outside of work hours and on Christmas Day and New Year’s Day. Construction has been scheduled to occur over the Marin Valley Unified School District winter break to limit disruption to regular users of the bridge. The City has posted notices of the planned disruption\, and will post signs directing pedestrians along the 2/3 mile detour. \n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position:\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions.(Rowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov) \n\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Commission Mailing December 15\, 2023 \n\nDraft Minutes of December 7\, 2023 Hybrid Commission Meeting (PDF)\nStaff Report and Recommendation to Amend the Contract with the Port of San Francisco for BPA 3-17 to Fund Planning Activities (PDF)\nStaff Recommendation Oakland Turning Basins Widening Project (PDF)\nUS Army Corps of Engineers – Oakland Harbor Turning Basins Widening Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment (PDF) – Revised Presentation\nIssued Regionwide Permits\nApplications for permits\, federal consistency actions\, and amendments\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nRestoring San Francisco Bay wetlands\, one industrial salt pond at a time\nThe plan for a massive floating pool on S.F. piers is moving forward\, despite big funding gap\nA free water shuttle connecting two East Bay cities is launching next year. Here are the details\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				\nMinutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs 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. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant 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. \nIf 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. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf 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. \nCampaign Contributions\nState 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. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings 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.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/december-21-2023-commission-meeting-2/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231207T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231207T170000
DTSTAMP:20240206T212147Z
CREATED:20231008T045545Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240206T212147Z
UID:10000050-1701954000-1701968400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:December 7\, 2023 Commission Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 143 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nNote: Agenda Item 8 and 11 have been postponed. \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nJoin the meeting via Zoom \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID825 5739 1023 \nPasscode407711 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic 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]\nApproval of Minutes for November 16\, 2023 Meeting (PDF)(Reylina Ruiz) [415/352-3638; reylina.ruiz@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative MattersThere is no administrative listing(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nCommission Consideration of a Contract with the Port of San Francisco to Fund Planning ActivitiesPOSTPONEDThe 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]\nPublic Hearing and Possible Vote to Approve Stipulated Orders CCD2023.002.00 and CCD2023.003.00The 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\nPublic 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.govPresentation (PDF) // Public Comment (PDF) // Application Summary Addendum (PDF) // Staff Presentation (PDF)\nBriefing on Updates to the California Sea-Level Rise GuidancePOSTPONEDRepresentatives 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]\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Commission Mailing November 17\, 2023\n\nStipulated Orders CCD2023.002.00 and CCD2023.003.00\nApplication Summary C2023.003.00 \n\nCommission Mailing December 1\, 2023\n\nRevised December 7\, 2023 Commission Meeting – Agenda Item 8 has been postponed\nDraft Minutes of November 16\, 2023 Hybrid Commission Meeting (PDF)\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC\n\nWhen sea levels rise\, so does your rent\nThere’s a big new sea wall in the Bay Area\, is this the future?\nNo water\, power\, Wi-Fi or parking – but for $25 million\, this island on S.F. Bay can be yours \nBay Area Housing Project Raises Concerns About Sea-Level Rise \nMLB owners approve Athletics’ planned move to Las Vegas\, sources say\nBay Area Housing Project Raises Concerns About Sea-Level Rise\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				Audio Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/10/12-07-CM-audio-recording.mp3 \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nGOOD AFTERNOON\, ALL\, AND \nWELCOME. TO OUR\, ONCE AGAIN\, \nHYBRID BCDC COMMISSION MEETING. \nMY NAME IS ZACK WASSERMAN\, AND I \nAM THE CHAIR OF BCDC. \nBEFORE WE GET STARTED\, I WANT TO \nINFORM THAT YOU BOTH ITEMS EIGHT \nREGARDING A CONTRACT WITH THE \nPORT OF SAN FRANCISCO AND ITEM \n11 REGARDING THE UPDATE OF SEA \nLEVEL RISE GUIDANCE HAVE BEEN \nPOSTPONED\, HOPEFULLY TO OUR NEXT \nMEETING. \nOUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS \nTO CALL THE ROLL. COMMISSIONERS \nIF YOU ARE PARTICIPATING \nVIRTUALLY\, PLEASE UNMUTE \nYOURSELVES WHEN YOU ANSWER\, AND \nTHEN MUTE YOURSELVES AGAIN \nAFTERWARDS. RAY LYNN A WILL YOU \nPLEASE CALL THE ROLL? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: CHAIR \nWASSERMAN? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nHERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: VICE \nCHAIR EISEN? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nHERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? \n>>ANDREW FREMIER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: AHN? \n>>EDDIE AHN: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: AMBUEHL? \n>>DAVID AMBUEHL: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: BURT? \n>>ANDREW FREMIER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: ECKERLY? \n>>JENN ECKERLE: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: ECKLUND? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: PRESENT. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER GILMORE? \n>>MARIE GILMORE: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: GIOIA? \n>>JOHN GIOIA: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: GORIN? \n>>SUSAN GORIN: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: GUNTHER? \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: HASZ? \n>>V. CHAIR\, KARL HASZ: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nJOHN-BAPTISTE? \n>>ALICIA JOHN BAPTISTE: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nKISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nPEMBERTON? \nCOMMISSIONER PESKIN? \n>>AARON PESKIN: PRESENT. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER PINE? \n>>DAVE PINE: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER RAMOS? \n>>BELIA RAMOS: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER WILLIAMS? \n>>SPEAKER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER ZAPEDA? \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: DID I \nFORGET ANYONE? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nMOULTON-PETERS? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: SORRY. \nTHANK YOU. \n>>SPEAKER: AND PEMBERTON. \nHERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: 23 \nCOMMISSIONERS PRESENT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE \nHAVE A QUORUM AND SO WE CAN \nPROCEED. IT’S A LITTLE A BIT \nLIKE A QUAKER QUILT\, IF YOU \nDON’T LEAVE SOMEBODY OUT\, THEN \nIT’S TOO PERFECT. \n[LAUGHTER] \nITEM THREE IS PUBLIC COMMENT. \nYOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO \nADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY \nITEM NOT ON OUR AGENDA\, OR NOT \nWHERE WE HAVE NOT — WHERE WE \nHAVE NOT HELD A PUBLIC HEARING\, \nOR ARE NOT SCHEDULED TO. \nI DO WANT TO REMIND YOU\, ALL\, OF \nTHE UNFORTUNATE INCREASE IN THIS \nTERRIBLE WORD ZOOM BOMBING OF \nBOTH LOCAL AND REGIONAL \nAGENCIES\, AND THEIR MEETINGS. \nEVERYONE PLEASE DO NOTE\, AS WAS \nSAID IN THE INTRODUCTORY VIDEO\, \nTHAT BCDC WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY \nFORM OF HATE SPEECH OR THREATS \nOF ANY GROUPS\, AGAINST ANY \nGROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS. AND AS \nCHAIR\, I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT I \nWE WOULD A VERY HEAVY HAMMER ON \nTHOSE ISSUES. \nWITH THAT\, DO WE HAVE ANY \nMEMBERS IN THE ROOM WHO HAVE \nSUBMITTED CARDS? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: I HAVE \nNO CARDS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: AND \nDO WE HAVE ANYBODY ON ZOOM WHO \nWISHES TO SPEAK. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO \nPUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: NO \nPUBLIC COMMENT. THIS IS GOING \nTO BE A VERY QUICK MEETING\, \nEVERYBODY. \nTHAT BRINGS US TO APPROVAL OF \nOUR MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16TH. \nWE HAVE ALL RECEIVED COPIES. I \nWOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO \nAPPROVE\, AND A SECOND. \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS \nMOVED. I SAW IT. \nCOMMISSIONER BAPTIST SECONDED. \nI SAW HER MOVING HER HAND. \n[LAUGHTER] \nANY CORRECTIONS OR ADDITIONS TO \nTHE MINUTES? \nSEEING NONE. \nDOES ANYBODY WISH TO OPPOSE OR \nABSTAIN? \nI DON’T SEE ANY. THE MINUTES \nARE APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. \nTHAT BRINGS US TO MY REPORT. \nOUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE HELD ON \nA.M. AT THAT MEETING WE MAY \nTAKE UP THE FOLLOWING MATTERS \nCONSIDERATION OF A CONTRACT WITH \nTHE PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO \nREGARDING SAN FRANCISCO \nWATERFRONT SPECIAL AREA PLAN \nTHAT WE POSTPONED TODAY. A \nPOTENTIAL COMMISSION VOTE ON THE \nPROPOSED OAKLAND TURNING BASIN \nEXPANSION ON WHICH WE ARE \nHOLDING A PUBLIC HEARING TODAY. \nA BRIEFING ON THE UPDATE OF SEA \nLEVEL RISE GUIDANCE FROM THE \nSTATE\, ALSO POSTPONED FROM \nTODAY. A BRIEFING ON THE SUISUN \nMARSH IN SOLANO COUNTY\, AND A \nBRIEFING ON BAY ADAPT. \nJUST A COUPLE OF BRIEF COMMENTS. \nAS I NOTED EARLIER\, SLIGHTLY \nJOKING\, THIS IS GOING TO BE A \nBRIEF MEETING. ENJOY THE GIFT \nOF TIME. I THINK NEXT MEETING \nWILL BE A BIT LONGER. AND AS WE \nMOVE INTO THE NEW YEAR\, I THINK \nTHEY WILL BE LONGER. I THINK \nWE’LL START TAKING ON MORE \nIN-DEPTH SOME OF THE POLICIES WE \nHAVE BEEN DISCUSSING AND I AM \nCERTAIN THERE WILL BE SOME \nINTERESTING HEARINGS ALONG THE \nWAY. THERE WAS AN INTERNATIONAL \nSCIENTIFIC REPORT THAT NOTED \nOVER THE LAST TEN YEARS GIVE OR \nTAKE OR MAYBE EVEN ARE LONGER\, \nTHE RATE OF SEA LEVEL RISE HAS \nDOUBLED OVER THE LONG-TERM \nTREND. IT’S STILL SMALL\, BUT \nTHAT IS SIGNIFICANT AND \nINDICATES THE WATER THAT WE KNOW \nIS COMING\, WELCOME OR NOT\, IS \nCOMING\, AND WE NEED TO KEEP \nDOING OUR WORK\, AS WE ARE\, AND \nWE NEED TO KEEP PUSHING OUR \nCOLLABORATORS AND PARTNERS ON \nMOVING EVER FASTER. BECAUSE THE \nSEA AIN’T WAITING FOR US. \nWITH THAT\, THIS IS A MOMENT TO \nPUT ON THE RECORD ANY EX PARTE \nCOMMUNICATIONS YOU MAY HAVE HAD \nTHAT YOU HAVE NOT PUT IN WRITING \nTHROUGH OUR WEB SITE. YOU DO \nNEED TO DO THAT\, IN ANY END OF \nTHE EVENT\, AND THESE ARE ON \nADJUDICATORIAL MATTERS NOT ON \nPOLICY MATTERS. ANYBODY HAVE \nANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION TO \nREPORT? SEEING NONE. THAT \nBRINGS US TO THE REPORT OF OUR \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. EXECUTIVE \nDIRECTOR GOLDZBAND IS ON \nVACATION\, AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR \nSCHARFF IS ACTING TO PROVIDE THE \nREPORT. \n>>GREG SCHARFF: I’M GREG \nSCHARFF IT’S BEEN A PLEASURE \nSERVING AS YOUR ACTING EXECUTIVE \nDIRECTOR FOR THE LAST FEW WEEKS \nWHILE LARRY HAS BEEN OUT. I \nWANT TO NOTE TODAY IS PERIL \nHARBOR DAY AND I CAN ONLY \nIMAGINE HOW LARRY WOULD HAVE \nWEAVED THAT INTO THE REPORT. \nUNFORTUNATELY YOU HAVE ME\, NOT \nLARRY. SO\, YOU WILL JUST HAVE \nTO IMAGINE. \nNOW\, FIRST OF ALL\, I WANT TO \nTHANK EVERYONE WHO INDICATED \nTHEY WILL BE PRESENT FOR THE \nDECEMBER 21ST COMMISSION \nMEETING\, AND STRESS THAT IT’S \nCRITICAL THAT YOU DO SO\, AS WE \nWILL ALL BE TAKING A VOTE AT THE \nMEETING ON TODAY’S ITEM 10\, \nWHICH IS THE THE PROPOSED PHASE \nCONSISTS OF DETERMINATION FOR \nTHE PROPOSED BASIN-WIDENING \nPROJECT AND WE WILL NEED A \nQUORUM FOR THAT. \nI WANT TO NOTE AS PART OF BCDC \nSEDIMENT FOR WETLAND ADAPTATION \nPROJECT\, BCDC AND PARTNERS US \nEPA COASTAL CONSERVANCY REGIONAL \nWATER BOARD\, SFEI AND SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY JOINT VENTURE ARE \nHOSTING A WORKSHOP IN-PERSON ON \nJANUARY 23RD AND FEBRUARY 13TH\, \n2024 TO REVIEW AND DISCUSS \nPOTENTIAL CHANGES TO SEDIMENT \nMANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION \nROADMAP OF ACTIONS TO INCREASE \nBENEFICIAL USE OF SOIL AND \nSEDIMENT IN THE BAY AREA. THE \nWORKSHOP WILL WORK WITH A \nVARIETY OF STAKEHOLDERS WHO ARE \nINVOLVED IN AND IMPACTED BY \nSEDIMENT IN THE BAY AREA. WE \nWILL BE HOLDING OUR SECOND BAY \nADAPT COORDINATING MEETING ON \n12/8 AND ELECTED OFFICIALS TASK \nFORCE MEETING ON 12/19. FINALLY \nNOVEMBER 27TH COASTAL MANAGEMENT \nISSUED TWO DECISION LETTERS \nAPPROVING CHANGES TO THE COASTAL \nMANAGEMENT PROGRAM UNDER THE \nCOASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT NOAA \nHAS APPROVED TWO SETS OF \nAMENDMENT TO THE COMMISSION’S \nREGULATION ADOPTED IN 2022 \nREGULATIONS CONCERNING \nENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES \nADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL PENALTY \nPOLICY AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF \nTHE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL \nQUALITY ACT WITH NOAA PRIVATE \nPRIOR APPROVAL OF THE ELEMENTS \nCOMMISSIONS REGULATIONS \nCONCERNING ADMINISTRATIVE \nPROCEDURAL PERMITTING AND \nPLANNING MATTERS. ALL THREE \nSETS OF AMENDMENTS TO THE \nREGULATIONS ADOPTED BY THE \nCOMMISSION IN 2022 HAVE BEEN \nAPPROVED BY NOAA AS PART OF THE \nCOMMISSION’S COASTAL MANAGEMENT \nPROGRAM. THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY \nQUESTIONS FOR OUR ACTING \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR? SEEING \nNONE. WE MOVE TO ITEM SEVEN \nWHICH WE’RE NOT TAKING UP \nBECAUSE THERE ARE NO MATTERS TO \nREPORT. THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM \nEIGHT WHICH WE ARE ALSO NOT \nTAKING UP THAT WILL BE POSTPONED \nHOPEFULLY TO THE NEXT MEETING \nAND THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM NINE \nWHICH I CAN’T EVEN GET TO IN MY \nPAGE. \nTHIS IS THE PUBLIC HEARING AND \nPOSSIBLE VOTE TO APPROVE \nSTIPULATED ORDERS\, \nCCD2023.002.00 AND \nCCD2023.003.00 REGARDING THE SEA \nPLANE INVESTMENTS LLC OF CORTE \nMADERA AND THEIR DEVELOPMENT IN \nMARIN COUNTY. AFTER BCDC HAS \nGIVEN ITS OPENING REMARKS I’LL \nASK RESPONDENTS TO AFFIRM THE \nSTIPULATED AGREEMENT I’LL \nCOMMENT AFTER AND WE HOLD \nDISCUSSION AND VOTE ON THE \nCOMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATION. AT \nTHIS TIME WILL THE \nREPRESENTATIVES FOR THE \nRESPONDENT PLEASE IDENTIFY \nTHEMSELVES FOR THE RECORD. \nPRESENT OR ON ZOOM. \n>>SPEAKER: DO WE NEED TO \nPOSSIBLY ADMIT GILLIAN \nBLANCHARD\, COUNSEL FOR SEA PLANE \nINVESTMENTS\, LLC AND LOU \nVASQUEZ? \n>>LOU VASQUEZ: HI. THIS IS LOU \nVASQUEZ. I’M PRESENT\, \nREPRESENTING SEA PLANE \nINVESTMENTS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. \nBEFORE STAFF GIVES ITS \nPRESENTATION\, I INVITE \nCOMMISSIONER GILMORE\, THE CHAIR \nOF THE ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE TO \nGIVE A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE \nCOMMITTEE’S HEARING ON THIS \nMATTER THAT TOOK PLACE ON \nNOVEMBER 9TH OF THIS YEAR. \nCHAIR GILMORE. \n>>MARIE GILMORE: THANK YOU\, \nCHAIR WASSERMAN. BEFORE I \nSTART\, I WANT TO GIVE A REAL \nVOTE OF THANKS TO BOTH THE \nRESPONDENTS\, STAFF\, AND OUR \nGENERAL COUNSEL GREG SCHARFF\, \nTHE ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE HEARD \nTHIS CASE SEVERAL TIMES AND IT \nIS A COMPLICATED CASE AND IT’S \nCOMPLICATED BY THE NUMBER OF \nVIOLATIONS\, THE FACT THAT THE \nPROPERTY CHANGED HANDS AND ALSO \nTHE LENGTH OF TIME INVOLVED IN \nTHIS AND SO KUDOS TO EVERYBODY \nINVOLVED BRINGING THIS TOGETHER \nAND GETTING AN ORDER THAT FIXES \nTHE VIOLATIONS AND ALLOWS \nEVERYBODY TO MOVE FORWARD. SO \nTHANKS AGAIN TO THE RESPONDENTS\, \nTO STAFF\, AND TO OUR GENERAL \nCOUNSEL. \nCHAIR WASSERMAN? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE \nWILL NOW HAVE STAFF’S \nPRESENTATION BY PRINCIPLE \nENFORCEMENT ANALYST ADRIENNE \nKLEIN. GO FOR. \n>>ANDREW FREMIER: THANK YOU \nCHAIR GILMORE. IN JULY 2024 \nSTAFF ISSUED A VIOLATION TO \nREPORT COMPLAINT TO RESOLVE SIX \nUNRESOLVED VIOLATIONS IN OCTOBER \nOF THE SAME YEAR WE ISSUED A \nSECOND COMPLAINT FOR \nADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL PENALTIES \nTO RESOLVE THE PENALTY PORTION \nOF THREE RESOLVED VIOLATIONS \nDURING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON \nMAY 30TH\, 2023 THE ENFORCEMENT \nCOMMITTEE DIRECTED STAFF TO \nENTER INTO A SETTLEMENT \nNEGOTIATIONS WHICH RESULTED IN \nTWO PROPOSED STIPULATED ORDERS \nTO RESOLVE ALL NINE VIOLATIONS \nDURING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON \nNOVEMBER 3RD OF THIS YEAR THE \nENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE HAS \nJANUARY MENTIONED BY CHAIR \nGILMORE COMMISSIONER GILMORE \nADOPTED BOTH PROPOSED STIPULATED \nORDERS WHICH ARE BEFORE YOU \nTODAY. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. \nTHE PRESENTATION WILL COVER THE \nSITE LOCATION\, NINE VIOLATIONS \nAND THE TWO STAFF \nRECOMMENDATIONS. NEXT SLIDE \nPLEASE. \nTHE RED PIN ON THIS VICINITY MAP \nSHOWS THE LOCATION WHERE THE \nVIOLATIONS ARE OCCURRING AND ARE \nOCCURRING KNOWN AS 240242 \nREDWOOD HIGHWAY FRONTAGE ROAD IN \nAN UNINCORPORATED AREA OF MARIN \nCOUNTY. JUST TO BE CLEAR\, \nAPOLOGIES CHAIR WASSERMAN\, IT’S \nNOT IN CORTE MADERA. IMAGE ON \nTHE LEFT SHOWS THE SITE LOOKING \nTO THE NORTHEAST THE SITE \nCONTAINS A NUMBER OF BUSINESSES \nAND OPERATIONS WHILE SOME OF THE \nGROUND LEVEL USES AND ASSOCIATED \nFILL APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN ONGOING \nSINCE 1965 CHANGES TO THE \nONGOING USES AND ASSOCIATED \nTHROUGH WITHIN BCDC JURISDICTION \nINCLUDING MAINTENANCE THAT \nOCCURRED AFTER ENACTMENT OF THE \nMCATEER-PETRIS ACT REQUIRING \nBCDC PERMIT OR PERMIT AMENDMENT. \nPERMITS RUN WITH THE LAND AND \nNEW OWNERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR \nRESOLVING INHERITED VIOLATIONS \nAND VIOLATIONS THEY UNDERTAKE. \nAS NEW OWNERS RESPONDENTS HAVE \nDID NOT CONTACT THE BCDC AS PART \nOF THE DUE DILIGENCE REVIEW TO \nINQUIRE ABOUT THE SITE STATUS IN \nRELATION TO THE LAW AND THE \nEXISTING PERMITS THAT GOVERN THE \nSITE THE IMAGE ON THE RIGHT IS \nAN OVERLAY OF THE PROXIMATE \nLOCATIONS IN THE TWO PRIVATELY \nOWNED PARCELS NUMBERED 164\, ON \nTHE RIGHT 167 ON THE LEFT WITH \nTHE THREE STREET RIGHTS OF WAY \nWHICH YOU CAN SEE THE LEFT SIDE \nPARAPPA STREET\, MOLENA STREET\, \nAND YELLOW STREETS THAT SURROUND \nOR STRADDLE THEM AND THE DOCKING \nFACILITY PICTURES IN THE WATER \nIS LOCATED ON MARIN COUNTY \nPROPERTY. NEXT SLIDE. I’LL \nDESCRIBE THE SIX VIOLATIONS \nUNRESOLVED VIOLATION FIRST BEING \nTHAT RESPONDENT VIOLATING \nSPECIAL CONDITION TO SEE PUBLIC \nACCESS OF ITS 1973 PERMIT BY \nFAILING TO PROVIDE THE PUBLIC \nSHORE SIGNAGE PUBLIC ACCESS \nCONNECTION FROM THE SITE TO \nMARIN COUNTY PUBLIC ACCESS WEST \nOF THE SITE VIOLATION TWO IS OF \nSPECIAL CONDITION 2C TWO \nMAINTENANCE OF THE PERMIT BY \nFAILING TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING \nREQUIRED PUBLIC SHORT PATHWAY \nAND LANDSCAPING. THE BULK HEAD \nAT PARAPPA STREET IS SEVERELY \nERODED IN THE ADJACENT PUBLIC \nSHORELINE PATHWAYS FREQUENTLY \nINUNDATED BY TIDES AND THE \nNORTHWESTERN TIP IS ERODED TO \nTHE POINT OF BEING GONE AND THE \nWERE REMAINDER IS COLLAPSING \nINTO THE BAY. VIOLATION THREE \nIS MCATEER PETRIS ACT SECTION \n66632A BY PLACING UNAUTHORIZED \nFILL IN THE BAY AND SHORELINE \nBAND IN YOLO STREET. \nUNAUTHORIZED FILL INCLUDES \nVEHICLE PARKING AND OR EQUIPMENT \nSTORAGE\, SEA PLANE STORAGE \nREPAIR AND SEA PLANE STORAGE \nREPAIR MAINTENANCE FUELING TANK \nELEVATED ASPHALT PATHWAY ACROSS \nYELLOW STREET TO ALLOW \nPEDESTRIAN ACCESS DURING HIGH \nTIDES. BY USING FILLED AREAS \nDESIGNATED TO BE USED ONLY FOR \nLANDSCAPING PUBLIC ACCESS AND \nPEDESTRIAN BICYCLE PATHWAYS FOR \nPRIVATE USE. \nVIOLATION FOUR IS MCATEER-PETRIS \nACT INVOLVING PLACING \nUNAUTHORIZED FILL IN BCDC’S \nJURISDICTION CONSISTING OF THE \nUNAUTHORIZED HELICOPTER LANDING \nPAD AND FOUR PAVED WALKWAYS ON \nBLOCK 164 VIOLATION FIVE \nMCATEER-PETRIS ACT VIOLATION \nPLACING UNAUTHORIZED FILL IN THE \nBAY ON MARIN COUNTY PROPERTY BY \nEXPANDING EXISTING U SHAPED \nFLOATING SEPARATE EPISODES WITH \nNEW FLOATING FILL TWO PILINGS \nRELOCATING ON WATER FILLING \nSTATION. \nAND THE SIXTH UNRESOLVED \nVIOLATION IS ALSO A MCATEER \nPETRIS ACT VIOLATION INVOLVES \nEXCAVATION TO FILL AND CONSTRUCT \nA NEW CONCRETE REBAR WATER \nACCESS RAMP IN THE YELLOW STREET \nRIGHT OF WAY. THIS MOST \nRECENTLY MARCH 20\, 2022. THIS \nCOMPLETES THE SUMMARY OF THE SIX \nUNRESOLVED VIOLATIONS. NEXT \nSLIDE PLEASE WHERE I WILL \nDESCRIBE THE THREE RESOLVED \nVIOLATIONS. \nTWO ARE THE SAME\, WHICH ARE \nRESPONDENTS FAILURE TO TAKE \nASSIGNMENT OF BOTH THE 1973 AND \nTHE SECOND 1985 PERMITS THAT \nGOVERN THE SITE AND THE THIRD \nRESPONDENT’S FAILURE TO COMPLETE \nA PROJECT PRIOR TO PERMIT \nEXPIRATION DATE AND CONTINUE \nWORK WITH AN EXPIRED PERMIT \nTHOSE ISSUES HAVE BEEN RESOLVED \nBUT THERE WERE ADMINISTRATIVE \nCIVIL PENALTIES. NEXT SLIDE. I \nWILL NOW READ THE ENFORCEMENT \nCOMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDED \nENFORCEMENT DECISION TO RESOLVE \nTHE SIX UNRESOLVED VIOLATIONS. \nTHE RESPONDENT HAS AGREED TO \nSTIPULATE TO THE FOLLOWING \nTERMS. SO\, TO CEASE AND DESIST \nFROM VIOLATING THE \nMCATEER-PETRIS ACT AND BOTH \nPERMITS BY JUNE 30TH\, 2024 TO \nCOMPLY WITH THE EXISTING PERMITS \nBY MAINTAINING THE PERMIT \nREQUIRED PUBLIC ACCESS ALONG THE \nEXISTING SHORELINE PATHWAY \nWITHIN RESPONDENTS CURRENT \nPROPERTY OWNERSHIP ON YOLO \nSTREET FROM THE TERMINATION OF \nTHE SHORELINE PATHWAY LOCATED \nWITHIN THE DEDICATED PUBLIC \nACCESS AREA TO STRIPE AND \nMAINTAIN A CONNECTION FOR AN \nEIGHT FOOT WIDE ACCESS PATH OF \nTRAVEL. AND THAT IS OUTLINED IN \nONE OF THE ORDER EXHIBITS. \nRESPONDENT AGREES TO INSTALL \nEIGHT PUBLIC SHORE SIGNS AS \nOUTLINED ON THE SLIDE AND IN \nORDER TO RELOCATE ACCESSIBLE \nPARKING ALSO SHOWN IN THE ORDER \nEXHIBIT ON YOLO STREET TO REMOVE \nUNAUTHORIZED ELEVATED ASPHALT \nPATH THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED TO \nALLOW FOR ACCESS AND HIGH TIDES \nAND TO CONFIRM WITH STAFF WHICH \nHELICOPTER LANDING PADS AND \nWALKWAYS ARE AUTHORIZED OR NOT. \nNEXT SLIDE PLEASE. \nWITHIN 12 MONTHS OF THE DATE OF \nTHE ORDER RESPONDENT AGREES TO \nFILE A PERMIT APPLICATION FOR \nTHE UNAUTHORIZED FILL IN USES AS \nFOLLOWS THEY’LL SUBMIT A REVISED \nLANDSCAPING PLAN FOR AREAS \nADJACENT TO THE PUBLIC PERMIT \nREQUIRED PUBLIC ACCESS THAT WILL \nBE REVIEWED BY STAFF AND IT WILL \nINCLUDE INSTALLATION AND \nMAINTENANCE OF SOME PICNIC \nTABLES THAT WILL BE ADA \nACCESSIBLE. AND IF THERE IS ANY \nNEW ACCESS REQUIRED UNDER A \nFOLLOWING SECTION\, THAT WILL BE \nINCLUDED ON THESE PLANS. \nRESPONDENT AGREES TO REQUEST \nAFTER THE FACT AUTHORIZATION FOR \nANY HELICOPTER LANDING PADS\, \nFUEL TANKS\, AND WALKWAYS THAT \nARE NOT PERMITTED BY THE ’85 \nPERMIT. THE THREE FINGERS THAT \nARE PART OF THE DOCKINGS IS THAT \nARE NOT CURRENTLY AUTHORIZED\, \nAND THE LAUNCHING RAMP \nCONSTRUCTED IN MARCH 2022. NEXT \nSLIDE PLEASE. \nRESPONDENT AGREES TO PROVIDE \nSOME ADDITIONAL PUBLIC ACCESS\, \nEITHER THAT CURRENTLY REQUIRED \nBY THE PERMIT\, WHICH IS A \nCONNECTION BETWEEN THE SITE AND \nTHE ADJACENT COUNTY PUBLIC \nWALKWAY\, AND BICYCLE PATH\, OR \nALTERNATIVE ON-SITE ACCESS IF \nLOCAL APPROVAL CANNOT BE \nOBTAINED. AND FINALLY TO \nPREPARE A SEA LEVEL RISE RISK \nASSESSMENT TO ADDRESS SEA LEVEL \nRISE IN THE PERMIT RELATED \nPUBLIC ACCESS — THE PERMIT \nREQUIRED PUBLIC ACCESS AREAS. \nAND TO IMPLEMENT THAT SEA LEVEL \n— TO IMPLEMENT THE SEA LEVEL \nRISE PLAN IN THE TIMELINE \nOUTLINED IN IT. \nAND IT WILL INCLUDE THE \nMAINTENANCE OF THE PUBLIC ACCESS \nON PARAPPA STREET THAT’S FLOODED \nAND ERODED\, FREQUENTLY FLOODED \nAND QUITE ERODED AND ALSO \nADAPTIVE MEASURES TO MAINTAIN \nPUBLIC ACCESS FOR THE LIFE OF \nTHE PROJECT OR UNTIL 2050. NEXT \nSLIDE. \nSO\, THAT COMPLETES THE \nREQUIREMENTS FOR THE UNRESOLVED \nVIOLATIONS. \nTHERE WILL BE\, FOR THE THREE \nRESOLVED VIOLATIONS\, A \nRESPONDENT AGREES TO A $5\,000 \nADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL PENALTY DUE \nWITHIN 12 AND 24 MONTHS OF THE \nORDER IN TWO EQUAL INSTALLMENTS. \nNEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. \nAND THE PENALTY BE ASSOCIATED \nWITH THE SIX UNRESOLVED \nVIOLATIONS IS 43\,800 DUE IN \nTHREE DIFFERENT INCREMENTS\, \nFIRST 10\,000 WITHIN 60 DAYS OF \nORDER ISSUANCE THEN TWO PAYMENTS \nOF 16\,900 DUE WITHIN 12 AND 24 \nMONTHS OF ORDER ISSUANCE. \nI THINK THAT’S MY LAST SLIDE. \nMAYBE NEXT SLIDE. \nSO\, TOGETHER\, THE TWO \nRECOMMENDATIONS WOULD RESULT IN \nA TOTAL PENALTY OF $48\,800\, AND \nTHAT CONCLUDES THE STAFF \nPRESENTATION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. \nI WOULD ASK RESPONDENTS \nREPRESENTATIVE WHETHER THEY \nCONCUR WITH STAFF \nRECOMMENDATIONS IN THE \nSTIPULATED ORDER? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. GOOD AFTERNOON \nCOMMISSIONERS. APOLOGIES FOR \nJOINING LATE. I’M GILLIAN \nBLANCHARD WITH LAW GROUP AND I \nREPRESENT SEA PLANE INVESTMENTS\, \nLLC. \nGOOD TO SEE YOU ALL. \nI\, ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS\, CAN \nCONCUR THAT WE DO SUPPORT THE \nSTAFF’S RECOMMENDATION AND \nSTIPULATED ORDER. THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. \nARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM \nCOMMISSIONERS BEFORE WE OPEN FOR \nPUBLIC COMMENT? I THOUGHT WE \nHAD A QUIET GROUP? VICE CHAIR \nEISEN \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: I \nWANT TO POINT OUT THAT THIS \nMATTER IS\, SORT OF\, A REALLY \nGOOD EXAMPLE OF THE WORKINGS OF \nTHE ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE. \nSTAFF AND RESPONDENTS ARE \nWORKING HARD TO RESOLVE THIS \nMATTER BUT SOMETIMES THEY CAN’T \nQUITE PULL IT ACROSS THE FINISH \nLINE\, AND THE ENFORCEMENT \nCOMMITTEE SERVES AS WHAT I WOULD \nCALL THE COURTHOUSE STEPS. AND \nAS CHAIR WASSERMAN AND ADRIENNE \nKLEIN MENTIONED THIS WAS A \nCOMPLICATED MATTER AND WHEN IT \nCAME TO US\, WE THE EFFORT THAT \nHAD BEEN MADE ALREADY\, AND WE \nSAW THAT WITH A LITTLE MORE \nEFFORT AND PUSH FROM OUR \nCOMMITTEE THEY COULD RESOLVE \nTHIS MATTER AND THEY DID. SO\, \nIT’S REALLY A TESTAMENT TO HOW \nWELL THAT COMMITTEE WORKS AS AN \nARM OF THIS COMMISSION. SO I \nJUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT POINT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. AND I WOULD ADD MY \nTHANKS TO STAFF\, AND TO CHAIR \nGILMORE. \nANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? DO WE \nHAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO \nPUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \nASSUME THERE ARE NO FINAL \nCOMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS. \nAND I NOW INVITE CHAIR GILMORE \nOF THE ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE TO \nPRESENT THE COMMITTEE’S \nENFORCEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS. \n>>MARIE GILMORE: THANK YOU \nCHAIR WASSERMAN. BEFORE I PUT \nFORTH THE ENFORCEMENT \nCOMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATIONS I’M \nGOING TO BRIEFLY REVIEW THE \nCOMMISSION’S OPTIONS TO PROCEED. \nPURSUANT TO BCDC REGULATIONS \nSECTION 11332 ENTITLED \nCOMMISSION ACTION ON RECOMMENDED \nENFORCEMENT DECISION. WHEN THE \nCOMMISSION ACTS ON A RECOMMENDED \nENFORCEMENT DECISION THE \nCOMMISSION’S ACTION SHALL BE ONE \nOF THE FOLLOWING. ONE\, THE \nCOMMISSION MAY ADOPTED \nRECOMMENDED ENFORCEMENT DECISION \nWITHOUT ANY CHANGES TO THE \nPROPOSED STIPULATED ORDERS AND \nTHIS IS YOUR ENFORCEMENT \nCOMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATION. \nTWO\, THE COMMISSION MAY DISMISS \nTHE ENTIRETY OR EITHER PART OF \nTHE MATTER BY VOTING NOT TO \nISSUE ONE OR BOTH OF THE \nSTIPULATED — OF THE PROPOSED \nORDERS. \nTHREE\, THE COMMISSION MAY REMAND \nTHE ENTIRE MATTER BACK TO THE \nENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE OR STAFF \nFOR FURTHER ACTION AS THE \nCOMMISSION DIRECTS\, OR\, FOUR\, \nTHE COMMISSION MAY REJECTED \nRECOMMENDED ENFORCEMENT DECISION \nAND DECIDE TO CONSIDER THE \nENTIRE MATTER DE NOVO. IN THIS \nEVENT THE COMMISSION SHALL \nCONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO \nTHE NEXT AVAILABLE COMMISSION \nMEETING WHERE IT SHALL PROCEED \nIN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SAME \nPROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS AS THE \nCOMMISSION MUST FOLLOW UNDER \nREGULATION SECTION 11327. \nI WILL NOW PRESENT THE \nENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE’S \nRECOMMENDATION. \nTHE ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE \nRECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMISSION \nVOTE IN FAVOR OF THE ADOPTION OF \nTHE PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT \nDECISION AND CEASE AND DESIST \nCIVIL PENALTY ORDERS CCD \n2023.002 AND CCD2023.003 TO \nRESOLVE BCDC ENFORCEMENT CASE \nNUMBER ER2019.063.00. \nI’M GOING TO MOVE THAT THIS \nCOMMISSION ADOPTED RECOMMENDED \nENFORCEMENT DECISION WITHOUT ANY \nCHANGES. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: DO \nI HAVE A SECOND FOR THE MOTION? \n>>SPEAKER: I’LL SECOND THAT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS FROM \nTHE GREAT COUNTY OF MARIN \nSECONDS THE MOTION. \n[LAUGHTER] \nPLEASE CALL THE ROLL REYLINA. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? \n>>ANDREW FREMIER: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER AHN? \n>>EDDIE AHN: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: AMBUEHL? \n>>DAVID AMBUEHL: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER BURT? \n>>PAT BURT: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKERLY? \n>>JENN ECKERLE: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND? PAT. \n>>SPEAKER: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER GILMORE? \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: HASZ? \n>>V. CHAIR\, KARL HASZ: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nKISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nMOULTON-PETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nYES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nPEMBERTON? \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: PESKIN? \n>>AARON PESKIN: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: PINE? \nRAMOS? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS? \n>>ANDREW FREMIER: ABSTAIN. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER ZEPEDA? \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: EISEN? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nWASSERMAN? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: 20 \nYESES. NO NOS\, AND ONE \nABSTENTION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THE \nMOTION PASSES. THANK YOU FOR \nALL OF YOUR WORK. \nCONTINUE AND LET THIS NOT COME \nBACK TO US. THAT BRINGS US TO \nITEM TEN\, PUBLIC HEARING ON THE \nU.S. ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS \nPROPOSED PHASE CONSISTENCY \nDETERMINATION OF THE OAKLAND \nTURNING BASIN’S WIDENING \nPROJECT. \nTHE PRESENTATION WILL BE MADE BY \nOUR SEDIMENT PROGRAM MANAGER \nBRENDA GADEN\, OR AT LEAST SHE’LL \nINTRODUCE AND KICK IT OFF. \n>>ANDREW FREMIER: THANK YOU \nCHAIR WASSERMAN AND \nCOMMISSIONERS. WE APPRECIATE \nYOU ALL BEING HERE TODAY FOR THE \nARMY CORP’S OAKLAND TURNING \nBASIN-WIDENING PROJECT. WE HAVE \nA BIT OF A PRESENTATION FOR YOU \nTODAY. PLEASE HANG ON. WE \nRECOGNIZE THAT THIS PROJECT IS \nBOTH COMPLEX IN ITS CONSTRUCTION \nAND TIMING\, BUT ALSO WE NOTE \nTHAT THE COMMISSION DOESN’T \nOFTEN HEAR PHASED CONSISTENCY \nDETERMINATION. SO WITH THAT\, WE \nWOULD TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO \nJUST USE OUR LEGAL EAGLE\, \nMICHAEL NG TO WALK YOU THROUGH \nTHE FEDERAL LAW AND POLICIES \nAROUND THIS TYPE OF PROJECT \nPRIOR TO GETTING THE — PRIOR TO \nGETTING THE OVERVIEW OF THE \nPROJECT FROM THE COMMISSION \nSTAFF\, WHICH WILL BE MYSELF. \nTHEN FOLLOWING ME\, PHOENIX \nARMENTA WILL BE PRESENTING ON \nTHE EJ POLICIES BECAUSE THERE \nARE SOME COMPLEX EJ ISSUES HERE. \nFOLLOWING PHOENIX I’LL STEP BACK \nIN FOR A MINUTE THEN WE’LL BE \nTURNING THE PROJECT OVER TO THE \nARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS TO GIVE \nYOU A DETAILED DESCRIPTION. \nWITH THAT\, I APPRECIATE YOUR \nATTENTION TODAY. MICHAEL WILL \nGO AHEAD AND TAKE THE MIC. \n>>MICHAEL NG: HELLO \nCOMMISSIONERS MICHAEL\, SENIOR \nSTAFF ATTORNEY AT BCDC. \nAS BRENDA MENTIONED I’M GOING TO \nBE COVERING TWO TOPICS TODAY \nCOASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT CMA \nAND FEDERAL CONSISTENCY\, THEN \nTHE SECOND TOPIC IS THE \nCOMMISSION’S AUTHORITY AND \nJURISDICTION. I’M GOING TO KEEP \nTHIS BRISK. THE COMMISSION’S \nCURRENT CONSIDERATION IS A BIT \nOUT OF ITS USUAL CONSIDERATION \nOF PROJECTS. THROUGH THE MY \nPRESENTATION YOU MAY SEE \nASTERISKS ON CERTAIN SLIDES AND \nWONDER WHAT THAT’S ALL ABOUT. \nTHOSE HAVE NO PARTICULAR \nSIGNIFICANCE OTHER THAN TO SERVE \nAS CUES FOR MYSELF TO PROVIDE \nFOR SPEAKER NOTES WHICH I \nWOULDN’T FIT ON TO MY SLIDES. \nNEXT SLIDE. \nTHANK YOU. SO\, FIRST I’LL TALK \nABOUT THE PURPOSE OF THE CZMA. \nIT IS A FEDERAL LAW\, AGAIN\, THE \nCOASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT. \nITS BASIC PURPOSE IS TO \nPRESERVE\, PROTECT\, DEVELOP\, AND \nWHERE POSSIBLE TO RESTORE OR \nENHANCE THE NATION’S RESOURCES \nOF THE COASTAL ZONE AND THE CZMA \nENCOURAGES THIS AND ACCOMPLISHES \nTHIS BY ENCOURAGING STATES TO \nDEVELOP WHAT’S CALLED COASTAL \nZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS OR \nCZMP’S AND THIS GOAL IS FURTHER \nINCENTIVIZED BY FEDERAL \nGOVERNMENT PROVIDING MATCHING \nGRANTS TO ADMINISTER CZMP’S FOR \nCOASTAL STATES THAT HAVE \nCERTIFIED CZMP’S AND ADMINISTER \nPER CMA STATUTE CZMP SHOULD \nINCLUDE OBJECTIVE POLICIES AND \nSTANDARDS TO GUIDE PUBLIC AND \nPRIVATE USES OF LANDS AND WATERS \nIN THE COASTAL ZONE AND ONCE \nAPPROVED BY NOAA CMP STANDARD \nFOR FEDERAL AGENCY ACTIVITY THAT \nCOASTAL ZONE. NEXT SLIDE. \nBCDC AUTHORITY RESPONSIBILITY \nUNDERTAKING A STEP BACK THERE’S \nACTUALLY TWO COASTAL ZONE \nSEGMENTS IN CALIFORNIA FOR CZMA \nPURPOSES BCDC ADMINISTERS THE \nSAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AND \nCOASTAL ZONE SEGMENT AND THE \nCOASTAL COMMISSION ADMINISTERS \nTHE REST OF THE COASTAL ZONE BUT \nIT’S WORTH POINTING OUT THAT \nBOTH THE MCATEER-PETRIS ACT \nFOUNDING LAW AND THE BAY PLAN \nPREDATE THE CZMA AND THE MAC ACT \nWAS ADOPTED AND ENACTED BY \nLEGISLATURE IN 1965 AND THE BAY \nPLAN APPROVED IN 1968\, CZMA \nENACTED BY CONGRESS IN 1972. IN \n1977 WHEN NOAA APPROVED THE BCDC \nCZMP IT VIRTUALLY AND WHOLLY \nINCORPORATED THE MAC ACT AND THE \nBAY PLAN INTO OUR CCP. BACK. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: SORRY \nMICHAEL. \n>>SPEAKER: UPDATES TO OUR CZMP \nMUST BE ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH OUR \nCZMA PROGRAM CHANGES AND MOST \nCOMMONLY OCCURS WHEN THE \nCOMMISSION ADOPTS A BAY PLAN \nELEMENT SO IT’S WORTH POINTING \nOUT THAT BCDC CZMP HAS UPON BEEN \nUPDATED 121 TIMES SINCE 1982 AND \nREFLECT AMENDMENTS AND UPDATES \nTO BCDC’S LAWS AND POLICIES. \nNOW WE GET INTO THE NITTY-GRITTY \nBEFORE US TODAY A SUBMITTED \nCONSISTENCY DETERMINATION SO THE \nCONSISTENCY DETERMINATION \nPROCESS OR CD INVOLVES BOTH \nFEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES. \nI’LL TALK ABOUT THE FEDERAL \nAGENCY ROLE SUBMITTING TO BCDC \nPRIOR TO UNDERTAKING ANY \nACTIVITY THAT AFFECTS ANY LAND \nOR WATER USE OR NATURAL RESOURCE \nOF THE COASTAL ZONE ACTIVITY \nMUST BE CARRIED OUT IN A MANNER \nWHICH IS CONSISTENT TO THE \nMAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE WITH \nTHE ENFORCEABLE POLICIES OF THE \nAPPROVED STATE MANAGEMENT PLAN \nPROGRAM. TWO NOTES FIRST I’LL \nADDRESS THE LEGAL CHARACTER OF \nPHASE LATER IN THIS PRESENTATION \nSECOND NOAA’S REGULATIONS DEFINE \nMAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE TO \nMEAN FULLY CONSISTENT WITH THE \nENFORCEABLE POLICIES OF \nMANAGEMENT PROGRAMS UNLESS FULL \nCONSISTENCY IS PROHIBITED BY \nEXISTING LAW APPLICABLE TO THE \nFEDERAL AGENCY AND NOAA \nREGULATIONS FURTHER DEFINE \nENFORCEABLE POLICY AS STATE \nPOLICIES WHICH ARE LEGALLY \nBINDING THROUGH CONSTITUTIONAL \nPROVISIONS LAWS REGULATIONS LAND \nUSE PLANS ORDINANCES OR JUDICIAL \nADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS BY \nWHICH A STATE EXPERTS CONTROL \nOVER A PRIVATE AND PUBLIC LAND \nAND WATER USES AND NATURAL \nRESOURCES IN THE COASTAL ZONE SO \nTHE FEDERAL AGENCY SHALL NOT \nPROCEED WITH ACTIVITY OVER BCDC \nOBJECTION UNLESS FEDERAL AGENCY \nHAS CONCLUDED ONE OF THE \nFOLLOWING EITHER THAT ACTIVITY \nIS CONSISTENT WITH BCDC \nENFORCEABLE POLICIES IS \nENFORCEABLE ARE POLICIES IS \nPROHIBITED BY LAW OR THAT \nPROPOSED ACTION IS CONSISTENT \nWITH BCDC ENFORCEABLE POLICIES. \nTHE NEXT PART OF THE CD PROCESS \nIS THE STATE AGENCY ROLE. BCDC \nRESPONDS TO A CD SUBMITTED TO \nTHE FEDERAL AGENCY BY ONE OF THE \nFOLLOWING EITHER CONCURRING \nCONDITIONALLY CONCURRING OR \nOBJECTING TO THE CD CONDITIONAL \nCONCURRENCE MEANS THAT THE \nFEDERAL AGENCY MUST MEET \nSPECIFIED CONDITIONS TO BE \nDEEMED CONSISTENT WITH THE \nPOLICIES AND BCDC MUST IDENTIFY \nSPECIFIC ENFORCEABLE POLICIES OF \nITS CMP EXPLAINING WHY \nCONDITIONS ARE NECESSARY TO \nENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH THOSE \nSPECIFIC ENFORCEABLE POLICIES \nAGAIN BCDC CZMP INCLUDES \nENFORCEABLE POLICIES OF BOTH \nMCATEER-PETRIS ACT AND THE BAY \nPLAN IF THE FEDERAL AGENCY \nREJECTS CONDITIONS IN THE \nSTATE’S CONDITIONAL CONCURRENCE \nIS EFFECTIVELY DEEMED AN \nOBJECTION. NEXT SLIDE. NOW WE \nKNOW THE FEDERAL AGENCY AND \nSTATE AGENCY ROLES IN THE \nPROCESS\, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN \nTHERE’S A CONFLICT IN THE TWO \nSIDES. FIRST NOTING OBJECTION \nTO A CD IS NOT A DENIAL IN THE \nWAY WE MAY BE ABLE TO DENY AN \nAPPLICATION UNDER OUR STATE LAW \nAUTHORITY UNDER FEDERAL AGENCY \nDECIDES TO PROCEED WITH ACTIVITY \nTHAT IS OBJECTED TO BY BCDC THE \nFEDERAL AGENCY MUST NOTIFY BCDC \nOF ITS DECISION TO PROCEED \nBEFORE COMMENCEMENT. SO IF \nTHERE IS A SERIOUS DISAGREEMENT \nBETWEEN THE FEDERAL AGENCY AND \nBCDC\, EITHER PARTY MAY REQUEST \nMEDIATION BY NOAA’S OFFICE OF \nCOASTAL MANAGEMENT\, OCM OR THE \nSECRETARY OF COMMERCE. IF \nMEDIATION IS NOT SUCCESSFUL OR \nUTILIZED\, EITHER PARTY MAY SEEK \nREVIEW. NEXT SLIDE. \nSO\, THAT WAS A LOT OF \nINFORMATION. BUT TO SUMMARIZE\, \nBCDC’S CZMP INCLUDES ENFORCEABLE \nPOLICIES OF MCATEER-PETRIS ACT \nAND THE BAY PLAN AND FEDERAL \nAGENCIES MUST UNDERTAKE \nACTIVITIES CONSISTENT WITH THE \nMAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE WITH \nENFORCEABLE POLICIES OF OUR \nCZMP. FEDERAL AGENCY SUBMITS A \nCONSISTENCY DETERMINATION FOR \nITS PROPOSED ACTIVITIES TO WHICH \nBCDC CAN CONCUR CONDITIONALLY \nCONCUR OR OBJECT\, AND FOR \nSERIOUS DISAGREEMENTS BETWEEN A \nFEDERAL AGENCY AND BCDC\, BCDC \nMAY REQUEST MEDIATION FROM \nNOAA’S OFFICE OF COASTAL \nMANAGEMENT OR THE SECRETARY OF \nCOMMERCE AND/OR SEEK JUDICIAL \nREVIEW IN A COURT OF LAW. NEXT \nSLIDE. NOW TO THE SECOND PART \nTALKING ABOUT THE COMMISSION’S \nAUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION. \nNEXT SLIDE. \nBEFORE I ADDRESS THE SPECIFIC \nTOPIC OF THE COMMISSIONS \nJURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY OVER \nTHIS PROJECT IT WILL BE HELPFUL \nTO TAKE A STEP BACK AND \nUNDERSTAND HOW VARIOUS LEGAL \nREGIMES SHOULD INFORM AND GUIDE \nTHE COMMISSION’S DECISION-MAKING \nPROS. I HAVE SET FORTH TWO \nBROAD CATEGORIES FOR DISCUSSING \nRELEVANT LEGAL REGIMES FIRST \nCATEGORY SHOULD GUIDE THE \nPROCESS AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIVE \nPOLICY STANDARDS BY WHICH THE \nCOMMISSION SHOULD MAKE A \nDECISION ON THE PROJECT AT THE \nNEXT MEETING ON DECEMBER 21ST. \nTHE SECOND CATEGORY \nENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION \nIDENTIFIES TWO LAWS\, ONE FEDERAL \nAND ONE STATE WHICH REQUIRES \nPREPARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL \nDOCUMENTATION WHICH SHOULD ALSO \nINFORM THE COMMISSIONS POLICY \nDETERMINATIONS WITHIN ITS \nDECISIONAL FRAMEWORK. YOU MAY \nHEAR COMMENTERS MAKE REFERENCE \nTO THE ENVIRONMENTAL \nDOCUMENTATION REQUIRED FOR THE \nPROPOSED PROJECT UNDER THESE \nLAWS. HOWEVER IT’S WORTH \nPOINTING OUT THAT THE \nENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION LAWS \nTHEMSELVES DO NOT DIRECTLY \nCONTROL THE COMMISSIONS \nDECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK HERE. \nNEXT SLIDE. \nFIRST WE’LL TALK ABOUT THE CZMA \nWHICH WE JUST TALKED ABOUT. AS \nPREVIOUSLY EXPLAINED UNDER CZMA\, \nA FEDERAL AGENCY UNDERTAKING ITS \nOWN ACTIVITY WITHIN OR OUTSIDE \nOF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY COASTAL \nZONE WHICH MAY AFFECT COASTAL \nRESOURCES WITHIN OUR SEGMENT OF \nTHE COASTAL ZONE MUST SUBMIT A \nCONSISTENCY DETERMINATION TO \nBCDC JUSTIFYING THAT THE FEDERAL \nAGENCY’S PROPOSED ACTIONS ARE \nCONSISTENT TO THE MAXIMUM \nCOMMENT PRACTICABLE WITH THE \nENFORCEABLE POLICIES OF BCDC \nCZMP. ARMY CORP ENGINEERS \nSUBMITTED A FIRST PHASE CD THAT \nIS PROPOSED ACTIONS CONSISTENT \nTO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT \nPRACTICABLE WITH THE ENFORCE \nPOLICIES OF OUR CZMP AND AGAIN \nBCDC CZMP INCLUDES ENFORCEABLE \nPOLICIES OF THE MAC ACT AND THE \nBAY PLAN AND BCDC CAN CONCUR \nCONDITIONALLY OR OBJECT. THESE \nARE BASED ON DEVELOPING \nINFORMATION NOT AVAILABLE AT THE \nTIME OF THE CD WITH EACH PHASE \nSUBJECT TO FEDERAL AGENCY \nDISCRETION TO IMPLEMENT \nALTERNATIVE DECISIONS BASED UPON \nTHE INFORMATION AVAILABLE AT \nTHAT TIME. FOR EXAMPLE\, \nPLANNING CITING DESIGNING DESIGN \nPHASES AND CD IS REQUIRED FOR \nEACH MAJOR DECISION. NEXT \nSLIDE. \nNEXT WE’LL TALK ABOUT THE \nMCATEER-PETRIS ACT AS PART OF \nTHE DECISIONAL FRAMEWORK. THE \nPROJECT WOULD OCCUR OUTSIDE OF \nTHE BAY AND SHORELINE BAN \nJURISDICTIONS BUT THE PROJECT \nMAY AFFECT RESOURCES WITHIN BOTH \nOF THESE JURISDICTIONS WITHIN \nBCDC COASTAL ZONE SEGMENT \nIDENTIFIED IN THE APPLICATION \nSUMMARY OF LISTED I’M NOT GOING \nTO GO OVER ALL OF THESE BUT YOU \nCAN SEE STAFF IDENTIFIED AS THE \nRELEVANT POLICIES FOR THE \nCOMMISSION TO CONSIDER IN \nRELATION TO THIS PROJECT. NEXT \nSLIDE. \nSO\, NEXT WE’LL TALK ABOUT THE \nBAY PLAN AS PART OF THE \nDECISIONAL FRAMEWORK. AND ON \nTHIS SLIDE\, AGAIN\, I’M NOT GOING \nTO READ ALL OF THESE CATEGORIES\, \nBUT THESE ARE ENFORCEABLE \nPOLICIES AND THE CZMP THAT WERE \nIDENTIFIED IN THE BAY PLAN. THE \nFOLLOWING BAY PLAN POLICY \nCATEGORIES ARE RELEVANT IN \nENFORCING POLICIES FOR THE \nCOMMISSION TO CONSIDER \nDETERMINING WHETHER IT CONCURS \nCONDITIONALLY OR OBJECTS TO THE \nARMY CORP SUBMITTED CD. THE \nCOMMISSION’S RECENT UPDATE TO \nTHE SEAPORT PLAN VIS-À-VIS \nADOPTED PLAN IS NOT YET PART OF \nTHE BCDC APPROVED CERTIFIED \nCZMP. FOR PURPOSES OF THE \nCOMMISSION’S CONSIDERATION OF \nTHE CD THE COMMISSION SHOULD \nRELY ON POLICIES OF THE SEAPORT \nPLAN PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF BPA \n119 TO THE EXTENT THEY INFORM \nTHE COMMISSION DETERMINATION \nWHETHER IT CONDITIONALLY CONCURS \nOR OBJECTS TO THE ARMY CORP’S \nSUBMITTED CD. NEXT SLIDE. \nNEXT I’LL TALK ABOUT \nENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AS \nPART OF THE RELEVANT LEGAL \nREGIME HERE. SO\, NEPA STANDS \nFOR THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL \nPOLICY ACT\, WHICH WAS ENACTED BY \nCONGRESS IN 1969. IT REQUIRES \nTHAT ALL FEDERAL AGENCIES ARE TO \nPREPARE DETAILED STATEMENTS \nASSESSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL \nIMPACT AND ALTERNATIVES TO MAJOR \nFEDERAL ACTIONS SIGNIFICANTLY \nAFFECTING THE ENVIRONMENT. SO\, \nHERE\, FOR THIS PROJECT\, THE ARMY \nCORP PREPARED AN INTEGRATED \nFEASIBILITY REPORT AND \nENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AS THE \nNEPA LEAD AGENCY. AND AS PART \nOF ITS EA\, IT MADE A DRAFT \nFINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT \nOR [INDISCERNIBLE] UNDER CZMA \nSTATE AGENCIES CANNOT REQUIRE \nSUBMITTAL OF NEPA DOCUMENTATION \nAS PART OF A CD BUT HERE THE \nARMY CORP DID PROVIDE AN EA FOR \nSTAFF CONSIDERATION IN \nEVALUATING THE SUBMITTED CD IT’S \nWORTH POINTING OUT FEDERAL \nAGENCIES CD OBLIGATIONS UNDER \nCZMP ARE INDEPENDENT OF THOSE \nREQUIRED UNDER NEPA AND ARE NOT \nNECESSARILY FULFILLED BY THE \nSUBMISSION OF NEPA. THE EA IS \nNOT NECESSARILY DETERMINATIVE OF \nTHE COMMISSION’S REVIEW OF THE \nARMY CORP’S SUBMITTED CD THOUGH \nANALYSIS IN MAY ASSIST THE \nCOMMISSION IN DETERMINING \nWHETHER IT CONCURS CONDITIONALLY \nCONCURS OR OBJECTS TO THE \nSUBMITTED CD. SIMILAR TO NEPA \nCEQA REQUIRES STATE AND LOCAL \nGOVERNMENT AGENCIES TO INFORM \nDECISION MAKERS AND THE PUBLIC \nABOUT THE POTENTIAL \nENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF \nPROPOSED PROJECTS AND REDUCE \nENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS TO THE \nEXTENT FEASIBLE THE. THE EIR IS \nNOT DIRECTLY BEFORE US TODAY \nBECAUSE CEQA IS NOT A \nREQUIREMENT UNDER CZMA. UNDER \nTHE DOCUMENT THEY HAVE \nIDENTIFIED FOUR SIGNIFICANT AND \nUNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS THREE \nRELATING TO AIR QUALITY AND ONE \nRELATING TO NOISE AND THEY ALSO \nIDENTIFIED CERTAIN MITIGATION \nMEASURES TO MITIGATE THE \nSIGNIFICANCE OF THOSE IMPACTS \nALTHOUGH THEY STILL CONCLUDED \nTHEY WERE SIGNIFICANT AND \nUNAVOIDABLE. SO BCDC STAFF IS \nCURRENTLY REVIEWING AND \nCOMMENTING ON THE DRAFT EIR AS A \nRESPONSIBLE AGENCY AND WILL \nCONSIDER IT WHEN THE PORT \nAPPLIES FOR A BCDC PERMIT. THIS \nIS TYPICALLY HOW BCDC HANDLES \nITS CEQA COMPLIANCE BECAUSE \nPERMIT APPLICANTS MUST OBTAIN \nALL DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS \nBEFORE SEEKING A BCDC PERMIT AND \nTYPICALLY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT \nPROVIDING ANY LOCAL \nDISCRETIONARY APPROVAL SERVES AS \nA CEQA LEAD AGENCY. BCDC RELIES \nON THE CEQA DOCUMENTATION \nPREPARED BY THE LEAD AGENCY WHEN \nACTING ON A PERMIT APPLICATION \nFOR A PROJECT AS A CEQA AGENCY \nRESPONSIBLE AGENCY IF A PROJECT \nREQUIRES APPROVAL FROM A \nCALIFORNIA PUBLIC AGENCY OR \nFEDERAL AGENCY THE CEQA \nGUIDELINES GENERALLY REQUIRE \nPREPARATION OF A JOINT CEQA \nDOCUMENT GUIDELINES ACKNOWLEDGE \nTHAT A FEDERAL AGENCY MAY NOT \nCOOPERATE IN THE PREPARATION OF \nA JOINT DOCUMENT AND MAY REQUIRE \nA SEPARATE NEPA DOCUMENTATION. \nHERE THE ARMY CORP AND PORT OF \nOAKLAND DID NOT PREPARE A JOINT \nNEPA CEQA DOCUMENT INSTEAD THE \nARMY CORP PREPARED AN EA PORT \nPREPARED AN EIR UNDER ITS CEQA \nREQUIREMENTS. THERE IS NO \nREQUIREMENT THAT THE \nENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF A \nPROJECT UNDER NEPA COME TO THE \nCONCLUSIONS AS THE ENVIRONMENTAL \nREVIEW OF THE SAME PROJECT UNDER \nCEQA BECAUSE CEQA AND NEPA ARE \nDIFFERENT STATUS WITH DIFFERENT \nREQUIREMENTS. AGAIN THAT WAS A \nLOT OF INFORMATION. JUST TO \nSUMMARIZE HERE THE ARMY CORP \nSUBMITTED A PHASED CONSISTENCY \nDETERMINATION AS REQUIRED AND \nALLOWED BY THE CMA. BCDC MUST \nCONCUR INITIALLY CONCUR OR \nOBJECT TO THE SUBMITTED CD THAT \nTHE ARMY CORP’S PROPOSED ACTIONS \nARE CONSISTENT TO THE MAXIMUM \nEXTENT PRACTICABLE WITHIN THE \nENFORCEABLE POLICIES OF BCDC\, \nCZMP. AND AGAIN BCDC CZMP \nINCLUDES ENFORCEABLE OF POLICIES \nOF MACATEER PETRIS AND THE BAY \nPLAN. OBJECTION IS NOT A \nDENIAL. THOUGH BCDC MAY SEEK \nMEDIATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW. \nARMY CORP PREPARED AN EA UNDER \nITS NEPA AUTHORITY\, ALTHOUGH \nTHIS IS NOT A CZMA REQUIREMENT. \nAND THE PORT PREPARED AN EIR \nUNDER ITS CEQA AUTHORITY WHICH \nIS ALSO NOT A CZMA REQUIREMENT \nBUT WILL BE CONSIDERED BY BCDC \nWHEN THE PORT NEEDS A BCDC \nPERMIT. AND THAT’S THE END OF \nMY PRESENTATION. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU MICHAEL. \nSO\, COMMISSIONERS\, I HOPE YOU \nAPPRECIATE THAT MINI CONCISE \nTRAINING ON CZMA\, CEQA AND NEPA. \nIT’S VERY MUCH TO INFORM THE \nPROJECT AND HOW THE COMMISSION \nSTAFF HAS BEEN APPROACHING THE \nOAKLAND TURNING BASIN’S WIDENING \nPROJECT. \nI’M GOING TO GIVE A BRIEF \nOVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT BECAUSE \nTHE ARMY CORP IS GOING TO GIVE A \nLONGER AND THOROUGH REVIEW OF \nTHE ARMY CORP PROJECT. IT’S \nIMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS IS A \nJOINT PROJECT OF THE PORT OF \nOAKLAND AND THE U.S. ARMY CORP \nOF ENGINEERS AS MICHAEL \nMENTIONED OR ALLUDED TO\, THE \nPORT OF OAKLAND WILL BE \nREQUESTING A BCDC PERMIT LIKELY \nIN 2025\, 2026. SO\, WE LOOK \nFORWARD TO SEEING THIS PROJECT \nAGAIN AROUND THE MCATEER-PETRIS \nACT STATUS AND BAY PLAN \nPOLICIES. \nSO\, JUST A QUICK NOTE. AGAIN\, \nTHIS IS A FIRST PHASE \nCONSISTENCY DETERMINATION. THE \nARMY CORP WILL DESCRIBE FURTHER. \nBUT IN THE FIRST PHASE\, AT THIS \nLEVEL WE’RE LOOKING AT THE \nFEASIBILITY STUDY AND THE \nENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE \nPROJECT. THAT MEANS THAT MANY \nOF THE DETAILS THAT WE WOULD \nNORMALLY RECEIVE IN A PERMIT \nAPPLICATION HAVE NOT YET BEEN \nPROVIDED ALTHOUGH WE HAVE \nSEVERAL DETAILS IN HAND. THE \nPROJECT IS NOT YET AUTHORIZED OR \nFUNDED. SO\, WE ANTICIPATE A \nSECOND PHASE — WE ANTICIPATE A \nSECOND PHASE CONSISTENCY \nDETERMINATION IN 2025 OR 2026. \nTHAT WILL BE AT THE PLANNING \nENGINEERING AND DESIGN PHASE \nWHERE MORE DETAILS WILL BE \nPROVIDED BY THE ARMY CORP. ONE \nOF THE REASONS WE’RE HERE TODAY \nIS BECAUSE IN ORDER FOR THE ARMY \nCORP OF ENGINEERS TO HAVE THEIR \nHEADQUARTERS SIGN WHAT IS KNOWN \nAS THEIR CHIEF’S REPORT\, THE \nCOASTAL MANAGEMENT ACT \nCONSISTENCY DETERMINATION LETTER \nOF AGREEMENT NEEDS TO BE \nAPPENDED TO THAT REPORT. THEN \nLASTLY THIS ACTION HELPS THE \nARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS REQUEST \nAUTHORIZATION FOR THIS PROJECT \nIN THE WATER RESOURCES AND \nDEVELOPMENT ACT\, 2024\, OR LATER\, \nSHOULD THAT NEED TO HAPPEN AT A \nLATER TIME AND FUTURE \nAPPROPRIATIONS OF THE PROJECT BY \nCONGRESS. \nTHIS IS THE PORT OF OAKLAND. \nI’M HOPING MANY OF YOU ARE \nFAMILIAR WITH IT. THIS IS A \nGRAPHIC FROM THE PORT’S FILES. \nBUT IT SHOWS THE OUTER HARBOR TO \nTHE NORTHERN PART OF MY SCREEN\, \nTHE TOP OF MY SCREEN\, WITH THE \nOUTER HARBOR TURNING BASINS\, \nSORT OF IN THE CRUX OF THE OUTER \nHARBOR AND THE INNER HARBOR \nTRAVELING BETWEEN THE PORT OF \nOAKLAND AND THE ISLAND OF \nALAMEDA WITH THE INNER HARBOR \nDOWN IN THE LOWER RIGHT HAND \nCORNER OF THE SCREEN. THESE TWO \nTURNING BASINS ARE THE MAIN \nSUBJECT OF THIS CONSISTENCY \nDETERMINATION\, BECAUSE AT THIS \nTIME\, LARGE VESSELS THAT ENTER \nTHE PORT FACE RESTRICTIONS NOT \nALL OF THEM BUT SOME FACE \nRESTRICTIONS WHEN THEY’RE \nTRAVELING IN AND OUT OF THE PORT \nFACILITIES TO BERTH AND OFFLOAD \nTHEIR CARGO. THIS IS A SHORT \nVERSION OF THE PORT OF OAKLAND’S \nPROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR THE \nPROJECT. BUT BASICALLY THEY’RE \nLOOKING TO IMPROVE EFFICIENCIES \nFOR LONGER VESSELS FOR BOTH THE \nCURRENT VESSELS THAT ARE \nENTERING AND LEAVING THE HARBORS \nTODAY AND ALSO FOR THE FUTURE \nDEEP DRAFT VESSELS THAT MAY CALL \nAT THE PORT IN THE FUTURE\, AND \nARE ANTICIPATED TO CALL IT THE \nPORT. THEY ALSO MAINTAIN WANT \nTO MAINTAIN THE COMPETITIVENESS \nFOR THE PORT INTERNATIONAL CARGO \nSHIPMENTS THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE \nTHAT VESSELS HAVE FLEXIBILITY \nFOR CONNECTING TO SHORE POWER \nWHILE THEY’RE AT BERTH \nAPPARENTLY SOME OF THE SHIPS \nONLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONNECT \nTO SHORE POWER ON THE INSIDE SO \nTHEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO TURN AND \nMAKE SURE THEY CAN CONNECT TO \nSHORE POWER. THIS HELPS SUPPORT \nA MOVE TOWARDS ZERO-EMISSIONS IN \nTHE FUTURE AND THEY WILL ALSO \nIMPROVE VESSEL MANUFACTURING AND \nSAFETY AND REDUCE ENVIRONMENTAL \nRISKS SUCH AS OIL SPILLS THAT \nCURRENTLY EXIST IN THE TURNING \nBASINS WHEN THEY’RE UNDERSIZED \nFOR THE VESSELS THAT ARE \nTRANSITING THEM AND ALSO \nMEASURES TO MODERNIZE ESSENTIAL \nWATERWAY PORT OF OAKLAND FOR THE \nNATION AND WITH THE FLEET COMING \nAND GOING AND THE GRAPHIC ON THE \nRIGHT SHOWS SOME OF THE \nDIFFERENCES THAT THE PORT IS \nFACING NOW BOTH IN THE FUTURE \nVESSELS GET LONGER AND WIDER \nWITH THE ABILITY OF VESSELS TO \nTRY TO CARRY MORE CARGO. \nLOOKING AT THE TWO AREAS OF \nACTION FOR THIS PROJECT SO THE \nOUTER HARBOR TURNING BASIN CLOSE \nUP OF EARLY DESIGN PHASE BUT THE \nTURNING BASIN AS IT EXISTS TODAY \nIN THE LIGHT GRAY. THE PROPOSED \nTURNING BASIN IN THE DARKER OR \nCHARCOAL GRAY TO BLACK. \nBASICALLY\, THIS REPRESENTS AN \nEXPANSION OF THE EXISTING \nTURNING BASIN BY 21 ACRES. IT \nWOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED BY \nDREDGING APPROXIMATELY \n1.34 MILLION CUBIC YARDS OF \nSHALLOW SUBTIDAL HABITAT THAT’S \nCURRENTLY AT 4 TO 5 FEET MEAN \nLOW WATER. THAT AREA WILL BE \nTAKEN DOWN TO MINUS 50 FEET TO \nMATCH THE EXISTING TURNING BASIN \nSTEPS. AND THE PORT AND CORP \nHAVE COMMITTED TO BEN OFFICIALLY \nREUSING ALL THE DREDGE SEDIMENT \nTHAT’S CLEAN AND SUITABLE FOR \nREUSE FROM THIS PROJECT AND \nPARTICULARLY THE OUTER HARBOR \nBECAUSE IT’S ANTICIPATED TO HAVE \nFEWER CONTAMINANTS IN THE INNER \nHARBOR JUST DUE TO THE NATURE \nWAS THE UNDISTURBED SITE. AND \nAS PART OF THIS\, THEY WILL BE \nUPGRADING EXISTING ELECTRICAL \nINFRASTRUCTURE NEAR 26\, WHICH IS \nADJACENT TO THE SITE. \nTHE INNER HARBOR TURNING BASIN \nFAR MORE COMPLEX THAN THE OUTER \nHARBOR TURNING THE BASIN \nEXPANSION. SIMILARLY THE \nGRAPHIC YOU SEE HERE EXISTING \nINNER HARBOR TURNING BASIN IN \nLIGHT GRAY. THE PROPOSED \nWIDENING EXPANSION OF THE \nTURNING BASIN IN BLACK WITH THE \nDASHED LINES BEING IN AREAS THAT \nARE WITHIN THE EXISTING 50 FOOT \nFEDERAL NAVIGATION CHANNEL AND \nTHE AREAS THAT ARE YELLOW AND \nSOLID BLACK ARE AREAS NEED TO BE \nEXCAVATED OR DREDGED AS PART OF \nTHE PROJECT. IN ORDER TO EXPAND \nTHE TURNING BASIN AS THE CORP \nDID IN THE 50-FOOT DEEPENING \nPROJECT — THIS HAS BEEN DONE AT \nLEAST ONCE BEFORE — PORTIONS \nOF HOWARD TERMINAL WHICH WERE \nPUT INTO PLACE IN THE 1980’S \nWOULD NEED TO BE REMOVED\, 3.9 \nACRES. ALAMEDA LAND SITE \nOPPOSITE THE CHANNEL WOULD HAVE \n6.5 ACRES REMOVED. THERE ARE \nTWO WAREHOUSES ON THAT SITE; \nYOU CAN SEE THEM THERE IN WHITE. \nON THE LOWER PART OF THE SCREEN \nONE OF THEM SAYS ALAMEDA \nPROPERTY THOSE WAREHOUSES WOULD \nBE PARTIALLY DEMOLISHED TO \nACCOMMODATE THE WIDER TURNING \nBASIN. IN THE WHARFS ON BOTH \nSIDES THERE IS A COMBINATION OF \nA ROCK DIKE\, THOSE AREAS THAT \nNEED TO BE REMOVED AS PART OF \nTHIS PROJECT AND TWO BULK HEADS \nWOULD BE INSTALLED ONE ON THE \nHOWARD TERMINAL SIDE ONE ON THE \nALAMEDA SIDE TO HOLD THE NEW \nSHORELINE. IN ADDITION — AND \nIT’S NOT ON THIS SLIDE — IN \nADDITION THERE IS A SMALL NARROW \nAREA IN FRONT OF SCHNITZER STEEL \nON THE LEFT UPPER PART OF THE \nSLIDE WHERE THE CORP WOULD PLACE \nIN WATER RETAINING WALL TO HOLD \nBACK THE SLOPE OF THE SHORELINE \nSO WHEN THE AREA IS DEEPENED TO \nMINUS 50 FEET THE SLOPE WOULDN’T \nSLUMP AND CAUSE SLOPE FAILURE. \nONCE THE NEW BULK HEADS ARE IN \nPLACE THE PROJECT WOULD DREDGE \nAPPROXIMATELY 825 CUBIC YARDS OF \nSEDIMENT ALSO TARGETED FOR \nBENEFICIAL REUSE WHENEVER \nSUITABLE AND IT WILL BE DEEPENED \nTO MINUS 50 FEET TO MATCH THE \nCHANNEL AND EXISTING TURNING \nBASIN CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS WOULD \nBE DISPOSED OR RECYCLED\, \nDEPENDING ON ITS TYPE\, AND THEY \nWOULD NEED TO INSTALL ADDITIONAL \nINFRASTRUCTURE AT HOWARD \nTERMINAL TO SUPPORT THE PROJECT. \nOOPS. WE WENT THE WRONG WAY. \nSORRY. \n>>STEVEN GOLDBECK: BRENDA\, I \nTHINK YOU MISSPOKE. IT’S \n825\,000. \n>>SPEAKER: DID I SAY MILLION? \n>>STEVEN GOLDBECK: — \n[INDISCERNIBLE] DREDGING. \nI THINK YOU SAID 825. \n>>SPEAKER: OH. YEAH\, I ALWAYS \nDROP OFF THREE ZEROES. MY \nAPOLOGIES. THAT’S WHAT HAPPENS \nWHEN YOU WORK IN THE WORLD OF A \nLOT OF ZEROS. \nTHANK YOU FOR THAT\, STEVE. \nONE OF THE BIG QUESTIONS OF THE \nPROJECT IS MACING FILLS TAKING \nAWAY OF FILL\, OVERALL IT’S \nREDUCTION OF BAY FILL INCREASE \nOF SURFACE AREA VOLUME IN THE \nBAY. YOU CAN SEE THE TOP FOUR \nLINES LOOKING AT FILL REMOVAL \n10.4 ACRES OF THE AREA WOULD BE \nREMOVED OVERALL THEN 418\,400 \nCUBIC YARDS OF SOLID FILL WOULD \nBE REMOVED. THE FILL PLACED\, OR \nTHE NEXT SET OF NUMBERS \nTOTALLING 2.81 ACRES OF FILL \nPLACED AND 23\,000 ACRE YARDS OF \nFILL PLACED THAT RESULTS IN \nTOTAL NET OF REDUCTION OF 7.6 \nACRES AND NET SOLID FILL \nREDUCTION OF 395\,400 CUBIC YARDS \nREPRESENTING INCREASE IN SURFACE \nAREA AND VOLUME OF THE BAY WHICH \nIS HELPFUL. I’M GOING TO TOUCH \nON ISSUES THAT THE COMMISSION \nWILL NEED TO CONSIDER WHEN IT’S \nVOTING TO HELP FRAME ANY PUBLIC \nCOMMENTS THAT MAY ARISE AND ALSO \nFOR YOU TO THINK ABOUT THIS \nPROJECT AS YOU’RE HEARING THE \nARMY CORP PRESENTATION. SO THE \nPRIMARY ISSUES THE PROJECT IS \nCONSISTENT WITH THE LAWS AND \nPOLICIES\, WHETHER THE PROJECT IS \nCONSISTENT WITH THE SEAPORT PLAN \nWHETHER THE ARMY CORP HAS \nCONDUCTED EQUITABLE AND \nCULTURALLY RELATIVE OUTREACH TO \nTHE PUBLIC PARTICULARLY THE \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITY \nTHAT MAY BE DISPROPORTIONATELY \nIMPACTED BY THIS PROJECT AND \nWHETHER IT’S CONSISTENT WITH OUR \nENVIRONMENTAL SOCIAL JUSTICE \nPOLICIES AND THERE IS MITIGATION \nFOR THOSE IMPACTS WHERE WE HAVE \nAUTHORITY. AND LASTLY\, WHETHER \nTHE PROPOSED DELAY ON ADDRESSING \nPUBLIC ACCESS AND SCENIC VIEWS \nTO THE NEXT PHASE CONSISTENCY \nDETERMINATION IS APPROPRIATE. \nA COUPLE MORE SLIDES THEN I’LL \nTURN IT OVER TO PHOENIX. \nMICHAEL TOUCHED ON THIS I’M NOT \nGOING TO BELABOR THE POINT BUT A \nQUICK REMINDER THAT WE’RE USING \nTHE 1996 SEAPORT PLAN FOR THIS \nPROJECT AS AMENDED IN 2012. HE \nMENTIONED THE CURRENT ONE \nREQUIRES COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT \nREVIEW BEFORE WE CAN USE IT. \nSO\, JUST A QUICK NOTE THAT THE \nSEAPORT PLAN AS IT CURRENTLY \nEXISTS SUPPORTS REDEVELOPMENT OF \nTHE PORT TO IMPROVE WATER BORNE \nCOMMERCE AND COMMERCE AND \nSUPPORT ECONOMY OF THE BAY AREA \nALSO INCLUDES DREDGING TO DEEPEN \nAND MAINTAIN NAVIGATION \nCHANNELS. \nAND THEN IN JUST A MINUTE ON \nPUBLIC ACCESS. SO THERE HAS \nBEEN CONCERNS AND COMMENTS MADE \nABOUT PUBLIC ACCESS AND WHETHER \nOR NOT THE PROJECT SHOULD \nPROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS. AND AT \nTHIS POINT IN TIME\, IN THE \nFEASIBILITY STAGE\, THE CORP AND \nTHE PORT HAVE NOT PROVIDED OR \nPROPOSED ANY PUBLIC ACCESS. \nIT’S IMPORTANT TO NOTE DIFFERENT \nPOLICIES THAT SUPPORT THE \nCOMMISSION STAFF’S VIEW THAT \nPUBLIC ACCESS IS AND SHOULD BE \nREQUIRED BY THIS PROJECT. SO\, \nMCATEER-PETRIS ACT SECTION 66602 \nSPEAKS TO REQUIRING THE MAXIMUM \nFEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS \nCONSISTENT WITH A PROJECT AND IT \nSPECIFICALLY CALLS OUT PORTS AS \nONE AREA WHERE PUBLIC ACCESS \nSHOULD BE REQUIRED WHERE \nFEASIBLE AND SAFE TO DO SO. \nWHEN THE STAFF LOOKS AT PROJECTS \nFOR PUBLIC ACCESS THEY LOOK AT \nTHE POTENTIAL TO AFFECT BOTH \nCURRENT AND FUTURE PUBLIC ACCESS \nIN THE AREA. \nIN LIEU\, PUBLIC ACCESS FOR PORT \nPROPERTIES IS LIKELY AN OUTCOME \nDUE TO THE SAFETY CONCERNS \nTHAT’S PART OF THE PUBLIC ACCESS \nPOLICIES AND PUBLIC ACCESS \nPOLICY 1 AND 2 IT SEEKS IF YOU \nCAN’T PROVIDE IT IN PORT \nPROPERTIES THAT NEARBY PUBLIC \nACCESS PROJECTS COULD BE \nPROVIDED AND IF YOU CAN’T DO IT \nNEARBY\, THEN PUBLIC ACCESS \nSHOULD BE PROVIDED FOR \nVULNERABLE OR DISADVANTAGED \nCOMMUNITIES. \nI ALSO WANT TO NOTE THAT THIS \nSTAFF MET WITH THE CITY OF \nALAMEDA\, WHO RAISED SPECIFIC \nCONCERNS ABOUT THE STAFF \nSUMMARY. AND FRANKLY\, THE \nTERMINOLOGY USED\, WE CALLED IT \nALAMEDA TERMINAL\, THE TRUE NAME \nIS ALAMEDA LANDING. THE MASTER \nLAN FOR THE ALAMEDA LANDING FOR \nTHE CITY OF ALAMEDA ANTICIPATES \nAND ENCOURAGES PUBLIC ACCESS AND \nRECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AS \nPART OF THAT SITE AND IN FACT \nMENTIONED THAT IT’S PART OF THE \nBAY TRAIL\, IN THE FUTURE. \nAND THEN LASTLY\, THE PORT’S \nPOLICIES AND THE SEAPORT PLAN \nSAY THAT PORT SHOULD BE DESIGNED \nWHENEVER FEASIBLE TO PERMIT \nPUBLIC ACCESS AND VIEWING \nACTIVITIES THROUGH VIEWING \nOPPORTUNITIES FOR PORT \nACTIVITIES THROUGH VIEWPOINTS \nAND OPENINGS BETWEEN BUILDINGS \nAND OTHER SITE DESIGNS THAT \nPERMIT VIEW OF THE MARITIME \nACTIVITIES. JUST WANTED TO CALL \nTHOSE TO YOUR ATTENTION AS WE \nTHINK ABOUT THIS PROJECT WITH \nTHE PROPOSED PUBLIC ACCESS. AND \nI’M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO \nPHOENIX ARMENTA TO TALK ABOUT \nTHE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE \nPOLICIES. \n>>SPEAKER: WEST OAKLAND IS AN \nENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY AS \nDEMONSTRATED BY CALENVIROSCREEN\, \nEJ COMMUNITY SCREENING TOOL AND \nBCDC COMMUNITIES VULNERABLE MAP \nCLOSEST TO THE OAKLAND HARBOR \nTURNING BASIN ARE WITHIN THE \n70th\, 8TH\, 90th PERCENTILE IN \nTERMS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL \nBURDEN IN THE STATE OF \nCALIFORNIA BCDC SOCIAL \nVULNERABILITY MAP SHOWS \nCOMMUNITIES AROUND THE TURNING \nBASIN RANGE FROM MODERATE TO \nHIGH SOCIAL VULNERABILITY. \nOAKLAND HAS A LONG HISTORY OF \nINDUSTRIAL USES PORT EXPANSION \nAND IS SURROUNDED BY TWO \nFREEWAYS LEADING TO THE HIGHEST \nEXPOSURES TO PARTICULATE MATTER \nIN THE NATION. NEXT SLIDE. \nBCDC ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND \nSOCIAL EQUITY POLICIES ADOPTED \nIN 2019 OUTLINE REQUIREMENTS FOR \nWORKING IN SOCIALLY VULNERABLE \nCOMMUNITIES FIRST POLICY DIRECTS \nCOMMISSION TO INCLUDE PRINCIPLES \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND SOCIAL \nEQUITY IN ALL ACTIONS AND \nACTIVITIES RELATED TO \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND SOCIAL \nEQUITY THAT MAY AFFECT THE \nCOMMISSION’S AUTHORITY OR \nJURISDICTION. \nTHE THIRD POLICY REQUIRES \nMEANINGFUL COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT \nBY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND PROJECT \nAPPLICANTS WORKING IN SOCIALLY \nVULNERABLE COMMUNITIES FOURTH \nPOLICY REQUIRES THAT LOCAL \nGOVERNMENTS AND THE COMMISSION \nSHOULD MAKE MEASURES THROUGH \nENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE \nPERMITTING PROCESS WITHIN THE \nSCOPE OF THEIR RESPECTED \nAUTHORITY TO REQUIRE MITIGATION \nFOR DISPROPORTIONATE ADVERSE \nPROJECT IMPACT ON THE IDENTIFIED \nVULNERABLE COMMUNITIES IN WHICH \nTHE PROJECT IS PROPOSED. IT’S \nIMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT POLICY \nFOUR IS APPLIED ONLY WITHIN THE \nSCOPE OF THE COMMISSION’S \nRESPECTIVE AUTHORITY WHEN \nCONSIDERING ITS APPLICATION TO \nTHE OAKLAND HARBOR TURNING \nBASIN. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. \nWITH REGARDS TO MEANINGFUL \nCOMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT THE PORT \nAND THE U.S. ARMY CORP OF \nENGINEERS HELD A TOTALLY OF NINE \nMEETINGS AS PART OF THE NEPA AND \nCEQA PROCESSES THEY MET WITH \nLOCAL GROUPS SUCH AS THE OAKLAND \nENVIRONMENTAL INDICATOR’S \nPROJECT JACK LONDON IMPROVEMENT \nDISTRICT AND ACORN PRESCOTT \nNEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL TO DISCUSS \nTHE PROJECT THEY ALSO WORKED \nCLOSELY WITH ME TO DEVELOP AND \nHELP WITH THE OUTREACH \nSTRATEGIES. NEXT SLIDE. \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONCERNS \nSTILL REMAIN AROUND THE PROJECT \nINCLUDING CONCERNS AROUND \nSIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE EFFECTS \nOF AIR QUALITY FROM CONSTRUCTION \nAND DREDGING EQUIPMENT CONCERNS \nOF WIDENING COULD INDUCE GROWTH \nOVER TIME AND CONTRIBUTING TO \nWORSENING AIR QUALITY RESIDENTS \nDON’T WANT CONTAMINATED SOIL TO \nBE PASS ODDS TO OTHER EJ \nCOMMUNITIES LIKE KETTLE MAN \nCITY. IT’S IMPORTANT TO NOTE \nTHESE CONCERNS ALTHOUGH \nIMPORTANT TO ADDRESS DO NOT FALL \nUNDER THE SCOPE OF BCDC’S \nAUTHORITY. NEXT SLIDE. BCDC \nHAS BEEN COORDINATING WITH \nAGENCIES TO HAVE SOME AUTHORITY \nON THESE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE \nCONCERNS TO HELP ADDRESS THEM \nOUR STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING WITH \nBAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT \nDISTRICT\, CALIFORNIA AIR \nRESOURCES BOARD\, CALIFORNIA \nDEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE \nAND CALIFORNIA WATER BOARDS \nCALIFORNIA SUBSTANCES CONTROL \nAND US EPA TO WORK ON FINDING \nSOLUTIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL \nJUSTICE CONCERNS ON THIS \nPROJECT. I’LL SEND IT BACK TO \nBRENDA TO TALK MORE ABOUT THE \nPROJECT. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. SO THE \nCOMMISSION UNFORTUNATELY DOES \nNOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO ADDRESS \nAIR QUALITY ISSUES ASSOCIATED \nWITH THIS PROJECT IT’S OUTSIDE \nOF OUR SCOPE AND AUTHORITY \nHOWEVER BECAUSE WE REALIZED THE \nCOMMISSION MAY BE CONCERNED \nABOUT THE AIR QUALITY IMPACTS OF \nTHE PROPOSED PROJECT WE THOUGHT \nWE WOULD BRIEFLY LIST OUT SOME \nOF THE AGENCIES THAT HAVE THE \nABILITY TO REGULATE THESE ISSUES \nIN CALIFORNIA. WE ARE TRYING TO \nLAY OUT AREAS WHERE THIS ISSUE \nCAN BE ADDRESSED. SO\, THE BAY \nAREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT \nDISTRICT REGULATES STATIONARY \nEQUIPMENT AND COMMENTS ON \nENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS. THE \nCALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD \nREGULATES MOBILE EQUIPMENTS\, \nVEHICLES AND SHIPS IN STATE \nWATERS. SO\, FOR EXAMPLE\, THEY \nHAVE REGULATIONS RELATING TO \nTRUCKING AND THIS IS THE CARB \nREGULATION. SO\, ALL OF THESE \nLISTED BELOW ARE PRIMARILY \nRELATED TO CARB\, BECAUSE THEY \nARE ENACTING NEW LAWS AND \nPOLICIES AND REGULATIONS TO \nIMPROVE AIR QUALITY THROUGHOUT \nTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. SO\, \nYOU CAN SEE THAT THEY’RE WORKING \nTO REDUCE SULFUR OXIDES\, NITROUS \nOXIDES\, REDUCING EMISSIONS FROM \nTRUCKS THROUGH INCREASING \nIMPROVEMENTS FOR THEIR ENGINES\, \nFOR LES EMISSIONS. OVER TIME. \nAND SO SOME OF THOSE ARE ALREADY \nIN PLACE. SOME ARE COMING \nONLINE NOW. VESSEL REGULATIONS \nTHAT THEY HAVE ENACTED ARE \nLOOKING AT RENEWABLE DIESEL \nFUEL\, AND\, AGAIN\, IMPLEMENTING \nPHASED-IN BETTER ENGINES WITH \nLESS EMISSIONS. SIMILARLY FOR \nCARGO EQUIPMENT\, THEY’RE \nDEVELOPING CARGO HANDLING AND \nREGULATIONS TO TRANSITION TO \nZERO-EMISSIONS FOR THOSE TYPES \nOF EQUIPMENT\, AND THEN FINALLY \nWITH RAIL\, THEY’RE LOOKING AT \nIMPROVING LOCATION MOTION SO IT \nHAS LESS EMISSIONS AND THEN \nZERO-EMISSIONS OVER TIME. SOME \nOF THAT IS BY PHASING OUT OLDER \nEQUIPMENT. \nLASTLY\, BECAUSE CALIFORNIA’S LAW \nAND AUTHORITY ONLY GOES TO THE \nEXTENT OF THE STATE OF \nCALIFORNIA’S JURISDICTION\, I \nALSO LOOKED INTO WHAT KIND OF \nREGULATIONS APPLY TO OVER — \nEXCUSE ME — TO OCEAN GOING \nVESSELS THAT MAY COME TO THE \nPORT OF OAKLAND WHEN THEY’RE \nCALLING ON THE PORT. \nSO\, THERE ARE CONTROLS WENT 200 \nMILES OF THE COAST THROUGH THE \nINTERNATIONAL MARITIME \nORGANIZATION\, THEY’RE LOOKING\, \nAGAIN\, TO REDUCE — EXCUSE ME — \nSULFUR OXIDES\, AND — [ AUDIO \nDISTORTION ] GREENHOUSE GASSES\, \nU.S. MARINE VESSELS. THE JONES \nACT WHILE NOT SPECIFICALLY \nLOOKING AT EMISSIONS IT GOVERNS \nDOMESTIC SHIPPING IN THE UNITED \nSTATES\, THERE IS A FEDERAL \nMARITIME COMMISSION WHICH \nGOVERNS OTHER ASPECTS OF \nSHIPPING BUT NOT NECESSARILY \nMISSIONS. AND THEN LASTLY\, \nCALIFORNIA AIR BOARD\, JUST A \nLITTLE BIT MORE\, WITHIN 24 \nNAUTICAL MILES FROM BASELINE OF \nTHE STATE\, THEY HAVE OCEAN-GOING \nVESSEL FUEL REDUCTION \nREGULATIONS AND OCEAN GOING \nVESSELS AT BERTH REGULATIONS. \nSO I WANTED TO BRING THIS TO \nYOUR ATTENTION SO THE COMMISSION \nDOES HAVE AN AWARENESS OF THE \nDIFFERENCE LAWS AND ORGANIZATION \nTHAT IS WORKING TO REDUCE AIR \nQUALITY IMPACTS AT THE PORTS AND \nFOR THE COMMUNITIES THAT ARE \nAROUND THEM. NEXT STEPS SO YOU \nKNOW WHERE WE’RE GOING. NEXT \nSTEPS ARMY CORP IS GOING TO GIVE \nA PRESENTATION ON THE PROJECT IN \nMORE DETAIL THAN I HAVE PROVIDED \nHERE TODAY THEN WE’LL HAVE \nOPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM THE \nPUBLIC ON THIS PROJECT. \nDECEMBER 15TH IS THE DATE WE \nANTICIPATE SENDING OUT THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION. IT WILL BE \nRELEASED BOTH TO THE PUBLIC AND \nTHE COMMISSION. A.M. IS THE DAY \nTHAT WE ARE PLANNING TO VOTE ON \nTHIS PROJECT AND THIS IS A VERY \nIMPORTANT DAY\, BECAUSE IT’S THE \nLAST OPPORTUNITY FOR THE \nCOMMISSION TO VOTE IN 2023. \nAND THEN\, LASTLY\, SHOULD THE \nCOMMISSION CHOOSE TO CONCUR WITH \nTHIS PROJECT\, WE WOULD ISSUE THE \nLETTER OF AGREEMENT NOT LATER \nTHAN DECEMBER 31ST\, 2023. \nSO\, THIS IS A PLEA FROM OUR \nFRIENDS THE HARBOR SEALS\, \nCOMMISSIONERS PLEASE COME TO THE \nMEETING ON A.M. BECAUSE WE NEED \nTHE 84 TOWEL HAVE A VOTE OR THE \nPROJECT WILL BE DELAYED AND \nPOTENTIALLY NOT MAKE IT INTO THE \nREPORT. SO THAT’S A CUTE LITTLE \nFACE SAYING PLEASE COME. WE \nWOULD LIKE TO SEE YOU AGAIN IN A \nCOUPLE OF WEEKS. THAT IS IT \nFROM ME AND NEXT UP IS THE ARMY \nCORP. AND I THINK I’M SHARING \nMY SCREEN FOR THEM\, AS WELL. \nJUST ONE MINUTE. WITH THAT\, I \nWOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE ERIKA \nPOWELL\, FROM THE ARMY CORP OF \nENGINEERS. SHE ALSO HAS MEMBERS \nFROM THE PORT OF OAKLAND AND THE \nARMY CORP STAFF WITH HER TODAY \nTO ASSIST IN THE PRESENTATION OR \nQUESTIONS SHOULD THEY ARISE. \nERIKA? \n>>ERIKA POWELL: THANK YOU \nBRENDA HELLO EVERYONE MY NAME IS \nERIKA POWELL. THANK YOU \nCOMMISSIONERS AND BCDC STAFF FOR \nALL YOUR SUPPORT AND OPPORTUNITY \nTO PRESENT TODAY ON THE OAKLAND \nHARBOR TURNING BASINS WIDENING \nFEASIBILITY REPORT AND \nENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. THIS \nSTUDY WAS AUTHORIZE WAS FUNDED \nBY CONGRESS WHICH ALLOWED THE \nARMY CORE OF ENGINEERS TO ENTER \nINTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE PORT \nOF OAKLAND IN JULY OF 2020 TO \nDETERMINE IF THERE WAS A \nTECHNICALLY FEASIBLE \nECONOMICALLY JUSTIFIED \nENVIRONMENTALLY ACCEPTABLE \nPROJECT THAT WOULD DECREASE \nVESSEL TRANSIT INEFFICIENCIES AT \nTHE OAKLAND HARBOR. SO THAT WAS \nTHE PURPOSE OF THE STUDY. I AM \nJOINED HERE BY — NEXT SLIDE — \n>>SPEAKER: IT’S NOT \nTRANSITIONING. \n>>ERIKA POWELL: I WAS GOING TO \nTAKE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO SAY I’M \nSO HAPPY TO SEE SO MANY FAMILIAR \nFACES. SO\, I’M JOINED HERE BY \nTHE CORP OF ENGINEERS TEAM \nMEMBERS. WE HAVE A VERY LARGE \nTEAM BUT WE DO HAVE FOLKS HERE \nIN PERSON. BARNEY WAIR\, WHO IS \nOUR TECHNICAL LEAD\, ALSO OUR \nGEOTECHNICAL EXPERT\, ERIK \nJOLIFFE\, OUR ENVIRONMENTAL LEAD\, \nAND VIRTUALLY\, WE HAVE ELIZABETH \nDIONNE. OUR LEAD PLAN \nFORMULATOR\, AND ELLIE C\, WHO IS \nOUR ENVIRONMENTAL COLEAD AND \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE \nSPECIALIST. I’M ALSO JOINED \nHERE BY THE PROJECT DELIVERY \nTEAM ON THE PORT SIDE. JUSTIN \nTASCHEK. I BELIEVE THE PORT \nWOULD LIKE TO MAKE A FEW \nCOMMENTS. IF THAT’S OKAY? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>JUSTIN TASCHEK: GREAT. \nAPPRECIATE THAT. GOOD AFTERNOON \nHONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BCDC \nCOMMISSION. BCDC STAFF\, AND THE \nPUBLIC. \nMY NAME IS JUSTIN TASCHEK\, AND I \nAM THE PORT OF OAKLAND PROJECT \nADMINISTRATOR FOR THE PROPOSED \nPROJECT TO WIDEN THE OAKLAND \nHARBOR TURNING BASINS. WITH ME \nMY ESTEEMED COLLEAGUES\, EDWIN \nDRAPER\, LEAD ENVIRONMENTAL \nSCIENTIST\, CAMERON CHUOP\, AND I \nWOULD LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU TO \nBCDC STAFF FOR THEIR COMMITMENT \nAND SUPPORT FOR BRINGING THIS \nITEM BEFORE THE COMMISSION TODAY \nAND SECONDLY\, I WOULD LIKE TO \nTAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO THANK \nTHE U.S. ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS \nFOR DETERMINATION AND LEADERSHIP \nIN ENSURING THE PORT CONTINUES \nTO DELIVER ECONOMIC PROSPERITY \nTO THE REGION. THE PORT\, IN \nCOLLABORATION WITH COMMUNITY \nMEMBERS\, ENVIRONMENTAL \nORGANIZATIONS\, INDUSTRY\, AND \nLOCAL AGENCIES\, INCLUDING BCDC\, \nIS COMMITTED TO A DECARBONIZED \nFUTURE AND PROUDLY ALIGNS ITSELF \nWITH THE MUTUAL GOAL OF \nDELIVERING SUSTAINABLE \nTRANSPORTATION INITIATIVES. \nWIDENING THE TURNING BASINS IS \nONE SUCH PROJECT THAT HELPS \nDELIVER ON THIS COMMITMENT. \nWITH WIDENED TURNING BASINS\, THE \nPORT CAN ACCOMMODATE SAFE \nEFFICIENT ACCESS FOR A \nTRANSITIONING GLOBAL FLEET THAT \nINCLUDES NEWER\, LONGER\, AND MORE \nENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY SHIPS \nWHICH ARE SHORE POWER READY. \nTHAT IS THE SHIPS CAN PLUG IN \nAND TURN THEIR ENGINES OFF WHILE \nAT BERTH. THANK YOU FOR BCDC’S \nONGOING SUPPORT. OUR SHARED \nPURSUIT OF REGIONAL PROSPERITY \nAND BAY RESILIENCE UNDERSCORES \nTHE IMPORTANCE OF THIS AGENDA \nITEM AND WHY WE’RE HERE TODAY. \nTHE PORT LOOKS FORWARD TO OUR \nCOLLECTIVE ENDEAVORINGS AS WE \nNAVIGATE A COURSE TOWARDS A \nTHRIVING\, SUSTAINABLE\, AND \nDECARBONIZED FUTURE. AS A \nREMINDER\, THE PORT\, AS LEAD \nAGENCY UNDER THE CALIFORNIA \nENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT\, AS \nMENTIONED PRIOR\, RELEASED A \nDRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT \nREPORT FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT \nON OCTOBER 3RD. COMMENTS ARE \nDUE DECEMBER 18TH. \nRESPECTFULLY\, WE ARE IN THE OPEN \nPUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR THE \nCEQA DOCUMENT\, AND ALL QUESTIONS \nDIRECTED TO THE PORT HERE TODAY \nWILL BE INCLUDED AND RESPONDED \nTO IN THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL \nIMPACT REPORT. \nAND I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE FOR THE \nPUBLIC RECORD\, LAST FRIDAY\, \nDECEMBER 1ST\, THE PORT SUBMITTED \nA COMMENT LETTER FOR STAFF’S \nCONSIDERATION\, AS WELL AS THE \nCOMMISSION’S CONSIDERATION\, \nFURTHER EXPANDING ON INFORMATION \nRELATED TO THIS PROPOSED \nPROJECT. WITH THAT I’LL HAND IT \nBACK TO ERICA. THANK YOU. \n>>ERIKA POWELL: ALL RIGHT. \nTHANK YOU TO THE PORT FOR BEING \nHERE TODAY. I AM EXCITED ABOUT \nGIVING CREDIT TO BCDC STAFF. \nTHAT WAS A FANTASTIC \nPRESENTATION. THANK YOU SO MUCH \nYOU’RE GOING TO MAKE MY JOB SO \nMUCH EASIER. \nSO\, NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. \nSO\, JUST TO KIND OF WALK THROUGH \nTHIS SLIDE A LITTLE BIT. ON THE \nFAR LEFT\, FOR THOSE OF YOU NOT \nENTIRELY FAMILIAR WITH THE MAKE \nUP OF THE SEAPORT AREA. ON THE \nFAR LEFT IS AN ARROW THAT POINTS \nTO THE ENTRANCE TO THE \nNAVIGATION CHANNEL. ON THE \nUPPER PART OF THAT — THE SLIDE\, \nIS AN ARROW THAT POINTS TO THE \nOUTER BASIN AND THEN THE FAR \nBOTTOM RIGHT IS AN ARROW THAT \nPOINTS TO THE INNER BASIN. THE \nBLUE DASH LINE SHOWS THE FEDERAL \nCHANNEL LIMITS OF THE OAKLAND \nHARBOR WHICH INCLUDES DEEP \nNAVIGATION CHANNELS AND TWO \nTURNING BASINS. A TURNING BASIN \nIS VERY SIMILAR TO A CUL-DE-SAC \nON A STREET. RIGHT? SO THE \nWHOLE POINT OF A TURNING BASIN \nIS TO ALLOW VESSELS ENTERING OR \nDEPARTING OR EXITING THE PORT TO \nTURN AROUND. SO THAT’S JUST TO \nKIND OF GIVE YOU A BIRDS EYE \nVIEW OF THE PORT. NEXT SLIDE\, \nPLEASE. \nWE HAD ANOTHER SLIDE SIMILAR TO \nTHIS ONE\, JUST TO KIND OF SPEAK \nTO THE PROBLEM. THE EXISTING \nTURNING BASINS WERE DESIGNED FOR \nCONTAINER VESSEL OF \nAPPROXIMATELY 1139 FEET. \nVESSELS LARGER THAN THAT HAVE \nRESTRICTIONS SO THE EXPERIENCED \nRESTRICTIONS FOR TODAY WHEN \nUSING THE EXISTING TURNING \nBASINS. THESE RESTRICTIONS \nINCLUDE SCHEDULING TRANSITS \nAROUND SPECIFIC TIDE\, CURRENT\, \nAND WIND CONDITIONS. LIMITING \nTO DAYLIGHT TIMES. USES OF \nADDITIONAL PILOT AND REQUIRED \nNUMBER OF VESSEL — \n[INDISCERNIBLE] ARE NEEDED\, \nTHAT’S HOW THEY MITIGATE THESE \nRESTRICTIONS. THESE CAN DELAY \nVESSELS FROM ARRIVING OR \nDEPARTING A BERTH. IN ADDITION \nVESSELS LONGER THAN 1200 FEET IN \nLENGTH ARE USED IN THE HARBOR \nTURNING BASIN AND ARE RESTRICTED \nTO DOCKING PORT SIDE ONLY \nPOINTED EAST. THAT CAN IMPACT \nTHE ABILITY FOR THE VESSEL TO \nUSE SHORE POWER\, AND IF NEEDED\, \nIT PREVENTS — IT PREVENTS THE \nABILITY TO DEPART IN AN \nEMERGENCY. SO\, ONE THING THAT’S \nKIND OF IMPORTANT HERE TOO THAT \nI WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT IS \nTHAT IN THE FUTURE\, EXISTING \nFLEETS OF SMALLER VESSELS WILL \nBE REPLACED BY LARGER VESSELS\, \nAND WE DO HAVE A SLIDE THAT \nSHOWS THAT TREND. WE HAVE DATA \nTHAT SHOWS THAT TREND. NEXT \nSLIDE PLEASE. \nSO\, THIS IS JUST ANOTHER WAY\, \nANOTHER ILLUSTRATION OF THE \nVESSELS THAT ARE — OR THE CLASS \nOF THAT — THE VESSEL CLASSES \nTHAT ARE VISITING OR CALLING ON \nTHE PORT TODAY. SO\, ANY VESSEL \nABOVE A THOUSAND FORTY-FIVE \nFEET\, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE TOP \nBLUE TABLE DOESN’T EXPERIENCE \nTHE RESTRICTIONS THAT WE HAVE \nMENTIONED EARLIER. HOWEVER\, IF \nYOU LOOK AT THE BOTTOM TABLE\, \nTHERE ARE ALL SORTS OF \nRESTRICTIONS FOR ANY VESSEL \nTHAT’S OVER 1200 FEET. AND AS \nYOU HEARD MY SAY\, THERE IS TIDE\, \nCURRENT\, AND WIND CONDITIONS \nTHAT IMPEDE THE PROPER \nNAVIGATION OF THESE VESSELS. \nTHEY NEED ADDITIONAL PILOT\, THEY \nNEED ADDITIONAL TUGBOATS TO HELP \nTHEM NAVIGATE SAFELY IN AND OUT \nOF THE PORT. \nNEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. \nAND I SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED\, \nTOO\, ON THAT LAST SLIDE\, THAT \nALL OF THOSE VESSELS ARE COMING \nINTO THE PORT TODAY. A BRIEF \nDESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AND I \nTHOUGHT BRENDA DID A GREAT JOB \nIN DETAILING IT PART OF THE U.S. \nARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS PLAN \nFORMULATION PROCESS IT WAS \nDETERMINED THAT THE INNER HARBOR \nTURNING BASIN SHOULD BE WIDENED \nBY AN ADDITIONAL 334 FEET AND TO \nA DEPTH OF 50 FEET WHICH IS \nCONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT \nDEPTH OF THE TURNING BASIN AND \nTHE INNER HARBOR CHANNEL. THE \nPURPLE AREAS WHERE THE LAND \nEXCAVATION AND DREDGING OCCUR \nBOTH IN THE OAKLAND SIDE AND THE \nALAMEDA SIDE. THE TWO \nWAREHOUSES ON THE BOTTOM WHERE \nIT SAYS ALAMEDA THEY ACTUALLY\, \nDEMOLITION WE SAY PARTIAL \nDEMOLITION\, I DON’T KNOW IF \nYOU’RE FAMILIAR WITH THESE \nWAREHOUSES\, WE HAVE TWO BAYS \nTHAT WOULD BE IMPACTED IN THE \nFRONT AND THREE BAYS IN THE \nBACK. THE DARK ORANGE DASH \nLINES REPRESENT THE NEW BULK \nHEAD AND YOU CAN SEE BOTH ON THE \nOUTER EDGE OF THE GREEN CIRCLE \nON THE HOWARD SIDE AND THEN ON \nTHE ALAMEDA SIDE. THE NEW BULK \nHEAD SERVES AS SEPARATION OF \nLAND AND WATER. ON THE RIGHT IS \nTHE SCHNITZER STEEL NOW WHAT IS \nCALLED RADIUS RECYCLING THAT IS \nAN INWATER STRUCTURE AND THE \nPOINT OF THAT LITTLE WALL IS TO \nPREVENT SLOPE FROM — TO PREVENT \nSLOPE FROM SLIPPING THERE. THE \nTILL OF THE SLOPE. IT IS \nPROPOSED THAT INFRASTRUCTURE \nWOULD BE INSTALLED AT THE \nSOUTHEAST CORNER OF HOWARD \nTERMINAL TO FACILITATE ELECTRIC \nDREDGING TO REDUCE CONSTRUCTION \nAND EMISSIONS FOR THE PROSED \nPROJECT. OKAY. THE LAST THING \nI WOULD LIKE TO SHARE WITH YOU \nAS A TAKE AWAY FOR THIS IS A \nTOTAL OF 2.4 MILLION CUBIC YARDS \nOF DREDGE MATERIAL IS EXPECTED\, \nAND DIRT WILL BE TAKEN FROM THE \nINNER AND OUTER BASIN SO THE \nTOTAL IS 2.4 MILLION. A LITTLE \nMORE THAN 2 MILLION WOULD \nACTUALLY BE TAKEN BY BARGE TO \nNEARBY WETLANDS RESTORATION SITE \nFOR BENEFICIAL USE AND \nAPPROXIMATELY 400\,000 CUBIC \nYARDS WHICH ARE NOT\, RIGHT NOW\, \nESTIMATED NOT SUITABLE FOR \nBENEFICIAL USE\, IS PROPOSED TO \nBE TAKEN TO A LANDFILL AND/OR \nRECYCLED. \nNEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. \nTHE OUTER HARBOR TURNING BASIN \nWOULD BE WIDEN TO APPROXIMATELY \n315 FEET AND AGAIN TO THE SAME \nDEPTH AS THE EXISTING CHANNEL \nWHEN WHICH IS MINUS 50\, THIS \nWOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED BY \nDREDGING SHOWN IN THE PURPLE \nHATCH AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY \nREMOVAL OF ANY LAND. IN \nADDITION\, AND BASED ON PUBLIC \nFEEDBACK SPECIFICALLY FROM THE \nBAR PILOTS\, THE BASIN WOULD BE \nSHIFTED AWAY FROM THE BERTH AREA \nTO ALLOW THEM TO HAVE ACCESS. \nBERTH 26 IS WHERE WE WOULD \nPROPOSE ELECTRICAL \nINFRASTRUCTURE FOR ELECTRIC \nDREDGING AND BERTH TEN WOULD BE \nUSED FOR CONSTRUCTION STAGING \nAND REHANDLING OF NON-HAZARDOUS \nDREDGE MATERIAL THAT REQUIRES \nLANDFILL DISPOSAL. NEXT SLIDE \nPLEASE. \nSO\, ACTUALLY BEFORE I TALK ABOUT \nTHIS SLIDE\, I DID WANT TO SAY A \nSPECIAL THANKS TO BCDC EPA \nREGION NINE AND THE PORT OF \nOAKLAND FOR THEIR COLLABORATION \nWITH OUR DISTRICT TO ENSURE \nMEANINGFUL PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT\, \nAND EFFECTIVE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT. \nWE STARTED MEETING ON A WEEKLY \nBASIS. IT’S BEEN A YEAR SINCE \nWE STARTED MEETING ON A WEEKLY \nBASIS WELL IN ADVANCE OF THE \nRELEASE OF THE SECOND DRAFT IFR \nEPA INTEGRATED FEASIBILITY \nREPORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT \nAND TO HIGHLIGHT THE FACT THAT I \nBELIEVE IT WAS AROUND THE END OF \n2022\, THAT WE HAD POLICY \nGUIDANCE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL \nJUSTICE. SO THAT ALLOWED US TO \nSTEP UP OUR ENVIRONMENTAL — I’M \nSORRY — OUR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT. \nSO\, WE\, THE CORP\, ARE TRYING TO \nDO MORE THAN THE BEAR MINIMUM \nNOW\, AS MUCH AS WE POSSIBLY CAN. \nSO\, WITH THIS NEW GUIDANCE WE \nWERE ABLE TO CONSIDER \nCOMPREHENSIVE BENEFITS. AND \nTHAT’S AN INTERESTING TERM BUT \nWHAT IT SAYS IS WE WERE ABLE TO \nLOOK AT ELECTRIC DREDGING DURING \nCONSTRUCTION AND BENEFICIAL USE \nOF DREDGE MATERIAL\, EVEN THOUGH\, \nFOR EXAMPLE\, FOR DREDGE \nMATERIAL\, WE’RE NOT REQUIRED TO \nDO IT AS MITIGATION\, BUT THIS IS \nSOMETHING THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE \nTO GO TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY \nOF THE ARMY AND ASK FOR \nPERMISSION TO BE ABLE TO COST \nSHARE THAT WITH THE LOCAL \nSPONSOR. THEY APPROVED THAT\, SO \nTHAT’S A RECOMMENDATION THAT’S \nBEING MADE BY THIS REPORT. IN \nADDITION\, THE PORT OF OAKLAND IS \nACTUALLY GOING TO BE FULLY \nPAYING ENTIRETY FOR THE ELECTRIC \nDREDGES. SO THAT’S SOMETHING \nTHAT THE PORT IS DOING\, AS WELL. \nAND THAT’S JUST TO POINT OUT \nTHAT WE HAD AS MANY MEETINGS AS \nPOSSIBLE. WE HAD SOME \nNEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL MEETINGS\, \nWHICH WERE — IT’S NOT SOMETHING \nTHAT WE TYPICALLY DO BUT WE WERE \nASKED TO BE INVITED TO THEIR \nMONTHLY MEETINGS\, AND THAT’S ONE \nWAY THAT WE WERE TRYING TO REACH \nOUT. WE ALSO MET WITH THE WEST \nOAKLAND ENVIRONMENTAL \nINDICATOR’S PROJECT TWICE\, ONCE \nIN ’22\, AND ONCE IN ’23. NEXT \nSLIDE\, PLEASE. \nSO\, ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE \nRECEIVED MULTIPLE TIMES\, AND \nWE’RE TRYING TO ADDRESS THAT\, \nWAS RELATED TO INDUCED GROWTH. \nAND SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE \nWOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY IS THAT \nTHE RECOMMENDED PLAN DOES NOT \nCHANGE HOW MANY VESSELS CAN BE \nADOPTED AT ANY TIME. SO \nINCREASING THE DIAMETER OF THE \nTURNING BASINS DOES NOT ADD \nBERTHING SPACE. \nTHE RECOMMENDED PLAN ALSO DOES \nNOT CHANGE THE CONTAINER \nHANDLING FACILITIES. SO\, THE \nPORT’S LAND SIDE CONTAINER \nHANDLING CAPACITY REMAINS \nCONSTANT\, REMAINS THE SAME. \nTHIRDLY\, THE RECOMMENDED PLAN \nDOES NOT AFFECT CONSUMER \nECONOMIC ACTIVITY IN THE BAY \nAREA\, OR IN THE CENTRAL AND \nNORTHERN CALIFORNIA MARKET. \nECONOMIC FACTORS SUCH AS \nRECESSIONS\, TRADE AGREEMENTS\, \nMICRO ECONOMIC DEMANDS\, \nECONOMIES OF SCALE AFFECT GLOBAL \nSHIPPING SUPPLY AND DEMAND. \nWHAT THE RECOMMENDED PLAN DOES \nIS IT ALLOWS FOR SHIPS TO TURN \nMORE SAFELY\, AND FOR SMALLER \nSHIPS TO BE PHASED OUT FOR \nBIGGER MORE EFFICIENT FLEETS. \nTHE RECOMMENDED PLAN ALSO ALLOWS \nFOR EFFICIENCY IN DEPARTING AND \nARRIVING AT THE PORT WITH FEWER \nIDLING SHIPS\, FEWER RESTRICTIONS \nON SHIPS ALREADY IN THE HARBOR. \nNEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. \nAND THEN\, AS I INDICATED \nEARLIER\, I WAS GOING TO PROVIDE \nYOU WITH A SLIDE THAT \nILLUSTRATES THE TRENDS OF \nSHORTER AND LONGER VESSEL CALLS \nTO THE PORT OF OAKLAND. IN THIS \nGRAPH\, IF YOU LOOK ON THE FAR \nLEFT\, YOU HAVE THE NUMBER OF \nCALLS. ON THE BOTTOM\, YOU HAVE \nTHE YEAR STARTING IN 2014 TO \nTODAY\, AND ON THE FAR RIGHT YOU \nHAVE THE TEUS OR THE THROUGHPUT \nPER YEAR. SO THE VESSELS ARE \nGROUPED INTO TWO CATEGORIES \nHERE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE SOLID \nNAVY BLUE LINE\, THAT IS THE \nLONGER VESSELS. THE DASHED LINE \nIS THE SHORTER VESSELS\, AND \nTHERE IS A VERTICAL LINE THAT \nSHOWS THAT PRIOR TO THE \nPANDEMIC\, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF \nSHORTER UNRESTRICTED VESSELS \nCONTINUED ITS DOWNWARD TREND. \nAND THEN THROUGH SEPTEMBER OF \nTHIS YEAR\, THE PORT HAS SEEN 406 \nLONG VESSELS CALL THE PORT\, \nCOMPARED TO 319 SHORTER VESSELS \n— OR SHORT VESSELS\, I SHOULD \nSAY. \nTHEN THE — OKAY\, THE BIG TAKE \nAWAY HERE IS THE GRAY SHADED \nAREA DEPICTS TOTAL CARGO HANDLE \nFOR THE LAST TEN YEARS DURING \nWHICH TIME CARGO VOLUME HAS \nREMAINED RELATIVELY CONSTANT. \nTHOUGH THE NUMBER OF VESSELS HAS \nCONTINUED TO DECREASE. SO\, \nTHANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO \nPRESENT THOSE SLIDES. ALLOWING \nME TO PRESENT THOSE SLIDES. I’M \nGOING TO HAND IT OFF TO ERIK \nJOLIFFE. \n>>ERIC JOLIFFE: THANKS ERICA. \nTHANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO \nSPEAK TO YOU. WHAT I’M GOING TO \nTALK ABOUT HERE HAS ALREADY BEEN \nDISCUSSED IN BRENDA’S \nPRESENTATION BUT LET’S GO OVER \nIT. WHERE WE’RE AT IN OUR NEPA \nCOMPLIANCE\, A LONG TIME AGO IN \nSEPTEMBER 2020 WE SENT OUT \nREQUESTS FOR COOPERATING \nAGENCIES\, THE ONLY AGENCY THAT \nACCEPTED WAS EPA SO THEY ARE \nCONTRIBUTING AS A COOPERATING \nAGENCY IN THIS STUDY. BETWEEN \nDECEMBER 17TH AND FEBRUARY 14TH \nWAS OUR COMMENT PERIOD FOR OUR \nINITIAL DOCUMENT THAT WE \nRELEASED\, AND BASED ON COMMENT \nTHAT WE RECEIVED FROM THAT \nDOCUMENT\, WE CHANGED THE DESIGN \nA LITTLE BIT THAT REQUIRED US TO \nRERELEASE\, AGAIN\, IN APRIL 26\, \n2023 TO JUNE 16TH\, 2023 WE HAD \nTHE COMMENT PERIOD ON OUR SECOND \nDOCUMENT THAT WE SENT OUT TO THE \nPUBLIC THAT ADDRESSED THE SHIFT \nIN ALIGNMENT THAT WE SHOWED YOU\, \nAND IT ADDRESSED SOME NEW \nREQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAD TO DO\, \nWE HAD TO — THE 50 DOCUMENT \nDIDN’T REQUIRE GUIDANCE DURING \nTHE FIRST DOCUMENT DIDN’T \nREQUIRE US TO ANALYZE GREENHOUSE \nGAS IMPACTS AND THE DOCUMENT NOW \nCONTAINS ANALYSIS OF THAT. \nAND THAT BRINGS US TO WHERE WE \nARE AT NOW. AND THEN WE ARE IN \nTHE FINAL PROCESSES OF \nADDRESSING COMMENTS\, PUBLIC \nCOMMENT AND AGENCY COMMENTS\, AND \nFINALIZING THE DOCUMENT. AND IN \nJANUARY\, HOPEFULLY ON THE 17th\, \nWE’LL TRANSMIT THAT TO OUR SOUTH \nPACIFIC DIVISION\, WHICH IS THE \nNEXT LEVEL ABOVE US\, AS A FINAL \nREPORT. AND SOMETIME AFTER — \nTHAT’S — AND IN THE PROCESS \nTHAT THEY TALKED ABOUT GETTING \nAWARDED AUTHORIZATION\, HOPEFULLY \nIN 2024\, AND AFTER THAT TIME\, \nWE’LL BE COMING BACK FOR A PHASE \nTWO CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION \nONCE WE HAVE ADDITIONAL \nINFORMATION WE’LL HAVE MORE \nDETAILED SEDIMENT \nCHARACTERIZATION\, WE’LL HAVE \nMORE DETAILED ENGINEERING \nINFORMATION\, AND WE’LL HAVE DONE \nSOME FURTHER COORDINATION WITH \nSOME OF THE AGENCIES. OKAY. \nGO AHEAD BRENDA. \nSO\, THE COMMENTS WE RECEIVED \nTHROUGH THE BOTH OF THESE \nCOMMENT PERIODS\, SOME OF THEM \nWERE FAIRLY CONSISTENT AND FROM \nNUMEROUS GROUPS\, ESPECIALLY WITH \nRELATION TO THE NOTION OF DOING \nAN EA\, INSTEAD OF AN EIS. AND \nIN CONCERT WITH THAT\, THE \nDECISION NOT TO COMBINE THE \nDOCUMENTS IN AN EA EIR. \nAND WE DECIDE THAT WE WERE ON \nTHE RIGHT PATH\, THAT THE \nDOCUMENT\, WE DIDN’T HAVE ANY \nSIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT WEREN’T \nMITIGABLE. SIMILAR IMPACTS TO \nAIR QUALITY SIMILAR TO TRUCK \nTRAFFIC AND THE PERCEPTION THAT \nTHIS PROJECT IS GOING TO INDUCE \nGROWTH AND INCREASE THE TRUCKS \nGOING THROUGH THEIR \nNEIGHBORHOODS\, THAT WAS STILL \nWHAT WE’RE WORKING THROUGH WITH \nTHE OAKLAND NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS\, \nESPECIALLY THE INDICATOR \nPROJECT. \nTHERE WERE CONCERNS ABOUT \nIMPACTS TO WATER QUALITY. \nTIMING\, WE GOT SOME COMMENTS. \nBECAUSE THE PORT IS STILL \nELECTRIFYING THINGS\, MOST FAST \nAS THEY CAN\, AND THEY’RE ASKING \nUS TO DELAY THE PROJECT INTO THE \nFUTURE ONCE EVERYTHING’S \nELECTRIC. THERE WERE COMPLAINTS \nTHAT WE WEREN’T ENGAGING WITH \nTHE PUBLIC SUFFICIENTLY. SOME \nPEOPLE ASKED US ONLY DO THE \nOUTER HARBOR TURNING BASIN. \nTHERE WAS SUPPORT FOR THE \nPROJECT FROM A NUMBER OF GROUPS \nAND PEOPLE WERE VERY HAPPY THAT \nWE WERE COMMITTING TO BENEFICIAL \nUSE OF EVERYTHING THAT WE COULD. \nAND THE SUPPORT FOR THE USE OF \nELECTRIC DREDGING WHICH REDUCES \nTHE AIR QUALITY IMPACTS OF \nCONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT. \nRESPONSES WILL BE INCLUDED IN \nTHE DOCUMENTS THAT WE’RE \nFINALIZING NOW\, AND WE’LL HAVE \nADDITIONAL COORDINATION THAT \nI’LL TALK ABOUT IN A LITTLE BIT \nTHAT WILL BE CONDUCTED IN THE \nFUTURE. GO AHEAD\, BRENDA. \nSO THESE AREN’T REALLY \nMITIGATION MEASURES\, BUT \nAVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION \nMEASURES THAT WE WILL BE USING. \nIF YOU LOOK AT THE APPENDIX\, \nTHIS IS A LONG LIST BUT BRIEF \nVERSION OF THAT. RELATED TO \nPILE DRIVING\, PLACING BULK HEADS \nIS GOING TO REQUIRE SHEET PILE \nDRIVING\, AND WE’RE COMMITTED TO \nUSING VIBE TORE METHODS FOR THAT \nWHICH PRODUCES LESS NOISE AS \nMUCH AS POSSIBLE. IT WON’T BE \nPOSSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING BUT \nWE’LL TRY TO MINIMIZE THE \nIMPACT. WE’LL BE USING NOISE \nATTENUATION MEASURES FOR IN \nWATER NOISE\, SO THE BIOLOGICAL \nACOUSTICAL MONITORING AND NOTION \nOF USING SOME NOISE — I’M \nTRYING TO REMEMBER THE TERM — \n>>SPEAKER: DAMPENING. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU BRENDA \nWE’LL BE COORDINATING WITH THE \nPHASE 2C D FOR MARINE MAMMAL \nIMPACTS\, AND THERE WILL BE HOW \nMANY PILES AND LOCATIONS AND \nWE’LL GET INTO THAT WITH NOAA \nAND WE’LL DEVELOP SOME \nREQUIREMENT FOR THE PROJECT TO \nPROTECT MARINE MAMMAL \nPOPULATIONS. WE’LL BE DOING EEL \nGRASS SURVEYS IN THE OUTER \nHARBOR\, THERE IS EEL GRASS \nFAIRLY CLOSE TO BE DOING \nDREDGING SOLELY PRE AND POST \nSURVEY AND SOME LIGHT MONITORING \nLIKE WE NORMALLY DO FOR O&M IN \nTHAT AREA WE’LL BE USING CLAM \nSHELL BUCKETS WE WON’T BE DOING \nHYDRAULIC DREDGING. THE TUG \nMOVEMENT NIGHT TIME ISN’T \nCORRECT. WE WERE CONSIDERING \nTHAT BUT IT TURNS OUT THAT’S NOT \nNECESSARY. THAT HAD TO DO WITH \nNOISE IN ALAMEDA DURING THE \nNIGHT TIME\, BUT IT TURNED OUT \nTHAT SLIPPED IN THERE IT’S NOT \nSUPPOSED TO BE THERE. THERE \nWERE VARIOUS VMTS FOR REDUCING \nPARTICULATE EMISSIONS AND \nFUGITIVE DUST. BUT KEEPING A \nLOW SPEED LIMIT\, LIMITING IDLING \nTIME FOR TRUCKS\, AS THEY’RE \nWAITING FOR STUFF TO LOAD AND \nUNLOAD. AND REQUIRING THAT ALL \nTHE CONTRACTORS USE EQUIPMENT \nTHAT MEET CARB’S CERTIFICATION \nSTANDARDS\, THINGS LIKE TIER FOUR \nENGINES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. \nBUT I SHOULD SAY HERE THERE ARE \nSOME MITIGATION MEASURES THAT \nARE REDUCING IMPACTS TO LESS \nTHAN SIGNIFICANT\, AND THOSE ARE \nTHE ONES THAT PEOPLE ARE \nPROBABLY MOST INTERESTED IN\, AND \nTHAT WOULD BE THE USE OF SILT \nCURTAINS WHICH IS PROBABLY NOT \nON THIS SLIDE\, BUT TO PREVENT \nEXPOSURE TO MARINE FAUNA\, TO \nSUSPENDED SEDIMENTS AND TO \nPOTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS THAT MAY \nBE CONTAINED IN THERE\, IN THE \nAREAS WHERE WE EXPECT \nCONTAMINATED MATERIALS TO BE\, \nWE’LL BE DOING THE DREDGING \nBEHIND A SILT CURTAIN. THE \nOTHER ONE WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT \nWITHOUT MITIGATION WOULD BE THE \nPILE DRIVING\, THE NOISE IMPACTS \nFROM THAT\, BUT WE’LL BE \nDEVELOPING BUBBLE CURTAINS AND \nAPPROPRIATE DISTANCES WHEN WE \nCOORDINATE. AND THE OTHER ONE \nIS AGREEING TO COMPLY WITH THE \nLTMS WINDOW THAT IS ESTABLISHED \nFOR AT LEAST IN WATER DREDGING \nFOR PROTECTION OF AQUATIC \nSPECIES. SO WE HAVE COMMITTED \nTO CONFORMING WITH THAT\, AS \nWELL. OKAY. THAT’S IT. \nBRENDA. \nSO\, THIS IS KIND OF A RECAP OF \nWHAT WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT. \nWE’RE LOOKING TO GET OUR \nCONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL IN \nJANUARY OF 2024 AND \nPRECONSTRUCTION\, WE’RE GOING \nINTO OUR PRECONSTRUCTION \nENGINEERING AND DESIGN\, WHERE WE \nFINALIZE THE TECHNICAL \nINFORMATION AND DEVELOP A FULL \nDESIGN\, AND WE’LL COME BACK TO \nBCDC FOR OUR PHASE TWO \nDETERMINATION ONCE WE HAVE \nENOUGH INFORMATION ABOUT 35%. \nWE ASSUME THAT WILL BE IN 2026 \nCOULD BE AS EARLY AS 2025 WE \nHOPE TO GO TO CONSTRUCTION IN \nJULY OF 2027 THAT WOULD RUN INTO \nOCTOBER OF 2029. THANK YOU\, \nBRENDA. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU ERIK AND \nERIKA. \n>>SPEAKER: I WANT TO SAY FOR \nTHE RECORD\, ON THAT SLIDE WHERE \nWE SAY MITIGATION MEASURES\, FOR \nTHE RECORD\, IT’S MINIMIZATION. \nSO WE’LL MAKE THAT CORRECTION ON \nTHE POWERPOINT BEFORE WE SUBMIT \nIT\, IF THAT’S OKAY. \n>>BRENDA GOEDEN: ABSOLUTELY. \nTHANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. \nI WANT TO MENTION ONE THING I \nACCIDENTALLY OMITTED AT THE \nOPENING OF MY STATEMENTS\, THE \nPORT AND CITY OF ALAMEDA\, THE \nSTAFF MET WITH THE CITY OF \nALAMEDA AND PORT OF OAKLAND AND \nARMY CORP REGARDING SOME \nCONCERNS AFTER THE STAFF SUMMARY \nWAS SENT OUT\, AND AS A RESULT \nBOTH ENTITIES PROVIDED SOME \nIMPROVED LANGUAGE FOR US. THE \nPORT OF OAKLAND INCLUDED SOME \nVERY EXTENSIVE LANGUAGE WHICH WE \nSUMMARIZED IN AN ADDENDUM AND \nATTACHED ERRATA SHEET THAT WAS \nSENT OUT TO THE COMMISSIONERS AT \n10:00 A.M. THIS MORNING SO IT IS \nIN YOUR COMMISSION PACKET. AND \nTHE CITY OF ALAMEDA INFORMATION \nIS INCLUDED SPECIFICALLY \nREGARDING THE ALAMEDA LANDING \nAREA. I WANTED TO POINT OUT TO \nTHE COMMISSION THAT WE DO \nAPPRECIATE ALL THREE ENTITY COME \nTOGETHER TO HELP US CLARIFY AND \nIMPROVE THE STAFF SUMMARY WHERE \nWE HAD SOME CLARITY NEEDS AND \nMISUNDERSTANDINGS OF PARTS OF \nTHE PROJECT. SO I JUST WANT TO \nTHANK THEM FOR THAT. AND WITH \nTHAT\, CHAIR WASSERMAN\, I WILL \nGIVE THE MEETING BACK TO YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. \nI WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC \nHEARING. ANY MEMBERS OF THE \nPUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A \nPUBLIC COMMENT\, PLEASE LINE UP \nAT THE PODIUM OR RAISE YOUR HAND \nIN ZOOM. WE WILL START WITH \nTHOSE IN THE ROOM. REYLINA\, DO \nWE HAVE ANY IN THE ROOM \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO \nPUBLIC COMMENT IN THE ROOM. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: HOW \nABOUT ON ZOOM? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: YES. \nALAN TAI. PLEASE UNMUTE \nYOURSELF. \n>>SPEAKER: CAN YOU HEAR ME? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON\, \nCHAIR WASSERMAN AND MEMBERS OF \nTHE COMMISSION. MY NAME IS ALAN \nTAI\, I AM THE PLANNING BUILDING \nAND TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR OF \nTHE CITY OF ALAMEDA WHERE A \nPORTION OF THIS PROJECT IS \nLOCATED. THE CITY OF ALAMEDA \nWANTS THE COMMISSION TO BE WAIR \nTHAT THE PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO \nOUR LOCAL DISCRETIONARY \nAPPROVALS. THE PROPERTY THAT’S \nAFFECTED BY THE PROJECT FALLS \nWITHIN THE CITY OF ALAMEDA’S \nALAMEDA LANDING MASTER PLAN \nAREA. THE PROPOSED PROJECT \nWOULD REMOVE SIX ACRES OR A \nTHIRD OF THE 18 ACRES THAT THE \nCITY HAS PLANNED FOR EMPLOYMENT \nLANDS AND THAT’S PART OF THE \nMASTER PLAN. SO WE BELIEVE THE \nPROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH OUR \nLOCAL MASTER PLAN AND WILL \nREQUIRE A MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT. \nAND THAT ACTION IS SUBJECT TO \nAPPROVAL BY OUR ALAMEDA CITY \nCOUNCIL. THE CITY ALSO HAS MANY \nCONCERNS ABOUT THIS PROJECT ON \nMATTERS NOT WITHIN THE BCDC \nJURISDICTION\, BUT THE PROPERTY \n— I’M SORRY — THE PROJECT’S \nLACK OF FLOOD AND SEA LEVEL RISE \nPROTECTIONS AND WATERFRONT \nPUBLIC ACCESS\, WHICH ARE WITHIN \nTHE COMMISSIONS REGULATORY AND \nPOLICY SCOPE AND AUTHORITY\, AND \nTHE CITY RESPECTFULLY ASKS THE \nCOMMISSION AND BCDC STAFF TO \nTAKE THE CITY’S CONCERNS INTO \nCONSIDERATION FOR YOUR UPCOMING \nACTIONS ON THIS PROJECT. THESE \nCOMMENTS ARE REFLECTED IN A \nLETTER ADDRESSED TO YOU BY OUR \nMAYOR AZZY ASH CONTRACT AND IS \nINCLUDED IN YOUR MEETING \nMATERIALS. THANK YOU FOR THE \nOPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON THIS \nITEM. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: MIKE \nJACOB. PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF. \n>>SPEAKER: HI I’M MIKE JACOB \nWITH PACIFIC MERCHANT SHIPPING \nASSOCIATION WE REPRESENT \nTERMINAL OPERATORS DOING \nBUSINESS AT PORT OF OAKLAND AND \nOBVIOUSLY WE SUPPORT THE \nCONSISTENCY DETERMINATION \nREQUEST FROM THE ARMY CORP AND \nSUBMITTED COMMENTS IN WRITING. \nAND JUST FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS \nAND TO EXPAND ON SOME OF THE \nCOMMENTS YOU HEARD FROM THE PORT \nAND THE ARMY CORP WITH RESPECT \nTO ISSUES REGARDING GROWTH AND \nAIR QUALITY. I THINK IT’S WORTH \nMENTIONING THAT THE ISSUES FOR \nUS ARE NOT THAT THE PORT WILL OR \nWILL NOT GROW WITH RESPECT TO \nTHE PROJECT. THE QUESTION IS \nWHETHER OR NOT THE PORT WILL \nGROW SAFELY\, AND WHETHER OR NOT \nWILL GROW CONSISTENT WITH THE \nTERMS OF OTHER PORTS THAT ARE ON \nOUR SAME VESSEL STRINGS AND DO \nSO IN A WAY WHICH REDUCES COST \nAND INCREASES EFFICIENCY. MAYBE \nTHE ANALOGY BEST USE IS WHEN YOU \nTHINK OF A VESSEL STRING PER \nCONTAINER LINES LIKE A BUS \nSERVICE WE SET UP A ROUTE AND \nSERVICE THAT ROUTE FOR OUR \nCUSTOMERS AND CUSTOMERS THEN \nWILL MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT \nIMPORTS AND EXPORTS BASED ON \nTHOSE SERVICES. THE SIZE OF THE \nBUS THAT SERVES THAT ROUTE\, \nWHETHER IT’S A SMALL BUS\, A \nLARGE BUS\, DOUBLE DECKER BUS\, \nDOESN’T MATTER IF YOU HAVE TO \nGET FROM PLACE A TO PLACE B. \nAND IT’S SIMILAR FOR US. YOU \nBOOK CARGO\, BECAUSE YOU HAVE A \nBUSINESS IMPERATIVE TO IMPORT OR \nEXPORT CARGO. IT DOESN’T MATTER \nTO THE IMPORTER OR EXPORTER THE \nSIZE OF THE VESSEL THAT COMES \nAND DOES THAT WORK. BUT IT DOES \nMATTER TO US\, AS THE OCEAN \nCARRIER\, WHEN YOU HAVE LARGER \nVESSELS\, YOU HAVE HIGHER \nEFFICIENCY\, LESS FUEL\, AND \nBECAUSE YOU’RE BURNING LESS FUEL \nPER BOX\, YOU’RE ACTUALLY \nDECREASING EMISSIONS PER UNIT\, \nAND OVERALL. WE WANT TO BRING \nIN THE LARGER VESSELS. WE WANT \nTO BRING IN THE MOST EFFICIENT \nVESSELS AND THE NEWEST VESSELS \nAND HAVE THEM IN THOSE STRINGS. \nAND THAT IS AT THE CORE OF WHY \nTHIS IS IMPORTANT FOR US\, FROM A \nCOMMERCIAL POINT OF VIEW\, IN \nADDITION TO THE REST OF THE \nISSUES WITH RESPECT TO SAFETY. \nWE LOOK FORWARD TO PARTICIPATING \nIN ADDITIONAL CONVERSATIONS ON \nTHIS PROJECT\, BUT IT’S \nIMPERATIVE THAT THIS MOVE \nFORWARD. AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR \nCONSIDERATION. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: KATRINA \nTHOMAS. PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF. \n>>SPEAKER: I’M KATRINA THOMAS \nWITH EARTH JUSTICE ALONGSIDE \nWITH WEST OAKLAND ENVIRONMENT AT \nINDICATOR’S PROJECT HAS BEEN \nENGAGING ON THIS PROJECT\, \nCOMMENTING TODAY TO URGE BCDC TO \nREJECT THE CORP REQUEST FOR \nCONSISTENCY DETERMINATION \nBECAUSE THE CORP HAS NOT \nCONDUCTED EQUITABLE OUTREACH AND \nTHE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ABOUT \nIMPACTED COMMUNITY MEMBERS NOR \nHAS THE COURT ADDRESSED \nCOMMUNITY CONCERNS CLEARLY \nIDENTIFIED MITIGATION FOR \nPROJECTS IMPACTS WHILE \nACKNOWLEDGING THE COURT HAS HELD \nPUBLIC MEETINGS ON THIS PROJECT \nNONE HAVE CONSISTED OF A \nDIALOGUE AND THE COURT HAS NOT \nENGAGED IN COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDER \nCONVERSATION ABOUT THE PROJECTS \nDURING DRAFTING OF ITS ANALYSIS \nTO IDENTIFY MITIGATION MEASURES. \nTHAT DOES NOT LIVE UP TO THE \nCOMMITMENTS IN THE WEST OAKLAND \nCOMMUNITY ACTION PLAN OR BIDEN \nADMINISTRATION’S RECENTLY \nADOPTED EXECUTIVE ORDERS \nREQUIRING AGENCIES THAT INVEST \nIN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT TO \nALSO IMPLEMENT STRATEGIES THAT \nWILL YIELD EQUITABLE OUTCOMES \nFOR UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES. \nTHE COURT’S FAILURE TO \nCOORDINATE THE ENVIRONMENTAL \nREVIEW WITH THE PORT HAS LEFT \nCOMMUNITY MEMBERS IN THE DARK \nWITH INCOMPLETE INFORMATION AND \nTHE COMERY CORP DATA ANALYSIS \nDIDN’T FIND SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS \nBUT THE PORT OF OAKLAND AND CEQA \nREVIEW CONCLUDES THE PROJECT \nWOULD HAVE SIGNIFICANT \nUNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS TO NEARBY \nCOMMUNITIES EVEN ARCH PROPOSED \nMITIGATION. THE FAILURE TO \nCOORDINATE HAS LEFT QUESTIONS \nENTIRELY UNANSWERED. I ALSO \nWANT TO NOTE THE ENVIRONMENTAL \nANALYSIS OF ALL IMPACT AREAS \nINCLUDING WATER QUALITY AND \nBIOLOGICAL RESOURCE IMPACT. WE \nDON’T KNOW WHAT THE PROJECT \nIMPACTS WILL BE AS MORE SHIPS \nBEGIN TO VISIT. ALSO BECAUSE \nCORE CONSTRAINTS SCOPE OF \nANALYSIS IS LIMED TO ONE MILE \nRADIUS FROM PROJECT SITE IT \nDOWNPLAYS BOTH CONSTRUCTION AND \nOPERATION IMPACTS TO WATER \nQUALITY AND WILDLIFE IN THE BAY. \nBCDC SHOULD REJECT THE REQUEST \nFOR CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION \nBCDC IS NOT BEHOLDEN TO INDUSTRY \nINTEREST AND WE ENCOURAGE THE \nCOMMISSION TO LISTEN TO THE \nCOMMUNITY CONCERNS AND USE YOUR \nAUTHORITY ON THIS PROJECT TO \nPREVENT A HOST OF ENVIRONMENTAL \nIMPACTS. THANK YOU. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: ROBERT \nROGERS. PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF. \n>>SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR \nWASSERMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE \nCOMMISSION. THANK YOU FOR THE \nOPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT. MY NAME \nIS ROGER\, AND I AM HERE ON \nBEHALF OF THE BAY PLANNING \nCOALITION ALIGNING WITH THE \nORGANIZATIONS MISSION OF \nPROMOTING ENVIRONMENTAL \nSUSTAINABILITY AND ECONOMIC \nDEVELOPMENT OF THE REGION BCDC \nWOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS OUR \nSUPPORT FOR THE OAKLAND TURNING \nBASIN-WIDENING PROJECT BY \nINCREASING EFFICIENCY AND \nENHANCING CAPABILITIES AT THE \nPORT OF OAKLAND. THE PORT OF \nOAKLAND GENERATES 98\,340 LOCAL \nJOBS AND IS THE SECOND LARGEST \nJOB GENERATOR IN THE CITY OF \nOAKLAND AND FIFTH LARGEST IN THE \nREGION IT REMAINS CRITICAL \nSOURCE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY \nAND JOBS IN THE NORTHERN \nCALIFORNIA MOREOVER VALUE \nHIGHLIGHTS FROM BUSINESS REVENUE \nCONSUMER SPENDING AND TOTAL \nVALUE OF GOODS SERVICES THE PORT \nADDS $174 BILLION IN ECONOMIC \nVALUE. THE PROPOSED PROJECT \nWOULD IMPROVE NAVIGATIONAL \nACCESS FOR LARGER VESSELS. BY \nOPTIMIZING OPERATIONS THE \nPROJECT WILL SUPPORT A GREENER \nFUTURE FOR OUR COMMUNITIES BY \nREDUCING CONGESTION AND \nMINIMIZING STAGNANT VESSELS THE \nPORT OF OAKLAND IS A VITAL \nECONOMIC HUB FOR THE REGION AND \nTHE NATION. ALLOWING FOR THE \nWIDENING OF THE TURNING BASIN \nENSURES PROSPERING ECONOMIC \nCONDITIONS CONTINUE TO THRIVE I \nWOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR THE \nOPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON BEHALF \nOF THE BAY PLANNING COALITION. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: SEAN \nSWENDSEN. PLEASE UNMUTE \nYOURSELF. \n>>SPEAKER: YES\, CAN YOU HEAR ME \nALL RIGHT? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: YES. \nYES. \n>>SPEAKER: YES\, MY CONCERN IS \nVERY BRIEF. WE HEARD FROM THE \nCITY OF ALAMEDA TODAY. I \nBELIEVE HAS NAME IS ALAN TAI\, \nAND I’M WONDERING\, HE REFERENCED \nA LETTER THAT WAS WRITTEN BY THE \nCITY OF ALAMEDA TO BCDC FOR \nCONSIDERATION AS PART OF THIS \nAPPROVAL PROCESS\, AND I WAS \nWONDERING IF YOU WOULD BE SO \nKIND AS TO INCLUDE THAT LETTER \nIN THE BCDC’S PORTAL OF OTHER \nDOCUMENTS RELATED TO THIS \nAPPROVAL PROCESS SO THAT THOSE \nIN THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO \nREAD THE LETTER CAN ACCESS IT. \nTHAT’S ALL. THANK YOU. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: EVEY\, \nPLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF. \n>>SPEAKER: HELLO. MY NAME IS \nEVEY FONG\, A MEMBER OF THE \nCUSTOMS BROKERS FORWARDERS \nASSOCIATION OF NORTHERN \nCALIFORNIA. I WANT TO SPEAK UP \nTODAY AND OFFER SUPPORT FOR THE \nTURNING BASIN PROJECT. THE \nTURNING BASIN IS NECESSARY AND \nRESPONSIBLE PROJECT TO ENSURE \nTHE PORT OF OAKLAND CONTINUES AS \nAN ESSENTIAL WEST COAST GATEWAY \nTO U.S. COMMERCE. WE\, AT THE \nPORT OF OAKLAND\, IT IS \nNECESSARY\, AS A REGIONAL PORT \nAND WITH THE LARGER COMMERCIAL \nSHIPS\, THIS WILL ENSURE THE \nPORT’S FUTURE AS THE NECESSARY \nREGIONAL PORT. DECISIONS MADE \nTODAY WILL ENSURE CURRENT \nCONTRACTS TO ENDURE AND SUCCEED \nINTO THE FUTURE. THIS TURNING \nBASIN WILL TAKE ABOUT TEN YEARS. \nIT IS NECESSARY THAT THE \nDECISIONS MADE WILL GO FORWARD \nWITH THE PROJECT. THE FACT THAT \nTHE EXISTING CHANNEL AND TURNING \nBASINS WERE LAST UPDATED 25 \nYEARS AGO\, I THINK IT’S TIME TO \nREDESIGN THE PORT INTO THE NEXT \n25 YEARS. AND THEN LASTLY\, \nINFRASTRUCTURE. AS SAID FOR \nCARB CONCERNS\, THE TURNING BASIN \nACCOMMODATES FOR SHORE POWER \nINFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AND \nOTHER INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDED THAT \nTHE — ANY ENVIRONMENTAL \nCONCERNS AND ELECTRIFICATION CAN \nBE ACCOMMODATED. THOSE ARE GOOD \nTHINGS. AND THAT IS THE AIR \nQUALITY MEASURES THAT ARE NOW \nREQUIRED BY THE STATE. THIS \nWILL BE SUSTAINABLE\, COMPATIBLE \nGROWTH FOR THE PORT AND CITY OF \nOAKLAND. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR \nALLOWING ME TO SPEAK TODAY. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: SUNG \nLEE. PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF. \n>>SPEAKER: HELLO. THIS IS SUNG \nLEE. I AM THE VICE CHAIR OF \nNORTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT \nEXPORT COUNCIL. A PRIVATE \nINDUSTRY ADVISORY GROUP \nAPPOINTED BY THE SECRETARY OF \nRAI MONDO OF DEPARTMENT OF \nCOMMERCE ALSO REPRESENTING HERE \nAS PRESIDENT OF NORTHERN \nCALIFORNIA CUSTOM BROKERS AND \nFREIGHT FORWARDERS ASSOCIATION \nTHAT CLEARS CUSTOMS AT THE \nPORTS. WE’RE SUPPORTING THE \nTURNING BASIN AT THE PORT OF \nOAKLAND THE PROJECT IS DESIGNED \nTO IMPROVE VESSEL TRANSIT \nEFFICIENCIES AND NAVIGATIONAL \nSAFETY AND WE FULLY SUPPORT THAT \nMORE ALSO ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS \nINCLUDING REDUCTION OF EMISSIONS \nAT THE RATE OF GROWTH OF \nEMISSIONS PER CONTAINER AND \nDECREASING GHG EMISSIONS BY \nBOATING CARGO\, THE DIVERSION IS \nONE OF OUR GOALS. I WORK IN THE \nCONTAINER SHIPPING INDUSTRY THE \nSHIPPING COMPANIES THAT ARE \nCALLING PORT OF OAKLAND ARE \nPURCHASING PLACING ORDERS ON \nNEWER AND CLEANER VESSELS THAT \nIS GOING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF \nTHE LARGER TURNING BASIN THEY \nWILL BE COMPLETED ABOUT THE SAME \nTIME AS WHEN THE TURNING BASIN \nIS COMPLETED SO WE LOOK FORWARD \nTO HAVING THE CLEANER SHIPS CALL \nOAKLAND THANK YOU VERY MUCH. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: SUSAN \nRANSOM. \n>>SPEAKER: HI EVERYBODY\, WITH \nSSA TERMINAL IN OAKLAND FIRST I \nWOULD LIKE TO THANK ALL THE \nPARTIES FOR CONTINUING TO WORK \nTOWARDS THE TURNING BASIN THE \nDISCUSSIONS ARE GOOD IT’S \nESSENTIAL TO THE FUTURE OF \nOAKLAND ECONOMIC ENGINE THAT \nSUPPORTS EVERYONE NEAR AND FAR I \nHAVE ALL DREDGING EQUIPMENT \nNEEDED TO WIDENING THE DURING \nBASIN WOULD BE ELECTRIC AND SOIL \nWOULD BE REPURPOSED. AS FAR AS \nADDITIONAL CONTAINER TRAFFIC \nTHAT WOULD BE DICTATED BY THE \nMARKETPLACE. THE TURNING \nPROJECT CHANGES THE NUMBER AND \nTYPE OF SHIPS FACILITATING THAT \nCOMMERCE. THIS WON’T BE BRING \nMASSIVE ADDITIONAL CONTAINERS IT \nWILL CONSOLIDATE CARGO WITH \nOLDER SMALLER SHIPS BEING \nDEPLOYED ELSEWHERE AND THE NEWER \nLARGER SHIPS WILL BE MORE \nENVIRONMENTALLY CLEAN COMING \nINTO THE PORT ALL OF THE MARINE \nTERMINALS IN THE PORT ITSELF ARE \nCOMMITTED TO DOING BUSINESS \nZERO-EMISSIONS. KEEP IN MIND \nTHE WIDER THE TURNING BASIN THE \nSAFER AND FASTER SHIPS TURN IT’S \nA WIN-WIN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT \nAND ECONOMY. IN ADDITION TO \nMANDATES AND REGULATIONS \nCALIFORNIA IS PUTTING ON \nTRUCKING COMPANIES TO BE RUNNING \n0 EMISSIONS\, IT’S LIKELY THAT \nTHE INDUSTRY WILL LOSE ABOUT 25% \nOF TRUCK CAPACITY AS MANY WON’T \nBE ABLE TO AFFORD THE NEW TRUCKS \nSO THERE WILL BE LESS TRAFFIC \nOVERALL AND LESS POLLUTION NOT \nMORE. ALREADY INVESTING \nMILLIONS OF DOLLARS GETTING TO \nTHE GOAL OF ZERO EMISSIONS AND \nVESSELS ARE ALREADY PLUGGING \nINTO SHORE POWER ELIMINATING \nNEED FOR DIESEL GENERATORS AT \nTHE PORTS WE HAVE AN \nENVIRONMENTAL TEAM WITHIN OUR \nCOMPANY WORKING ENDLESSLY WITH \nTHE PORT AND ALL OTHERS TO MEET \nCHALLENGES OF NEW CALIFORNIA \nREGULATIONS WE ARE NOT DONE BY \nFAR BUT ARE CONTINUING TO \nADVANCE THE GOAL. WE ARE \nCRITICAL PARTNERS INCLUDING THE \nPORT OF OAKLAND AND ASK THAT IT \nBE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT BY THE TIME \nTHIS PROJECT BREAKS GROUND WE’LL \nBE ONE OF THE CLEANEST PORTS IN \nTHE WORLD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO \nFURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU\, ALL\, FOR THAT. \nI WOULD NOW ENTERTAIN A MOTION \nTO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND \nA SECOND\, PLEASE? \n>>SPEAKER: SECOND. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nVICE CHAIR MOVES. AND I’M \nSORRY. WHO SECONDED? \nOH I SEE SEVERAL HERE. I’LL \nTAKE COMMISSIONER GUNTHER’S \nSECOND. \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. \nPLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU \nAGREE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC \nHEARING. ANYBODY OPPOSED TO \nCLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING? \nPUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. \nTHANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. \nWE WILL NOW ENTERTAIN COMMISSION \nQUESTIONS AND COMMENTS. \nI’M GOING TO RECOGNIZE \nCOMMISSIONER EISEN FIRST\, AND \nTHEN I’LL GO TO THE SCREEN. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: I \nHAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS. I \nDON’T KNOW EXACTLY WHO TO DIRECT \nTHEM TO. AND I DON’T KNOW IF \nTHEY’RE PREMATURE. BUT THERE \nWAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT PUBLIC \nACCESS AND\, OF COURSE\, MIDDLE \nHARBOR SITS BETWEEN THESE TWO \nTURNING BASINS. AND MIDDLE \nHARBOR IS THE BIGGEST AREA OF \nPUBLIC ACCESS THAT OAKLAND HAS. \nI WAS THERE A WEEK AGO\, BECAUSE \nIT’S A MASSIVE BIRDING \nDESTINATION\, AND THE — I DON’T \nKNOW IF THIS IS RELATED IN ANY \nWAY\, SHAPE\, OR FORM\, BUT ALL OF \nTHE VEGETATION HAD BEEN REMOVED \nFROM MIDDLE HARBOR. AND I DON’T \nKNOW HOW THAT IS GOING TO BE \nIMPACTED BY THIS — WHAT SOUNDS \nLOOK A VERY LARGE PROJECT\, \nWHETHER IT’S GOING TO BE \nEXPANDED IN TERMS OF PUBLIC \nACCESS ON OR WHETHER IT’S GOING \nTO BE — WE HAVE TALK ABOUT IT \nBEFORE ON THE COMMISSION\, THAT \nIT IS A SAD AND UNHAPPY PLACE\, \nAND THAT THERE WAS COMMITMENTS \nBY THE PORT OF OAKLAND AND \nOTHERS THAT THEY WOULD IMPROVE \nIT. SO\, I’M NOT — I REALLY \nWOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT \nHAPPENS TO MIDDLE HARBOR IN THE \nMIDST OF THIS ENTIRE PROJECT. \nTHAT’S NUMBER ONE. AND\, SORT \nOF\, RELATED\, I HEARD FROM ONE OF \nTHE PRESENTERS THAT ONE OF THE \nMITIGATION MEASURES IS TO AVOID \nDOING CONSTRUCTION DURING BIRD \nBREEDING SEASON. I WONDER WHO \nIS GOING TO HELP DETERMINE WHEN \nTHAT IS AND WHAT KIND OF IMPACT \nTHAT HAS ON THE PROJECT. \nBECAUSE JUST NOT CONSTRUCTING AT \nALL DURING BIRD BREEDING SEASON \nIS GOING TO BE\, YOU KNOW\, \nCOSTLY\, AND DIFFICULT TO \nSCHEDULE. SO\, I REALLY WANT TO \nUNDERSTAND THAT. \nBRENDA MENTION THAT WE NEED TO \nDECIDE NEXT MEETING SO WE CAN \nCONCUR AND THAT CAN BE ATTACHED \nTO THE CHIEF’S STATEMENT\, I \nTHINK WAS THE EXPRESSION. AND I \nWONDER IF THE CHIEF’S STATEMENT \nIS WHAT NEEDS TO BE SUBMITTED TO \nCONGRESS\, BECAUSE THE TIMELINE \nSAYS THAT WE’RE GOING TO BE \nASKING — THE ARMY CORP IS GOING \nTO BE ASKING CONGRESS FOR\, I \nGUESS\, VOTE ON THIS IN JANUARY\, \nWHICH IS JUST TWO WEEKS AWAY. \nSO\, AND ONLY TEN DAYS AWAY FROM \nOUR NEXT MEETING. I’M WONDERING \nWHAT THE ANSWER IS TO THE \nQUESTION ABOUT WHY WE NEED TO \nEXPAND BOTH TURNING BASINS\, WHY \nIT ISN’T SUFFICIENT JUST TO \nEXPAND THE ONE THAT’S IN THE \nOUTER HARBOR AND NOT THE ONE \nTHAT’S IN THE INNER HARBOR. AND \nMAYBE ALL OF THIS IS GOING TO BE \nANSWERED AT OUR NEXT MEETING? \nOR MAYBE IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR \nUS TO HAVE ANSWERS TO THESE \nPRIOR TO OUR DECISION ON WHETHER \nTO CONCUR. THERE IS A LOT OF \nCOMMENT ABOUT HOW THIS IS GOING \nTO BE BENEFICIAL FOR SAFETY \nREASONS AND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL \nREASONS BUT IT’S NOT NECESSARILY \nGOING TO CHANGE\, SORT OF\, THE \nECONOMICS. BUT I REALLY DON’T \nUNDERSTAND SOME BASIC THINGS. I \nMEAN\, HOW MUCH GROWTH IN THESE \nLARGER SHIPS ARE WE SEEING? IS \nIT EXPECTED TO CONTINUE? AND \nFOR HOW LONG? SO THAT THAT\, \nSORT OF\, DATA\, WHETHER THIS IS \nREALLY A NECESSARY PROJECT\, I \nDON’T HAVE THAT. MAYBE IT’S IN \nSOME DOCUMENTS\, MAYBE SOMEONE \nCAN POINT ME TO IT. WITH THAT I \nHAVE EXHAUSTED MY TIME ASKING \nQUESTIONS \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nWE’LL WORK ON ANSWERS. \n>>SPEAKER: I’LL TAKE THE EASY \nONE. THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT \nWHEN IT’S GOING TO CONGRESS. \nRIGHT NOW THE REPORT IS BEING \nFINALIZED AND IT’S GOING TO \nHEADQUARTERS IN JANUARY AND THEN \nTHE CHIEF’S REPORT IS COMPLETED \nAND SUBMITTED IN MAY\, END OF \nMAY\, 2024\, TO CONGRESS. YEAH\, \nTHE CHIEF’S REPORT THAT GOES TO \nCONGRESS. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: I’M \nPRETTY SURE THAT I SAW THAT IT \nWAS ON JANUARY ON THE SLIDE. \n>>SPEAKER: I THINK IT WAS \nINCORRECT\, AS WELL. YEAH. SO \nIT STARTS — ONCE WE SUBMIT IT \nTO HEADQUARTERS IT\, SORT OF\, \nSTARTS THAT PROCESS OF GETTING \nIT TO — GETTING THE CHIEF’S \nREPORT PREPARED AND SUBMITTING \nTO CONGRESS FOR CONGRESSIONAL \nAPPROVAL. WE’LL MAKE A \nCORRECTION ON THAT POWERPOINT. \nSO THAT WAS THE EASY ONE. ON \nTHE ENVIRONMENTAL ONE\, REGARDING \nTHE BIRD NESTING SEASON\, I’LL \nLET ERIK THEN ON THE ECONOMICS \nWE’LL BRING JUSTIN UP TO ANSWER \nTHAT QUESTION. AND ALL OF THIS \nIS IN THE REPORT. \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH\, WE HAVE THE \nRESTRICTION ON TIMING FOR BIRDS \nWAS RELATED TO PILE DRIVING \nONLY. IT WAS ONLY IN THE \nPILE-DRIVING MEASURES. WE’RE \nGOING TO ATTEMPT TO STAY WITHIN \nTHAT WINDOW\, THE ONLY BIRDS WE \nWOULD BE COMING INTO CONTACT \nWITH FROM A NESTING STANDPOINT \nAT HOWARD TERMINAL WOULD BE \nPOTENTIAL PEREGRINE FALCONS THAT \nWOULD BE IN THE CRANES BUT IT’S \nHIGHLY INDUSTRIALIZED CONTAINERS \nBEING MOVED AROUND BY TRUCKS ALL \nOVER THE PLACE BUT IT’S IN \nMOTION AND COMPLETELY PAVED AND \nCONTAINED. WITH INTERRUPTING \nFORGING OF SOME BIRDS\, WE \nBELIEVE IN OUR INNER AND OUTER \nHARBOR BASINS ARE NOT PREFERRED \nHABITAT FOR THE TURINS. THE \nPROJECT SHOWED THAT THE MOST \nOVERWHELMING LARGE AMOUNT OF \nFORAGING HAPPENS SOUTH OF \nALAMEDA. THERE IS A BIG COLONY \nIN ALAMEDA AT THE AIR FIELD \nLARGEST COLONY IN NORTHERN \nCALIFORNIA\, LARGELY FORAGED \nWITHIN THREE MILES SOUTH OF THE \nISLAND TOWARDS BAY FARM AND \nTHAT’S WHERE THE OVERWHELMING \nAMOUNT OF THAT HAPPENS SINCE \nIT’S NOW STARTING TO HAPPEN IN \nTHE MIDDLE ONCE WE CREATED THAT \nHABITAT DURING THE 50 FOOTWORK. \nWE’RE STILL WORKING ON MILL \nHARBOR WE’RE DOING EEL GRASS \nSURVEYS WE DID PLANTING LAST \nYEAR AND ARE ANALYZING POTENTIAL \nFOR ADDITIONAL PHASE TWO \nPLANTING OF EEL GRASS. WE NEED \nTO COMPLETE THE MARSH THAT’S IN \nTHAT CORNER THAT LOOKS \n[INDISCERNIBLE] NOW\, WE’RE \nCOMMITTED TO DOING SOME TIDAL \nMARSH FOR INTERPRETATIVE \nPURPOSES\, AND WITH THE OAKLAND \nCOMMUNITY CAN COME AND SEE WHAT \nTHE MARSH IS SUPPOSED TO LOOK \nLIKE. WHICH CROSSES BOTH \nPROJECTS AT SHORELINE PARK AND \nIT WILL ENHANCE THE AREA AND \nWE’LL HAVE SOME OPTIONS TO FIX \nTHAT BEACH AND I CAN’T ANSWER \nTHE QUESTION ABOUT THE PLANTS IN \nTHE UPLAND AREAS SOMEBODY AT THE \nPORT MIGHT KNOW THE ANSWER TO \nTHAT ONE. \n>>JUSTIN TASCHEK: JUSTIN \nTASCHEK\, PORT OF OAKLAND I’LL \nADDRESS THE QUESTION RELATED TO \nHASH BORE OUTER BASIN ONLY. \nTHERE ARE TWO TURNING BASINS AND \nIT MIGHT HELPFUL TO PULL UP THE \nPRESENTATION MATERIAL THAT DOES \nHAVE THE SEAPORT OVERVIEW\, IF \nTHAT COULD BE PULLED UP\, FROM \nBRENDA? \n>>SPEAKER: WORKING ON IT. JUST \nA SECOND. \n>>SPEAKER: WHILE SHE’S DOING \nTHAT\, I WANT TO MENTION HERE \nEACH TURNING BASIN PROVIDES ITS \nOWN UTILITY FOR TURNING BASINS \nFOR THE OUTER HARBOR TURNING \nBASIN AND PROPERTIES IN THE \nINCARBON TURNING BASIN THESE \nPROPERTIES ARE LEASED OUT THAT \nOPERATES THE FACILITIES AND \nTHESE LEASES DO COMPETE FOR THE \nBUSINESSES SO THE VESSELS WE \nTALKED ABOUT THAT VISIT THE PORT \nOF OAKLAND FULL-SIZED VESSELS\, \nGO TO BOTH THE OUTER AND INNER \nHARBOR IT’S INTEGRAL AND \nIMPORTANT TO REMAIN COMPETITIVE \nTHROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PORT \nCOMPLEX TO ALLOW ALL VESSEL \nSIZES TO VISIT ALL PROPERTIES \nWITHIN THE PORT COMPLEX AS THOSE \nARE MARINE TERMINAL PROPERTIES. \nBRENDA COULD YOU PULL UP THE ONE \nBEFORE THAT? \n>>SPEAKER: THAT ONE? \n>>JUSTIN TASCHEK: THE SEAPORT \nFIGURE THAT HAS ALL THE \nDIFFERENT BOUNDARIES AND LIMITS\, \nI WOULD MENTION SUZANNE PROVIDED \nPUBLIC COMMENT THEY DO OPERATE \nTHE LARGEST FACILITY IN THE PORT \nOF OAKLAND KNOWN AS OAKLAND \nINTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL \nIT IS RIGHT NOW MOVING GREATER \nTHAN HALF OF THE TOTAL VOLUMES \n60% CATEGORY OF THE VOLUMES \nTHAT’S SERVED EXCLUSIVELY BY THE \nINNER HARBOR TURNING BASIN IT’S \nVERY IMPORTANT THAT WE DO \nPROVIDE THAT COMPETITIVE \nLANDSCAPE TO WIDEN BOTH THE \nTURNING BASINS. THANK YOU. \nBRENDA — \n>>SPEAKER: I’M JUST \nEMBARRASSING MYSELF AT THIS \nPOINT. THANK YOU. \n>>JUSTIN TASCHEK: THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND? \n>>PAT EKLUND: THANK YOU VERY \nMUCH. FIRST OF ALL\, FOR FULL \nDISCLOSURE\, I WANT TO MAKE SURE \nTHAT EVERYONE KNOWS THAT I DID \nWORK FOR THE U.S. ARMY CORP OF \nENGINEERS FOR EIGHT YEARS\, AND \nAM VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE \nDREDGING ISSUES. AND I ALSO \nWORKED FOR THE U.S. \nENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY \nFOR 35 YEARS WHERE AT ONE POINT \nI WAS IN CHANGE OF THE NPDS \nPERMITTING PROGRAM SECTION 404 \nWHICH DEALT WITH A LOT OF \nDREDGING\, AND A LOT OF OTHER \nWATER RELATED ISSUES. \nI HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT \nI’M GOING TO — WOULD LIKE TO \nSTART OUT WITH A COUPLE OF THEM\, \nAND THEN ASK THAT WE HAVE AN \nOPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT WRITTEN \nQUESTIONS — OR ASK WHEN WE CAN \nALSO SUBMIT WRITTEN QUESTIONS \nAFTERWARD AND MAYBE GET SOME \nANSWERS BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING. \nBUT WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT \nLATER. SO FIRST OF ALL\, I AGREE \nWITH THE SPEAKER REQUESTING A \nCOPY OF THAT LETTER OF THE \nLETTER FROM THE CITY OF ALAMEDA. \nI WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A BETTER \nUNDERSTANDING ABOUT WHAT \nALAMEDA\, CITY OF ALAMEDA’S \nCONCERNS ARE. AND I’M NOT QUITE \nSURE TO WHAT EXTENT\, AND THIS IS \nA QUESTION\, DOES BCDC NEED TO \nMAKE ANY TYPE OF A DECISION \nWHERE THAT — THIS ACTION IS \nALSO GOING TO BE IN COMPLIANCE \nWITH LOCAL — A NEARBY \nJURISDICTION\, OR A JURISDICTION \nTHAT’S GOING TO BE AFFECTED BY \nTHE ACTIVITY. SO\, SHOULD WE — \nIS IT REQUIRED THAT WE HAVE A \nBETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE \nIMPACT IS GOING TO BE TO THE \nCITY OF ALAMEDA? AND WHAT \nREMEDIES ARE POSSIBLY AVAILABLE? \n>>BRENDA GOEDEN: I CAN TAKE \nTHAT ITEM AS A STARTER AND \nOTHERS CAN JOIN IN. THE LETTER \nFROM THE CITY OF ALAMEDA IS \nCURRENTLY POSTED ON OUR WEB SITE \nUNDER THE SUPPLEMENTAL \nINFORMATION IF YOU GO TO THE \nAGENDA THAT’S THE SUPPLEMENTAL \nINFORMATION THERE\, WE RECEIVED \nTHREE PUBLIC COMMENTS WRITTEN \nBEFORE THE COMMISSION MEETING. \nSO THAT WAS ONE OF THEM. ALSO \nTHE ADDENDUM\, WHERE I TRIED TO \nEXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT BETTER SOME \nOF THE INFORMATION WE DIDN’T GET \nQUITE RIGHT IN THE STAFF SUMMARY \nIS IN THERE. SO REGARDING THE \nLOCAL DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL IN \nTHE CITY OF ALAMEDA. RIGHT NOW \nWE’RE AT THE FEASIBILITY STAGE \nSO THE CORP FINISHED THE STUDY \nOF WHETHER OR NOT IT’S FEASIBLE \nFOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO \nHAVE A PIECE IN THIS AND THEY \nHAVE SAID YES FIRST PHASE \nCONSISTENCY SO WE’RE LOOKING TO \nFIND OUT NEXT MEETING AS THE \nCOMMISSION SEES THE PROJECT IS \nGENERAL CONSISTENT WITH ITS LAWS \nAND POLICIES NEPA — EXCUSE ME\, \nIT DOES REQUIRE THAT THE LAWS \nAND POLICIES OF THE COMMISSIONER \nMET AS PART OF THE FILL STILL \nPART OF THE MCATEER-PETRIS ACT \nTHERE IS A REQUIREMENT FOR THE \nFILL ON THE PROPERTY THAT THERE \nIS PROPERTY INTEREST SO WE \nCANNOT REQUIRE THE PORT OR CORP \n— THE LOCAL SPONSOR THE CORP IS \nREQUIRED TO GET THE LAND’S \nEASEMENTS AND RIGHT OF WAY \nBEFORE THE CORP CAN CONSTRUCT \nTHE PROJECT SO THAT MEANS THE \nPORT OF OAKLAND HAS TO GET THOSE \nPROPERTIES THEY WOULD GET THAT I \nBELIEVE WORKING WITH THE CITY OF \nALAMEDA AND IN ORDER FOR US TO \nISSUE A PERMIT TO THE PORT OF \nOAKLAND FOR THIS PROJECT OF \nTHEIR UPCOMING APPLICATION IN A \nCOUPLE OF YEARS\, THEY WOULD HAVE \nTO PROVIDE THE LOCAL \nDISCRETIONARY APPROVAL AND THE \nPROPERTY INTEREST BECAUSE THAT \nPROJECT IS FULLY UNDER THE \nMCATEER-PETRIS ACT AND THE BAY \nPLAN AND OUR STATE AUTHORITY \nVERSUS OUR FEDERAL AUTHORITY \nUNDER CDMZMA. THAT WAS A LOT. \nDOES IT MAKE SENSE? \n>>PAT EKLUND: YEAH IT IF WE \nTOOK ACTION AT THE NEXT MEETING \nTHAT WOULD STILL ALLOW US AS THE \nTIME COMES BACK TO ADD SOME \nADDITIONAL CONDITIONS IF WE \nWANTED TO HELP MITIGATE SOME OF. \n>>ANDREW FREMIER: IMPACTS? \n>>SPEAKER: YES AND WE WILL NOT \nBE RECOMMENDING THAT WE ALLOW \nTHE PROJECT TO GO FORWARD WE \nWILL NOT AUTHORIZE ANY WORK AT \nTHIS TIME SO IF WE DON’T HAVE \nTHOSE DETAILS. \n>>PAT EKLUND: THAT HELPS ME A \nLOT. THE OTHER ISSUE THAT IS \nPROBABLY A LITTLE BIT LARGER AND \nI’M ASSUMING THAT BCDC HAS AN \nINTEREST IN IT I WORKED FOR U.S. \nEPA\, I PUSHED REALLY HARD\, WE \nTRIED TO SET UP A PROGRAM TO \nREUSE THE DREDGE MATERIAL \nBECAUSE AS YOU KNOW THERE’S NOT \nENOUGH DREDGE MATERIAL AVAILABLE \nTO DO ALL THE WETLAND \nINSPIRATION THAT’S NEEDED AROUND \nSAN FRANCISCO BAY ESTUARY AREA\, \nAND SO I SAW IN THE REPORT \nTHEY’RE TALKING ABOUT NOT ONLINE \nLOOKING TO REUSE THE MATERIAL \nBUT I DIDN’T SEE SPECIFIC AREAS \nOR WHETHER IT’S MARSH LANDS\, I \nSAW FILL\, BUT I DIDN’T SEE ANY \nWETLAND RESTORATION. YOU CAN \nHELP ME TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THAT \nMATERIAL MIGHT OR WHETHER IT HAS \nBEEN DETERMINED BECAUSE I KNOW \nTHEY HAVE TO DO A LOT OF TESTING \nFIRST. \n>>SPEAKER: FOR BENEFICIAL REUSE \nI THINK WE MENTIONED HERE \nWETLAND RESTORATION\, WE THINK \nTHEY MIGHT GO TO BENEFICIAL \nDEEPER MATERIAL\, IT HAS NOT BEEN \nIMPACTED BY INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY\, \nAND HAVE RECEIVED SUSTAINABILITY \nDETERMINATION IN THE 1990S THAT \nMATERIAL IS CLEAN ENOUGH TO GO \nTO BENEFICIAL REUSE. I BELIEVE \nTHE PORT HAVE BEEN TALKING TO \nMONTEZUMA WETLANDS BECAUSE THEY \nCAN TAKE BOTH FOUNDATION AND \nCOVER QUALITY MATERIAL THAT IS \nNOT DETERMINED YET BECAUSE WE’RE \nNOT AT THAT LEVEL OF DESIGN\, IF \nBEL MARIN KEYS CAME ONLINE SOME \nOF THE MATERIAL COULD GO THERE\, \nIF COLIN IS OPERATIONAL SOME OF \nTHE MATERIALS COULD GO THERE\, \nTHERE IS SITES THAT MAY NOT HAVE \nBEEN IDENTIFIED\, BUT THERE IS \nANTICIPATION COMMITMENT FROM THE \nCORP AND THE PORT THROUGH THEIR \nBENEFICIAL — I’M NOT \nREMEMBERING THE NAME — BUT THEY \nDID APPROVAL TO TAKE MATERIAL TO \nBENEFICIAL REUSE WE DO \nANTICIPATE THAT TO BE WETLANDS. \n>>PAT EKLUND: IS IT GOING TO BE \n100% I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE \nPROPOSING REUSE FOR FILL VERSUS \nWETLAND RESTORATION OR LEVELS OR \nWHATEVER. \n>>SPEAKER: SORRY THAT WAS NOT \nCLEAR. FILL PROPOSED IS PILE \nSHEET PILES RIP RAP\, IT’S NOT \nDREDGE MATERIAL. SORRY THAT WAS \nNOT SUPER CLEAR. \n>>PAT EKLUND: IS THERE ANY \nDREDGE MATERIAL THAT’S BEING \nPROPOSED FOR DUMPING IN THE BAY \nOR IN THE OCEAN? \n>>SPEAKER: NOT AT THIS TIME. \n>>PAT EKLUND: DO WE HAVE A \nREQUIREMENT THAT THEY HAVE TO \nREUSE ALL OF THE DREDGE \nMATERIAL? \n>>SPEAKER: THAT WOULD COME IN \nTHE DESIGN PHASE WHEN WE HAVE \nBETTER INFORMATION ABOUT THE \nQUALITY OF THE MATERIAL\, THAT \nWOULD BE THE SECOND PHASE \nCONSISTENCY DETERMINATION BUT I \nBELIEVE THEY’RE COMMITTED IN THE \nROOM THERE\, THEY CAN VOUCH \nWHETHER OR NOT THIS MATERIAL IS \nSUITABLE FOR BENEFICIAL REUSE. \nTHAT IS MINDING AT THIS TIME. \n>>SPEAKER: THIS IS ERIK AGAIN \nWE DO HAVE PERMISSION FROM \nHEADQUARTERS THAT WE BENEFICIAL \nREUSE ALL MATERIAL. THE BULK IS \nWETLAND COVER AT THIS POINT \nBASED ON ASSUMPTIONS WE HAVE \nMADE WHICH TECHNICALLY MEANS \nMONTEZUMA AT THIS POINT THEY’RE \nTHE ONLY ONES THAT CAN TAKE THAT \n1.71 MILLION YARDS GOING THERE\, \n150\,000 YARDS OF COVER THAT \nCOULD GO TO ANY WETLAND \nRESTORATION SITE. \n>>PAT EKLUND: OKAY GREAT. \nTHANK YOU. AND THEN\, LET’S SEE\, \nWHAT WAS THE LAST QUESTION? YOU \nCAN HELP ME UNDERSTAND AT WHAT \nPOINT THROUGH THE THIS WHOLE \nPROCESS BEFORE FINAL APPROVAL\, \nIS IT GOING TO BE COMING BACK TO \nTHE COMMISSION SO THAT IF NEEDED \nWE CAN ADD SOME ADDITIONAL \nCONDITIONS BECAUSE IF THIS IS \nTHE ONLY TIME WHERE WE CAN ADD \nSPECIFIC CONDITIONS\, THEN I \nPROBABLY GOING TO LOOK AT THIS \nWITH A FINE TOOTH COMB BUT I WAS \nHOPING WE GOING TO GET ANOTHER \nBITE AT THE APPLE WHICH IS \nTYPICALLY WHAT WE HAVE DONE IN \nTHE PAST BUT I DON’T KNOW IF THE \nPROCESS HAS BEEN CHANGED SINCE I \nLEFT OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. \n>>SPEAKER: YES THIS IS A PHASE \nCONSISTENCY. FIRST PHASE IS A \nGENERAL AUTHORIZATION BUT AS \nWRITTEN SO FAR IT’S IN REVIEW. \nTHE STAFF RECOMMENDATION DOES \nINCLUDE SOME GENERAL CONDITIONS \nBUT NOT THE FINAL SET. IT ALSO \nLISTS OUT SOME POTENTIAL \nADDITIONAL ITEMS THAT ARE NOT \nBEING REQUIRED AT THIS TIME BUT \nWOULD LIKELY BE REQUIRED. AT \nTHE SECOND PHASE WHEN WE’RE IN \nTHE PRECONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING \nAND DESIGN PHASE\, THE CORP WILL \nBE COMING BACK TO US ANTICIPATED \nIN 2025\, ’26\, PROBABLY 2026\, WE \nWILL HAVE A MORE DEFINITIVE \nCOMPLETE PICTURE OF THE PROJECT \nAND WILL LIKELY MAKE MORE \nREQUIREMENTS AT THAT TIME. \n>>PAT EKLUND: I DIDN’T SEE IT \nIN THE CONDITIONS OR MAY HAVE \nMISSED IT THAT THEY WILL REUSE \nALL OF THE DREDGE MATERIAL. \n>>SPEAKER: YOU DON’T HAVE TO \nYET THAT’S WHY YOU MISSED IT \nIT’S COMING OUT IN REVIEW AND \nI’M SHARING IT WITH THE CORP IN \nTHE REPORT THEN YOU WILL SEE IT. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: GREAT. SO OVER \nTIME IT WILL BE HERE IN 2026 \nIT’S GOING TO BE HARD TO KNOW \nBUT ANYWAY\, OKAY. THAT’S GREAT. \nIS IT POSSIBLE TO SEND \nADDITIONAL QUESTIONS IN WRITING \nBEFORE THE NEXT MEETING? OR IS \nTHAT SOMETHING YOU PREFER NOT TO \nDO? \n>>SPEAKER: I’M HAPPY TO RECEIVE \nWRITTEN COMMENTS. WE’LL DO OUR \nBEST TO GET ANSWERS FOR YOU \nBEFORE THE NEXT MEETING. I’M \nFINE WITH THAT\, BUT TO THE CHAIR \nAND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: THAT WOULD BE \nGREAT. IF I COULD GET FEEDBACK \nTHAT WOULD BE GREAT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: TWO \nCOMMENTS BEFORE I GO TO THE NEXT \nCOMMISSIONER. \nYES\, CERTAINLY QUESTIONS AND \nCOMMENTS CAN COME IN. THIS IS \nAN ONGOING PROCESS IT MAY NOT \nAFFECT THIS VOTE. BUT THIS IS \nNOT THE LAST TIME THIS PROJECT \nWILL COME BEFORE US\, AND THE \nSECOND POINT\, UNLESS I’M WRONG\, \nIN ADDITION TO COMING BACK FOR \nFURTHER CONCURRENCE ON \nCONFORMANCY\, OR CONFORMANCE\, \nIT’S GET TO COME TO US FOR A \nPERMIT. SO\, WE WILL HAVE MORE \nTHAN ONE ADDITIONAL BITE AT THIS \nAPPLE. \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER? \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: THANK YOU \nMR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU FOR THE \nREALLY DETAILED RICH \nPRESENTATION. I REALLY \nAPPRECIATE IT. I JUST HAVE TWO \nQUICK QUESTIONS. FIRST OF ALL\, \nTHE ELECTRICAL WORK THAT’S GOING \nTO BE DONE AS PART OF BUILDING \nTHE TURNING BASIN. I MEAN\, \nELECTRIFICATION OF OPERATING \nDIESEL MOTORS AT THE PORT IS A \nVERY\, VERY IMPORTANT PART OF \nIMPROVING THE HEALTH OF THE \nLOCAL COMMUNITIES IN REDUCING \nEMISSIONS. SO\, IT DOES — DOES \nTHAT WORK WHICH WAS DESCRIBED AS \nFACILITATING THE USE OF \nELECTRICAL DREDGES\, DOES THAT \nALSO CONTRIBUTE\, SORT OF\, AS THE \nPORT AS A WHOLE\, FOR \nELECTRIFICATION FOR OTHER \nPROCESSES AT THE PORT OR FOR \nCHARGING SOME OF THE BATTERY \nOPERATED MACHINERY THEY HAVE \nNOW? I HOPE THAT WE CAN MAKE — \nTHAT THIS WILL NOT ONLY REDUCE \nMISSIONS DURING DREDGING\, BUT \nALSO CONTRIBUTE TO REDUCING \nEMISSIONS IN THE FUTURE. AND \nTHEN\, SECONDLY\, I DIDN’T SEE \nMUCH DISCUSSION OF SEA LEVEL \nRISE. NOW\, I HAVE A FEELING \nTHAT’S BECAUSE OF THE NATURE — \nTHAT’S — MAYBE THAT’S IN PHASE \nTWO\, BRENDA? BUT I JUST WANTED \nTO MAKE SURE THAT AS THIS \nPROJECT GOES FORWARD AND SO MUCH \nOF THE SHORELINE IN THAT REGION \nIS ALTERED\, BUT IT’S ALTERED IN \nA WAY THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH \nBUILDING RESILIENCY TO SEA LEVEL \nRISE\, WHICH I ASSUME IS KIND OF \nINTEGRATED INTO OUR PERMIT \nDECISION\, IF I UNDERSTAND IT \nRIGHT? \n>>BRENDA GOEDEN: I WILL START \nTO ADDRESS THAT. THE CORP AND \nPORT CAN BACK ME UP — TRY TO \nSAY THAT FIVE TIMES FAST — BUT \nI WOULD ALSO ELECT THE PORT TO \nADDRESS THE ELECTRIFICATION \nISSUE BECAUSE I’M UNFAMILIAR \nWITH THEIR PLANS. REGARDING SEA \nLEVEL RISE\, WHICH SAY CONCERN OF \nTHE CITY OF ALAMEDA AND OTHERS\, \nTHE PORT AND THE CORP VIEW THIS \nAS A NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT \nPROJECT. THEY’RE NOT PROPOSING \nSHORELINE PROPOSE PROTECTION. \nTHEY’RE BUILDING A BULK HEAD. \nAS I UNDERSTAND THE PLANS\, AND \nTHE ARMY CORP’S ANALYSIS OF SEA \nLEVEL RISE\, UNDER THEIR \nGUIDANCE\, WHICH IS NOT THE SAME \nAS THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA \nGUIDANCE\, IT’S SIMILAR BUT A \nLITTLE DIFFERENT\, THE PROJECT IS \nRESILIENT TO FLOODING THROUGH \nALL PHASES OF THEIR PROJECT\, I \nBELIEVE\, TO 2090. AND I’M \nTALKING ABOUT THAT OFF THE TOP \nOF MY HEAD RIGHT NOW. SO DON’T \nQUOTE ME ON THAT\, AND THERE IS \nONLY ONE AREA THAT IS NOT \nRESILIENT. SO\, THE WAY THEY \nPROPOSED TO CONSTRUCT IT\, IT’S \nAT OR ABOVE THE EXISTING \nELEVATION. THEY DON’T \nANTICIPATE FLOODING IN THAT \nREGION. THE OTHER ANSWER\, WHICH \nCAME UP DURING THE ENGINEERING \nCRITERIA REVIEW BOARD — AND I \nBELIEVE BARNEY IN THE ROOM\, SO \nHE MAY WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS \nFROM THE ARMY CORP — THE \nQUESTION WAS DID YOU INCORPORATE \nSEA LEVEL RISE RESILIENCE IN \nTHIS PROJECT; AND HIS ANSWER \nWAS\, UNDER THIS FEASIBILITY \nSTUDY\, BECAUSE OF THE NATURE\, IT \nDOES NOT INCLUDE SHORELINE \nPROTECTION. THAT WOULD BE A \nDIFFERENT AUTHORITY AND A \nDIFFERENT FEASIBILITY FOR THE \nCITY OF ALAMEDA. AND THEY COULD \nREQUEST THAT OF THE CORP\, BUT \nTHE CORP WOULD HAVE TO FIND A \nNATIONAL ECONOMIC INTEREST AND \nHAVE THAT AS A SEPARATE KIND OF \nPROJECT. IT’S BULKHEAD\, NOT \nSHORELINE PROTECTION. YES THERE \nIS FLOODING ON ALAMEDA FROM OUR \nLOOK AT IT COMES FROM A NUMBER \nOF OTHER SOURCES NOT \nSPECIFICALLY THIS AREA EXCEPT \nFOR THE LIMITED HIGH ELEVATION \nISSUE HIGH SEA LEVEL ELEVATION \nISSUE. THAT’S THE WAY THE \nCOMMISSION STAFF HAS ADDRESSED \nIT AT THIS POINT. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: SO YOU’RE \nSAYING BRENDA THAT AS IMAGINED \nCURRENTLY\, OBVIOUSLY THERE IS \nGOING TO BE MUCH MORE WORK DONE \nON THE SPECIFICS OF A PROJECT. \nTHE PROJECT WILL — WHEN THE \nPROJECT IS COMPLETED\, THE \nSHORELINE IN THAT AREA WILL BE \nRESILIENT TO A SEA LEVEL RISE AT \nA CERTAIN AMOUNT. I JUST WANT \nTO MAKE SURE WE’RE NOT PROPOSING \nTO SPEND $500 MILLION IN AN AREA \nAND NOT HAVE THAT PRODUCE A \nRESILIENT SHORELINE. \n>>BRENDA GOEDEN: I UNDERSTAND \nWHAT YOU’RE SAYING\, AND \nAPPRECIATE IT. I MEAN BASICALLY \nA BULK IS CREATING A NEW \nSHORELINE BUT NOT YOU KNOW\, \nINCREASING THE HEIGHTS OF THE \nSHORELINE IT’S SIMPLY INCREASING \nTHE NEW SHORELINE THERE IS NO \nPROPOSED PROJECT THAT RAISES THE \nELEVATION OR PROTECTS THE \nSHORELINE FROM SEA LEVEL RISE AT \nTHIS TIME AND FROM WHAT I \nUNDERSTAND FROM THE CORP THAT \nWOULD BE A DIFFERENT PROJECT \nTHAN WHAT IS AUTHORIZED THROUGH \nTHEIR PROGRAM SO MAYBE THE CORP \nOR PORT WANT TO STEP IN AT THIS \nPOINT AND HELP ME OUT? \n>>STEVEN GOLDBECK: I WOULD ADD \nTHAT POLICIES ON RISING SEA \nLEVEL REQUIRE LARGER PROJECTS TO \nBE RESILIENT TO MID-CENTURY AND \nHAVE AN ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN \nTO END THE CENTURY. BUT THAT’S \nFOR THE PROJECT\, AND THE PROJECT \nIS A TURNING BASIN. SO\, YOUR \nPOLICIES WOULD REQUIRE THAT \nPROJECT ITSELF THAT BEING THE \nTURNING BASIN BE RESILIENT NOT \nNECESSARILY PROVIDE PROTECTION \nFOR ALL THE SURROUNDING AREAS. \n>>BRENDA GOEDEN: THANK YOU\, \nSTEVE. ALSO WE CAN DIRECT YOU \nTO POLICY SEVEN WHICH SAYS WHEN \nWE’RE IN THIS SITUATION WE DON’T \nHAVE A REGIONAL SEA LEVEL RISE \nADAPTATION PLAN PROJECT THAT ARE \nREGIONAL BENEFITS INCLUDING \nTRANSITION TRANSPORTATION AND \nTHEN THIS IS THE MARINE \nTRANSPORTATION ISSUE. \n>>STEVEN GOLDBECK: THAT’S NO \nOPINION FROM STAFF ON WHETHER IT \nWOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE GREATER \nPROTECTION OF THE SHORELINE BUT \nSIMPLY YOUR POLICIES CALL FOR \nTHAT. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU\, STEVE. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER SHOWALTER. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: I WOULD \nLIKE ANOTHER BRIEF UNDERSTANDING \nOF A CHIEF’S REPORT. SORT OF\, \nFROM A HIGH-LEVEL MY \nUNDERSTANDING OF THE CHIEF’S \nREPORT IS BASICALLY IF IT GIVES \nENOUGH SPECIFICITY THAT THE \nHEADQUARTERS OF THE CORP OF \nENGINEERS FEELS CONFIDENT TO ASK \nCONGRESS FOR AUTHORIZATION \nAND/OR FUNDING TO GO FORWARD \nWITH THIS PROJECT\, IS THAT \nCORRECT? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. I THINK I CAN \nANSWER THAT WHEN WE SUBMIT IN \nJANUARY IS GOING TO BE A FINAL \nREPORT WITH OUR RECOMMENDATION \nAND THAT GOES TO HEADQUARTERS \nAND THEN WE — WE PRODUCE A \nCHIEF’S REPORT THAT WOULD MAKE \n— THAT WOULD BE DONE BY THE END \nOF MAY OF 2024\, AND THAT IS A \nRECOMMENDATION TO CONGRESS. \nCONGRESS CAN DECIDE WHETHER\, AT \nTHEIR DISCRETION\, WHETHER \nTHEY’RE GOING TO AUTHORIZE IT SO \nIT CAN GET INTO [INDISCERNIBLE] \n2024 AND AT THEIR DISCRETION \nWHETHER THEY WANT TO APPROPRIATE \nFUND AS WELL. THOSE ARE TWO \nSEPARATE DECISIONS THAT THEY \nNEED TO MAKE AND THEY CAN DECIDE \nTO SAY NO TO BOTH\, SAY YES TO \nBOTH\, OR THEY CAN AUTHORIZE AND \nTHEN AT A LATER TIME \nAPPROPRIATE. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: THANK YOU \nERICA. THAT’S WHAT I THOUGHT I \nREMEMBERED. BUT I WANTED TO \nMAKE SURE. SO\, I GUESS WHAT MY \nFEELING IS THAT BECAUSE THIS IS \nTHE PHASE WE’RE AT\, IT’S \nAPPROPRIATE\, I FEEL LIKE\, FOR US \nTO SUPPORT THIS GOING FORWARD AT \nTHIS PHASE. I MEAN\, GRANTED\, \nWHEN WE GET MORE DETAILS\, WE \nWILL HAVE A LOT MORE QUESTIONS \nAND THERE WILL BE THINGS WE WANT \nTO MAKE SURE ARE TAKEN CARE OF. \nBUT AT THIS POINT\, TO GET — YOU \nKNOW\, TO GET — MAKE SURE THAT \nTHIS PROCESS GOING FORWARD IN A \nTIMELY MANNER\, I’M VERY \nSUPPORTIVE OF IT. AND \nPARTICULARLY\, THE REUSE OF THE \nDREDGE SEDIMENT. THAT IS A \nWONDERFUL FEATURE. AND \nSOMETHING THAT IS VERY\, VERY \nIMPORTANT FOR OUR OTHER SEA \nLEVEL RISE PROTECTION EFFORTS\, \nPARTICULARLY MARSH RESTORATION \nTHROUGHOUT THE BAY. SO\, I’M \nREALLY GLAD TO SEE THIS. AND I \nLOOK FORWARD TO WORKING ON IT \nFOR QUITE A WHILE. THANK YOU. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU \nCOMMISSIONER. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE \nHAVE A HAND\, COMMISSIONER \nNELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: [LAUGHTER] \nIT KEEPS DROPPING AWAY. TWO \nISSUES FOR STAFF. QUESTIONS \nABOUT — FIRST IS ABOUT HOWARD \nTERMINAL. IF I AM REMEMBERING \nCORRECTLY\, WHEN WE DELETED THE \nSEAPORT PLAN DESIGNATION FOR \nHOWARD TERMINAL\, IT CAME WITH \nTHE CONDITION THAT IF AS DID NOT \nCONSTRUCT A BALLPARK AT HOWARD \nTERMINAL\, THAT SEAPORT WOULD \nREVERT BACK TO PLAN \nJURISDICTION. \n>>BRENDA GOEDEN: ALMOST. IT \nREVERTS BACK TO PORT PRIORITY \nUSE. \n>>BARRY NELSON: IF THAT HAD \nHAPPENED LAST MONTH\, AND THE AS \nMOVED TO LAS VEGAS\, AND THEY’RE \nNOT BUILDING A TERMINAL THEN THE \nPORT PRIORITY DESIGNATION WOULD \nBE ON THE SITE AND I ASSUME THE \nSTAFF WOULD INCLUDE ANALYSIS OF \nWHAT THIS MEANS FOR HOWARD \nTERMINAL. SOME OF THIS WOULD BE \nEXCAVATED\, HOWARD TERMINAL WOULD \nBE SHORTER\, ONLY ACCOMMODATE \nCERTAIN SHIPS AND SO FORTH. \nTHAT DECISION HASN’T BEEN MADE \nBY THE CITY AND THE AS\, IT SEEMS \nLIKE SHOULD WE BE THINKING ABOUT \nTHAT ISSUE? \n>>BRENDA GOEDEN: I WOULD SAY\, \nAS I LOOK TO MY ESTEEMED \nCOLLEAGUES\, DEPUTY DIRECTOR\, \nEXECUTIVE DEPUTY DIRECTOR\, IS \nWE’RE CURRENTLY BEHOLDEN TO THE \nLAWS AND POLICIES THAT WE HAVE\, \nBECAUSE THE REVERTING ACTION HAS \nNOT TAKEN PLACE\, AND IT WILL \nLIKELY NOT TAKE PLACE BEFORE \nDECEMBER 21ST A.M.\, WE NEED TO \nUSE THE POLICIES AND THE \nPRIORITY USE AREAS THAT WE HAVE \nIN FRONT OF US AT THAT TIME. IF \nTHE PRIORITY USE AREA REVERTS TO \nPORT PRIORITY USE BEFORE THE \nNEXT PHASE CONSISTENCY \nDETERMINATION\, WE WOULD CONSIDER \nIT DIFFERENTLY AND LOOK FOR \nDIFFERENT INFORMATION. BUT\, AT \nTHIS TIME\, THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION EXPLAINS THAT \nTHERE IS NO PORT PRIORITY USE AT \nHOWARD TERMINAL AT THIS TIME. \n>>BARRY NELSON: AND THAT LEAVES \nTHE QUESTION ABOUT PHASING AND \nSEGMENTATION. WHAT HAPPENS IF \nWE LOOK AT IT NOW AND SAY \nTOTALLY INCONSISTENT WITH OUR \nPLAN\, AND THEN WE LOOK AT IT IN \nA YEAR OR WHENEVER IT COMES BACK \nTO US FOR THE NEXT PHASE\, AND \nTHE AS HAVE MADE THEIR DECISION\, \nPORT PRIORITY USE DESIGNATION IS \nBACK ON THE SITE\, AT THAT POINT \nWE DO AN ANALYSIS ABOUT IMPACTS \nON THE PORT PRIORITY USE. WHAT \nHAPPENS IF WE REACH A DIFFERENT \nCONCLUSION ON THE SECOND PHASE \nBECAUSE THE PORT PRIORITY USE \nISSUE GIVEN THAT WE FOUND \nCONSISTENCY OAT FIRST PHASE WITH \nDIFFERENT CONSISTENCY — WITH \nDIFFERENT DESIGNATION FOR THE \nSITE? \n>>SPEAKER: I CAN ADD A LITTLE \nBIT TO THE CONVERSATION MICHAEL \nNG G STAFF ATTORNEY. WE LOOK AT \nWHETHER THE CONTINUED PLACEMENT \nOR REMOVAL OF PORT PRIORITY USE \nAREA DESIGNATION AT HOWARD \nTERMINAL HAD ANY PARTICULAR \nSIGNIFICANCE OR CONSEQUENCE WITH \nTHE RESPECT TO REALIZATION OF \nOAKLAND TURNING BASIN PROJECT IF \nWE PROCEED WE ANALYZED THAT AT \nTHE TIME OF THE BPA 2/19 WHEN \nTHAT DESIGN DESIGNATION WAS \nREMOVED\, AND I BELIEVE OUR VIEW \nAT THAT TIME WHICH I THINK IS \nSTILL OUR VIEW IS THAT IT IS NOT \nWHETHER IT’S THERE OR NOT IS NOT \nA HINDRANCE TO THE REALIZATION \nOF THE TURNING BASIN’S PROJECT I \nTHINK WHAT YOU’RE REFERRING TO \nIS THE A.B. 1191 WHICH WAS THE \nSPECIAL HOWARD TERMINAL BALLPARK \nPROJECT THAT DOES HAVE THIS\, \nSORT OF\, AUTOMATIC REVERSION \nCLAUSE THAT IF THERE’S NO \nDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN \nTHE CITY AND THE AS BY 2025 THAT \nTHE DESIGNATION WILL BE \nREINSTATED AS IF IT HAD NEVER \nBEEN REMOVED BUT AGAIN WHETHER \nIT’S THERE OR NOT GIVEN THE \nPURPOSE OF WHAT THE PA \nDESIGNATION IS FOR WHICH IS \nMINIMIZE MITIGATE PRESSURE FOR \nTHE INCREASED FILL FOR PORT \nPURPOSES I DON’T THINK THAT THIS \nPROJECT IMPLICATES THAT POLICY \nISSUE. \n>>BARRY NELSON: SECOND \nQUESTION. ALAMEDA AND THE \nSPEAKER FROM EARTH JUSTICE ON \nBEHALF OF WEST OAKLAND \nINDICATORS RAISED A NUMBER OF \nQUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROJECT\, \nLAND USE\, OPERATIONS \nCONSISTENCY\, WITH FEDERAL \nPOLICIES AND A NUMBER OF OTHER \nTHINGS. WE HAVE SOME OF THOSE \nCONCERNS\, SOME ARE OUTSIDE OUR \nJURISDICTION\, WE HAVE OUR OWN \nEQUITY POLICIES THAT MAY OVERLAP \nBUT ARE NOT THE SAME AS THE \nFEDERAL POLICIES. I DON’T KNOW \nIF BRENDA YOU’RE READY TO \nDISCUSS THIS NOW OR SOMETHING \nSTAFF WANTS TO THINK ABOUT \nPREPARING FOR THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION. BUT I WOULD \nLIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THOSE \nCONCERNS RAISED BY ALAMEDA AND \nEARTH JUSTICE IN PARTICULAR\, \nOVERLAP WITH THE COMMISSION’S \nPOLICIES AND THEIR ISSUES THAT \nWE SHOULD BE DISCUSSING AND \nCONSIDERING IN MAKING THIS \nDECISION OR WHETHER THEY’RE JUST \nOUTSIDE OUR AUTHORITY AND \nTHEY’RE NOT GOING TO BE A PART \nOF OUR CONSIDERATION OF THE \nPROJECT? \n>>BRENDA GOEDEN: I GUESS I \nCOULD MENTION THEM IN BRIEF. \nSO\, AS MICHAEL SPOKE TO OR \nACTING UNDER COASTAL MANAGEMENT \nACT\, AND AROUND THAT ACT WE ARE \nDIRECT TO LOOK AT THE EFFECTS TO \nTHE COASTAL ZONE\, WHICH IN THIS \nCASE IS SAN FRANCISCO BAY. AND \nWE INVESTIGATED ACTUALLY VERY \nTHOROUGHLY OVER THE LAST TWO \nYEARS WHETHER OR NOT AIR QUALITY \nIMPACTS WERE SOMETHING THAT THE \nCOMMISSION COULD ADDRESS UNDER \nCZMA\, AND I THINK WE DETERMINED\, \nMICHAEL\, STEVE\, CORRECT ME IF I \nAM WRONG\, DETERMINED THAT WE DID \nNOT HAVE NEXUS THAT THE AIR \nQUALITY THAT ARMY CORP HAS TO BE \nRESPONSIBLE TO THE FEDERAL CLEAN \nAIR ACT AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT \nTHEY INCLUDE THAT INFORMATION AS \nPART OF THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL \nREVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THIS \nPROJECT. SO WE DON’T HAVE THAT \nNEXUS. WHERE WE HAVE A BIT OF \nNEXUS ON AIR QUALITY IN MY \nHUMBLE OPINION\, AND I’M WAITING \nTO FIGURE OUT IF I’M RIGHT IS \nTHAT PARTICULATE MATTER FROM \nEMISSIONS FROM TRUCKS AND SHIPS \nACTUALLY DO IMPACT WATER \nQUALITY. AND SO WE’RE DO HAVE A \nBRIEF REQUIREMENT LOOKING AT \nTRUCK ENGINES FOR REDUCTION OF \nPARTICULATE MATTER BECAUSE OF \nTHE CONNECTION TO WATER QUALITY. \nIN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION \nWE’LL SEE IF YOU AGREE WITH THAT \nCONSIDERATION. THE CORP IS \nRESPONSIBLE TO THE FEDERAL LAWS. \nWE ARE RESPONSIBLE TO CZMA. WE \nDO NOT INVESTIGATE VESSEL \nTRAFFIC OR REGULATE VESSEL \nEMISSIONS WE DO NOT REGULATE \nTRUCK TRAFFIC. WE DO NOT \nREGULATE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT \nBUT WE CAN MAKE REQUIREMENTS \nAROUND IMPACTS TO WATER QUALITY\, \nFIDUCIARY AND WILDLIFE\, \nCONTAMINANT ISSUES. AND SO \nWHETHER THERE IS A NEXUS TO \nTHOSE ITEMS PER THE POLICIES \nTHAT WE LAID OUT FOR YOU TODAY\, \nWE CAN MAKE REQUIREMENTS\, BUT \nWHERE WE DON’T HAVE POLICIES OR \nAUTHORITY\, WE DON’T — WE CANNOT \nMAKE THOSE REQUIREMENTS. AND \nREGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE \nAS PHOENIX LAID OUT\, THE WAY OUR \nPOLICIES ARE WRITTEN — AND I \nTHINK I’M FROZEN IN SOME \nSCREENS\, WE HAVE TO ENSURE THAT \nPUBLIC ENGAGEMENT IS APPROPRIATE \nAND CULTURALLY RELEVANT. AND WE \nCAN WORK WITH THE FEDERAL AND \nLOCAL PROJECT SPONSOR TO \nCONTINUE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND \nTRY TO WORK HARDER TO MAKE IT\, \nENSURE THAT THEY DO CULTURALLY \nRELATIVE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND \nTHAT THEY WORK WITH THE \nCOMMUNITY TO IDENTIFY MITIGATION \nMEASURES WHERE WE HAVE \nAUTHORITY. AND\, AGAIN\, OUR \nAUTHORITY IT LIMITED IN THAT \nREGARD. AND THEN REGARDING MED \nNEED LANDING\, I THINK I \nMENTIONED EARLIER THAT THE PORT \nIS RESPONSIBLE FOR GETTING \nPROPERTY RIGHTS AND IF THEY \nCAN’T GET PROPERTY RIGHTS THEY \nCANNOT GET A PERMIT FROM BCDC. \nAND REGARDING THEIR CONCERNS \nABOUT PUBLIC ACCESS. CERTAINLY \nTHE ALAMEDA LANDING AREA IS AN \nAREA THAT BCDC STAFF HAS \nIDENTIFIED AND ALREADY TALKED TO \nTHE PORT AND CORP ABOUT A \nPOTENTIAL PUBLIC ACCESS AMENITY \nAT THAT SITE BECAUSE THEY WILL \nBE CHANGING THE CONFIGURATION \nSITE VIA REMOVING SOME OF THE \nWATERFRONT WHARF AND DEM OCEAN \nPORTIONS OF THE TWO WAREHOUSES \nWHICH SHOULD OPEN UP VIEWS AND \nPROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC \nACCESS. AND THEN WE HAVE ALSO \nTALKED TO THEM ABOUT THE \nPOTENTIAL FOR IN LIEU PUBLIC \nACCESS NEARBY. AND POTENTIALLY \nPROVIDING PUBLIC ACCESS TO AN EJ \nOR DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTED \nCOMMUNITY\, BECAUSE THAT ALSO \nPART OF OUR PUBLIC ACCESS \nPOLICIES. I AM HOPING THAT’S \nHELPFUL. \n>>BARRY NELSON: YES. THAT’S \nALL OF THOSE THAT WILL BE \nADDRESSED IN THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATIONS WHEN IT COMES \nBACK TO US. \n>>BRENDA GOEDEN: YES. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER GILMORE? \n>>MARIE GILMORE: THANK YOU\, \nCHAIR WASSERMAN. \nI WANT THANK BARRY AND BRENDA \nBECAUSE YOU ANSWERED QUESTIONS I \nWAS ABOUT TO ASK. I WAS\, SORT \nOF\, DISTURBED BY THE OPPOSING \nENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS THEY \nSEEM TO COME OUT AT EITHER ENDS \nOF THE SPECTRUM. BUT THANKS TO \nYOUR EXPLANATION\, BRENDA I FEEL \nBETTER ABOUT IT. I’M ASSUMING \nTHAT EVERYTHING THAT YOU JUST \nDISCUSSED DOES NOT HAVE TO BE \nDETERMINED BY THE 21st. WE’RE \nGOING TO GET ADDITIONAL BITES AT \nPUBLIC MEETINGS\, ENVIRONMENTAL \nJUSTICE AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS \nTHAT YOU JUST\, SORT OF\, LISTED \nOFF AND EXPLAINED. RIGHT? \n>>BRENDA GOEDEN: YEAH. THAT IS \nTHE PLAN. RIGHT NOW\, I THINK WE \nHAVE EIGHT OR NINE REQUIREMENTS\, \nWHICH ARE GENERAL\, IN THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION WHICH ADDRESS \nTHESE ISSUES THAT ARE \nOUTSTANDING. PARTICULARLY THE \nPUBLIC ACCESS ENGAGEMENT\, I \nTHINK IS ONE THAT YOU WILL BE \nHEARTENED TO SEE IN SOME \nADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE \nCONTAMINANTS ASSOCIATED WITH \nBOTH THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AND \nTHE DREDGING. AND I’M NOT \nREMEMBERING THE REST OF THEM OFF \nTHE TOP OF MY HEAD\, BUT\, YOU \nKNOW\, THE SILT CURTAINS AND THE \nPROTECTIONS FOR THE FISH AND \nWILDLIFE AND WATER QUALITY. \n>>MARIE GILMORE: OKAY. AND SO \nAS WE\, ASSUMING THIS PROJECT \nMOVES FORWARD\, WE WILL — AND WE \nFIND OUT MORE ABOUT EXACTLY \nWHAT’S BEING PROPOSED\, WE CAN \nADD ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OR \nTIGHT END UP CERTAIN CONDITIONS. \nSO WE’RE LOOKING AT THIS WHOLE \nPROJECT ABOUT THE 300 FOOT \nLEVEL\, AND AS TIME GOES BY WE’RE \nGETTING CLOSER AND CLOSER TO \nGROUND LEVEL KIND OF THE WAY I \nLOOK AT IT. \n>>BRENDA GOEDEN: YES. \n>>MARIE GILMORE: THANK YOU VERY \nMUCH. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY \nOTHER QUESTIONS FROM \nCOMMISSIONERS? I WOULD HAVE \nEXPECTED TO YOU HAVE A LOT. \nI JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF QUICK \nONES. \nI HAVE A LITTLE FAMILIARITY WITH \nDREDGING IN THE OAKLAND ESTUARY. \nI HAVE BEEN WORKING ON IT SINCE \n1978. I\, IN PARTICULAR\, \nREMEMBER A HELICOPTER RIDE WITH \nMAYOR LIONEL WILSON AND \nCONGRESSMAN RON DELLUMS WHEN WE \nWERE FIGHTING FOR FUNDS TO \nDREDGE TO THINK IT WAS 38 FEET\, \nAND THERE WERE MANY PEOPLE WHO \nDID NOT BELIEVE THAT WAS \nNECESSARY THAT THESE BIG SHIPS \nTHAT EVERYBODY WAS TALKING ABOUT \nWERE SIMPLY NOT ACKNOWLEDGE\, \nTHEY WERE PIE IN THE SKY. OR I \nGUESS\, IN THE WATER. CLEARLY \nTHEY ARE INCREASE THEY CAME\, \nTHEY ARE INCREASING IN SIZE. \nAND I DO THINK THAT SOME \nADDITIONAL ATTENTION — NOT BY \nTHE 21st; I’LL ADDRESS IN THAT \nMOMENT — BUT AS THIS COMES BACK \nTO US IN THE FUTURE ITERATIONS \nTHAT NEEDS SOME MORE FACTS AND \nATTENTION\, AS VICE CHAIR EISEN \nINDICATED. I ALSO THINK\, AS WE \nMOVE FORWARD\, WE NEED AS A \nCOMMISSION TO BE VERY CAREFUL \nAND THOUGHTFUL — AND MICHAEL \nTOOK US THROUGH A LONG TUTORIAL \nEARLIER THIS AFTERNOON\, BUT IT \nWAS APPROPRIATE\, BECAUSE WE HAVE \nNOT DONE THIS IN A WHILE\, AND \nTHERE ARE NEW COMMISSIONERS. WE \nHAVE GOT FAIRLY LIMITED \nJURISDICTION IN A LOT OF THESE \nTHINGS AND IT’S NOT THAT WE \nSHOULDN’T VOICE OUR CONCERNS\, \nBUT WHEN IT COMES TO DIRECTOR \nSTAFF AND VOIDING AND VOTING\, WE \nNEED TO RECOGNIZE THAT AND HERE \nWE DO IN TERMS OF RECOMMENDING \nOR NOT CONFORMANCE IS QUITE \nDIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE CAN DO \nAND SHOULD DO WHEN IT COMES \nBUDGET US FOR A PERMIT AND I \nTHINK UNDERSTANDING THOSE \nDIFFERENCES BUT I WANT TO BE \nCLEAR THAT IT’S AN ONGOING \nPROCESS AND THAT MEANS THAT THE \nPUBLIC OUTREACH AND IN \nPARTICULAR THE OUTREACH TO EJ \nTHAT’S PART OF OUR POLICY \nONGOING PROCESS I’M NOT SAYING \nANYBODY HAS SUGGESTED THAT BUT \nTHE DIALOGUE IS NOT OVER IT WILL \nCONTINUE AS THIS PROJECT GETS \nFLESHED OUT AND MORE DETAILS \nEMERGE. COMMISSIONER ECKLUND \nHAS HER HAND UP. \n>>PAT EKLUND: I’M SORRY FOR A \nSECOND BITE AT THE APPLE. BUT \nYOU TRIGGERED ME TO ASK A \nQUESTION. IS THERE A \nPOSSIBILITY WE COULD GET A \nROADMAP OF WHERE BCDC IS GOING \nTO HAVE INPUT ON THIS ISSUE \nFIDUCIARY THE NEXT 5\, 6 YEARS\, \nOR WHATEVER? JUST SO WE HAVE A \nBETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE WE \nMIGHT BE ABLE TO BRING DIFFERENT \nISSUES? \nTHAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \nAGREE. THAT’S A VERY GOOD \nSUGGESTION. \n>>SPEAKER: WE CAN BRING THAT TO \nTHE NEXT MEETING ON. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ON \nTHIS WILL COME BACK ON THE 21st \nFOR A VOTE ON THE CONFORMANCE \nISSUE FOR THE FIRST PHASE. AND \nWITH THAT\, I WOULD ENTERTAIN — \nI’M SORRY. YOU WANT A LAST \nWORD. SURE. \n>>SPEAKER: YES. I DID. THANK \nYOU SO MUCH. THROUGH THE CHAIR\, \nWE WANTED TO ADD A COUPLE OF \nTHINGS FOR THE RECORD\, AND ONE \nIS GOING TO BE RELATED TO \nELECTRIC DREDGING\, AND SINCE THE \nPORT IS PAYING FOR THAT 100%\, \nI’M GOING TO ASK JUSTIN TO COME \nUP HERE IN A MINUTE. WE WILL \nPROVIDE RESPONSES TO ALL THE \nQUESTIONS WE HEARD TODAY TO \nBRENDA FOR HER STAFF\, TO MAKE IT \nEASIER FOR HER STAFF REPORT. TO \nALL THE QUESTIONS WE HEARD TODAY \nIT’S NOTHING NEW IT’S ALL IN THE \nREPORT AND WE’LL POINT TO WHERE \nTHEY CAN BE FOUND. SPECIFICALLY \nFOR COMMISSIONER EISEN\, THE \nECONOMIC APPENDIX HAS REALLY \nGOOD INFORMATION. THERE IS AN \nECONOMIC MODEL WE CALL THE \nHARBOR SIM MODEL THAT’S USED TO \nDETERMINE\, LOOK AT PROJECTIONS\, \nCONSEQUENCES\, A FUTURE WITHOUT \nTHE PROJECT. SO THAT IS A \nREALLY GOOD DOCUMENT. AND WE’LL \nALSO PROVIDE SLIDES THAT WILL \nHAVE CORRECTIONS IN THERE TO \nMAKE IT CLARIFY. \nAND I THINK THIS’S ALL I HAVE. \nSO\, WE WILL PROVIDE \nCLARIFICATION DIRECTLY TO BRENDA \nAS SOON AS POSSIBLE. AND ONE \nLAST THING. ELECTRIC DREDGING \nAND BENEFICIAL USE THAT WAS NOT \nREQUIRED IS MITIGATION\, THIS IS \nTHE FIRST TIME A CORP OF \nENGINEERS PROJECT HAS SUBMITTED \nTO HEADQUARTERS A REQUEST TO \nASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY \nTO COST SHARE THAT WITHOUT BEING \nREQUIRED TO DO IT. THIS IS \nCALLED COMPREHENSIVE BENEFITS. \nIT’S A NEW POLICY. WE WERE THE \nFIRST TO DO THAT\, FROM WHAT I \nUNDERSTAND. \nSO\, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. WE \nREALLY APPRECIATE IT. JUSTIN? \n>>SPEAKER: JUSTIN. PORT OF \nOAKLAND. DIDN’T WANT TO LEAVE \nTHAT HANGING. ELECTRIC \nDREDGING\, THE INFRASTRUCTURE \nPROPOSED TO BE INSTALLED \nPURSUANT TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT \nIS DISCRETE AND SPECIALIZED FOR \nTHE ELECTRIC DREDGERS. BUT REST \nASSURED THAT THE ELECTRICAL \nPOWER THAT WOULD BE MADE \nAVAILABLE FOR THOSE UNITS DURING \nCONSTRUCTION WOULD CERTAINLY BE \nVALUABLE AS WE ALL STRIVE AND \nMOVE FORWARD TO DECARBONIZE THE \nPORTS. SO THE DEMANDS FOR \nELECTRICITY WILL ONLY INCREASE \nOVER TIME AND REST ASSURED THAT \nPOWER THAT WILL BE MADE \nAVAILABLE FOR THIS PROJECT WILL \nBE UTILIZED FOR OTHER THINGS IN \nTHE FUTURE. THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHAT TRIGGERED IN ME TWO QUICK \nTHINGS. ONE\, THANK YOU FOR \nEMPHASIZING THE IMPORTANCE IN \nPIONEERING EFFORT OF THE \nBENEFICIAL REUSE IN THIS \nPROJECT. IT IS SOMETHING THIS \nCOMMISSION HAS CERTAINLY BEEN \nSTRIVING FOR SOMETIME\, AND WE \nARE VERY HAPPY TO HAVE THE CORP \nFULLY ON BOARD FOR THIS. \nSECOND\, WELL\, IT MAY OR MAY NOT \nBE DIRECTLY RELATED TO THIS \nPROJECT — CERTAINLY RELATED TO \nCONCERNS\, THE PORT OF OAKLAND IS \nUNDERTAKING A VERY MAJOR PROJECT \nTO REDUCE EMISSIONS\, BOTH IN THE \nMODERATELY SHORT-TERM AND IN THE \nLONGER TERM\, REALLY WITH A \nZERO-EMISSION EMPHASIS TO WHICH \nPOINT THEY HAVE REDESIGNED THEIR \nPORT LOGO TO EMPHASIZE THAT. \nSO\, THIS IS NOT — THE WORDS \nTHAT HAVE BEEN HEARD HERE BEFORE \nARE BEING LISTENED TO. I THANK \nYOU VERY MUCH. I WILL ENTERTAIN \nA MOTION TO ADJOURN. \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS \nMOVES TO ADJOURN. COMMISSIONER \nADDIEGO SECONDS. SEEING NO \nOPPOSITION THIS MEETING \nADJOURNS. WE’LL SEE OUT 21st \nENJOY HANUKKAH\, ENJOY YOUR TIME. \nBE SAFE. \n[ADJOURNED] \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs 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. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant 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. \nIf 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. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf 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. \nCampaign Contributions\nState 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. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings 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.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/december-7-2023-commission-meeting-2/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231116T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231116T170000
DTSTAMP:20250320T224326Z
CREATED:20231017T045435Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250320T224326Z
UID:10000049-1700139600-1700154000@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:November 16\, 2023 Commission Meeting
DESCRIPTION:Due to the APEC conference in San Francisco\, this meeting will be held online and through teleconference only. \nNote: Agenda Item 9 has been postponed. \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/81421033671?pwd=ZTRqWHRDcTd6YmNWanJRbk52eXJsdz09 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID814 2103 3671 \nPasscode080569 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic 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]\nApproval of Minutes for November 2\, 2023 Meeting (PDF)(Reylina Ruiz) [415/352-3638; reylina.ruiz@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nVote on the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan update\, Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-19The Commission will vote on the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan update\, an amendment to the Bay Plan to update the findings\, policies\, and map designations of the Seaport Plan. The public hearing was heard on November 2\, 2023.(Cory Mann) [415/352-3649; cory.mann@bcdc.ca.gov]Final Staff Recommendation (PDF) // Appendix A: Resolution 2023.02 (PDF) // Envionmental Assessment Final (PDF) // Seaport Plan Final (PDF) // Staff Presentation (PDF)\nCommission Consideration of a Contract with the Port of San Francisco to Fund Planning ActivitiesPOSTPONEDThe 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]\nBriefing on Fiscal Year 2023 BudgetThe Commission will receive a briefing on the Budget Act (SB101) and reimbursable awards that will include an update of the first quarter 2023 expenditures and cost recoveries.(Sean Williamson) [415/352-3637; sean.williamson@bcdc.ca.gov]Staff Presentation (PDF)\nBriefing on Resilient State Route 37 ProjectsThe Commission will receive a briefing on the status of Caltrans State Route 37 interim and long-term highway improvements and developments projects along the corridor\, from Highway US 101 (Novato\, Marin) in the west to I-80 in the east (Mare Island\, Vallejo).(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3670; [larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing on the BCDC Enforcement ProgramThe Commission will receive a quarterly update on the ongoing program improvements and developments since the last briefing in September 2023.(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				This report lists the administrative matters that have been filed and are pending with the Commission. The Executive Director will take the action indicated on the matters unless the Commission determines that it is necessary to hold a public hearing. The staff members to whom the matters have been assigned are indicated at the end of the project descriptions. Inquiries should be directed to the assigned staff member prior to the Commission meeting. \nFederal Consistency Actions \n\n\n	 Applicant\n\n\n\nU.S. Department of Transportation	  Federal  Aviation Administration (FAA) 	  55 Broadway 	  Cambridge\, MA 02142	     \n\n\nBCDC Consistency Determination No. C2023.004.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\n09/07/23\n\n\n75th Day\n\n	11/21/23\n\n\n\n		Location \n\n\nWithin the Bay and the Commission’s Coastal Zone\, at Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MotCo) in northern Contra Costa County\, California (lat. 38.0464\, long. -122.0335). \n\n\n\n\n		Description\n	\n\nDecommission and remove existing outdated infrastructure used by the FAA and restore the project area to near pre-existing conditions through the following activities: \n\nRemove a 6-foot by 8-foot prefabricated fiberglass building;\n\nRemove a 10-foot-tall antenna pole; 3) Remove a 30-foot antenna pole;\n\n Construct 600 linear feet of chain-link fencing; and \n Remove surface gravel\, and backfill with clean fill and native vegetation.\n\nThe project will be conditioned to include avoidance and minimization measures to avoid possible adverse species and wildlife habitat impacts for listed species\, including the salt marsh harvest mouse. Monitoring of site conditions to evaluate restoration performance will be conducted in coordination with other natural resource agencies\, in accordance with Bay Plan Policies on Tidal Marshes and Tidal Flats. The total project area is approximately 0.7 acre\, and the project will result in an increase in Bay fill of no greater than 30 cubic yards\, resulting from backfilling the removed building and antenna foundations. The project will have no impacts to existing public access. \n\n\n\n\n		Tentative Staff Position:\n	\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. (Sam Fielding; 415/352-3665 or sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov) \n\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs 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. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant 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. \nIf 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. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf 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. \nCampaign Contributions\nState 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. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings 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.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/november-16-2023-commission-meeting-2/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231102T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231102T170000
DTSTAMP:20250320T225222Z
CREATED:20231017T045353Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250320T225222Z
UID:10000048-1698930000-1698944400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:November 2\, 2023 Commission Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 143 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/81421033671?pwd=ZTRqWHRDcTd6YmNWanJRbk52eXJsdz09 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID814 2103 3671 \nPasscode080569 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic 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.\n(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Comment Letter (PDF)\nApproval of Minutes for October 19\, 2023 Meeting (PDF)\n(Reylina Ruiz) [415/352-3638; reylina.ruiz@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nRecommendation for Engineering Criteria Review Board (ECRB Member Appointment) (PDF)\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters\nThere is no administrative listing\n(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing on the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan update\, Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-19 (PDF)\nThe Commission will hold a public hearing on the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan update\, an amendment to the Bay Plan to update the findings\, policies\, and map designations of the Seaport Plan.\n(Cory Mann) [415/352-3649; cory.mann@bcdc.ca.gov]\nDraft Seaport Plan (PDF) // Environmental Assessment (PDF) // Public Comments (PDF) // Addendum to the Cargo Forecast (PDF) // Staff Presentation (PDF)\nCommission Consideration of a Contract with the Port of San Francisco to Fund Planning Activities \nPOSTPONED\nThe 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.\n(Erik Buehmann) [415/352-3645; erik.buehmann@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing on Resilient State Route 37 Projects\nPOSTPONED\nThe Commission will receive a briefing on the status of Caltrans State Route 37 interim and long-term highway improvements and developments projects along the corridor\, from Highway US 101 (Novato\, Marin) in the west to I-80 in the east (Mare Island\, Vallejo).\n(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3670; [larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov]\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Commission Mailing October 20\, 2023 \n\nSan Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan update\, Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-19 (PDF)Draft Seaport Plan (PDF) // Environmental Assessment (PDF) // Public Comments (PDF) // Addendum to the Cargo Forecast (PDF)\n\nCommission Mailing October 27\, 2023 \n\nNovember 2\, 2023 Commission Meeting – POSTPONED Agenda Item 9\nDraft Minutes of October 19\, 2023 Hybrid Commission Meeting (PDF)\nPublic Comment Letter (PDF)\nStaff Recommendation for Engineering Criteria Review Board (ECRB Member Appointment) (PDF)\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nWhat Does ‘Unavoidable’ West Antarctic Ice Shelf Melt Mean for the Bay Area?\nThe sea is rising — and the clock is ticking\nGiant Ferris wheel closes at Golden Gate Park. It will return for APEC in new location\nCalifornia Mandates Coastal Cities Plan for Future Sea-Level Rise\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				Audio Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/10/11-02-CM-audio-recording.mp3 \nAudio Transcript \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WITH THAT INTRODUCTION AND RECORDING \nIN PROGRESS\, GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS ZACK WASSERMAN\, AND I AM \nTHE CHAIR OF BCDC. BEFORE WE START\, LET ME TAKE CARE OF A COUPLE OF AGENDA \nITEMS. WE ARE GOING TO DELAY OUR DISCUSSION OF THE UPCOMING CONTRACT \nWITH THE SAN FRANCISCO PORT TO FINISHED WATERFRONT PLANNING ACTIVITIES. \nSTAFF HOPES TO BRING THAT CONTRACTITOUS AT OUR NEXT MEETING IN EARLY DECEMBER. \nIN ADDITION TO THE STATE’S NEW RISING SEA LEVEL GUIDANCE WILL BE AVAILABLE \nIN NOVEMBER THAT WILL BE ON THAT AGENDA. WE WILL DELAY ON THIS AGENDA \n— OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS TO CALL THE ROLL. COMMISSIONERS\, IF YOU \nARE PARTICIPATING VIRTUALLY\, PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF TO ANSWER AND THEN \nMUTE YOURSELVES AGAIN. AFTER RESPOND. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: CHAIR WASSERMAN? \n>>ZACK WASSERMAN: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: EISEN? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: ADDIEGO? >>MARK ADDIEGO: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: AHN? >>EDDIE AHN: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: BEACH? >>SPEAKER: PRESENT. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: PEMBERTON? \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: EKLUND? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nEL-TAWANSY? >>DINA EL-TAWANSY: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: GILLMOR? >>SPEAKER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: GIOIA? >>JOHN GIOIA: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: GUNTHER? >>ANDREW GUNTHER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: HASZ? >>V. CHAIR\, KARL HASZ: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: KISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nPEMBERTON? >>SHERI PEMBERTON: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: PESKIN? RAMOS? \n>>BELIA RAMOS: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nRANDOLPH? RAN. >>SPEAKER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: SHOWALTER? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: VAZQUEZ? \n>>JOHN VASQUEZ: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: ZAPEDA? \n>>SPEAKER: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: DID I MISS \nANYONE? GORIN? THANK YOU. WE HAVE A QUORUM. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE HAVE QUORUM AND CONDUCT BUSINESS. THAT \nBRINGS US TO ITEM THREE\, PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ANYONE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE \nCOMMISSION ON A MATTER NOT ON OUR AGENDA\, OR WE HAVE NOT HELD A PUBLIC \nHEARING MAY DO SO NOW AND YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES. \nPRIOR TO STARTING THE COMMENT\, I DO WANT TO REEMPHASIZE WHAT WAS SAID IN \nTHE VIDEO. WE HAVE\, UNFORTUNATELY\, ACROSS OUR REGION IN THE COUNTRY\, \nEXPERIENCED AN INCREASE IN A TOMORROW I WOULD JUST AS SOON NOT KNOW\, ZOOM \nBOMBING\, IN WHICH PEOPLE UTILIZE TIME TO ENGAGE IN HATE SPEECH\, PERSONAL \nATTACKS\, OR THREATS. I WANT TO REITERATE THAT AS CHAIR THAT WILL NOT \nBE TOLERATED\, AND PEOPLE WILL BE CUT OFF QUICKLY. \nFOR PUBLIC COMMENT\, I’M GOING TO START WITH PEOPLE HERE IN OUR HEADQUARTERS \nBUILDING. PEOPLE HAVE SUBMITTED CARDS. IF YOU DO WANT TO SPEAK AND HAVE NOT\, \nPLEASE SEE REYLINA. AND THE FIRST PUBLIC SPEAKER IS SUNG LEE. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I APOLOGIZE. SORRY. SORRY. OH\, IT’S \nALL — HOLD ON. MY APOLOGY. I MISUNDERSTOOD THE MESSAGE. \nWE ONLY HAVE ONE COMMENT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT IN THE ROOM\, JOHN COLEMAN. \n>>SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR WASSER COMMISSIONERS AND BCDC STAFF. FOR \nTHOSE WHO DON’T KNOW ME I’M THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICEROFFICER. EVERYBODY \nSHOULD GET THEIR SECOND OR THIRD SHOT IF THAT’S NECESSARY. _ HERE HERE TO \nINTRODUCE A NEW PERSON ON OUR STAFF. ROBERT ROGERS TO MY RIGHT IS A NEW \nPOLICY ASSOCIATE HE COMES FROM SONOMA WATER. HE HAS A BACKGROUND IN WATER \nRESOURCES AS WELL AS LEGISLATION\, AND I WAS ABLE TO INTRODUCE HIM TO SOME OF \nYOU HERE AND CLEARLY SOME OF THE PEOPLE ON THE SCREEN. I COULDN’T INTRODUCE \nYOU TO HIM. BUT WE WELCOME HIM AND YOU WILL \nPROBABLY SEE OR HEAR FROM HIM AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE. I ASKED HIM IF \nHE WANTED TO SPEAK NOW AND HE SAID NO. I UNDERSTAND THAT. \nOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH BCDC\, 11\, 12 YEARS AGO\, I THINK THOSE AROUND CAN \nATTEST TO THE FACT THAT IT’S MUCH DIFFERENT NOW. \nWE MAY NOT ALWAYS AGREE\, THAT’S FINE. MY WIFE AND I DON’T ALWAYS AGREE \nEITHER. WE WORK THROUGH ISSUES WHEN ISSUES COME UP IN A COLLABORATIVE \nMATTER TO SUPPORT HOPEFULLY ISSUES COMING UP BEFORE YOU. WE BELIEVE THAT \nBCDC PLAYS A CRITICAL ROLE IN NOT ONLY PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT BUT THE \nECONOMY OF OUR REGION. THAT’S WHAT WE ENJOY AND WHY WE’RE HERE. IF WE TOUCH \nTHE WATER OR DRIVE OVER THE WATER WE WANT TO MAKE SURE RESOURCES ARE \nPROTECTED FOR THE FUTURE GENERATIONS TO COME. \nWITH THAT\, AGAIN\, ROBERT ROGERS. AND THANK YOU EVERYBODY FOR YOUR TIME \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU\, JOHN. WELCOME TO THE COMMUNITY\, ROBERT. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: DO WE \nHAVE REMOTE SPEAKERS\, REYLINA? >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO PUBLIC \nCOMMENT. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHAT CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC COMMENT AND BRINGS US TO ITEM FOUR\, APPROVAL OF \nTHE MINUTES OF OUR OCTOBER 19TH MEETING. WE HAVE ALL BEEN FURNISHED \nDRAFT MINUTES. I WOULD APPRECIATE A MOTION AND SECOND TO APPROVE THE \nMINUTES. DO I HEAR A MOTION? \n>>PAT EK LUND: I’LL MOVE IT. \nANY DISCUSSION OR COMMENTS? SEEING NONE. IS ANYBODY IN OPPOSITION \nOR WISHES TO ABSTAIN FROM THE MINUTES. \n>>SPEAKER: I’LL ABSTAIN. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nMINUTES ARE APPROVED WITH ONE ABSTENTION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. \nTHAT BRINGS US TO ITEM FIVE\, MY REPORT. THE FIRST THING I WANT TO DO IS \nINTRODUCE ALL OF OUR COMMISSIONERS AND THE PUBLIC WHO ARE HERE AND WATCHING\, \nTO A MARVELOUS NEW VIDEO THAT HAS BEEN CREATED AS PART OF OUR BAY ADAPT \nREGIONAL SHORELINE OUTREACH PROGRAM. IT HAS BEEN CAREFULLY WORKED ON. \nI’M SURE YOU COULD FIND SOMETHING TO IMPROVE IN IT THERE’S\, ALWAYS \nSOMETHING TO IMPROVE. BUT IT’S GOOD AND IT HELPS TO GET THE MESSAGE OUT \nAND WE’RE GOING TO SHARE IT. I THINK. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: ANGELA? [ VIDEO PLAYING ] \n>>SPEAKER: EXERCISE WITH STUNNING VIEWS WHERE MARSHES AND BEACHES ARE \nHOME TO FISH\, FREEWAYS AND TRANSIT AND BAY TRAIL LEAD US TO VISIT ONE ANOTHER \nPOWER LINES AND WATER LINES PROVIDE CRUCIAL SERVICES WHERE DIVERSE \nCOMMUNITIES COME TOGETHER TO LIVE\, WORK\, AND PLAY\, MAKING THE BAY AREA A \nONE-OF-A-KIND PLACE TO CALL HOME. >>SPEAKER: BUT ALL OF THAT IS AT RISK \nAS CLIMATE CHANGE CAUSES WATER IN THE BAY AND GROUND WATER BENEATH US TO \nRISE. WITHOUT ACTION\, THOSE RISING WATERS \nWILL AFFECT ALL OF OUR DAILY LIVES. THE WAY WE TRAVEL TO SCHOOL OR TO THE \nGROCERY STORE EVEN ING TOILETS WILL BECOME LESS RELIABLE. AIRPORTS\, BART\, \nAND UTILITIES ARE ALL VULNERABLE. WE WILL ALL FEEL THE EFFECTS EVEN IF WE \nDON’T LIVE IF A BAYSIDE COMMUNITY. SOME EFFECTS ARE LEAD HERE. IN RECENT \nYEARS RISING GROUNDWATER HAVE LED TO FLOODING. OUR SHORELINE IS CHANGING\, \nOUR COMMUNITIES ARE AT RISK SO HOW WE COEXIST WITH OUR ENVIRONMENT ALSO \nNEEDS TO CHANGE. IT’S A CHALLENGE OF IMMENSE IMPORTANCE. \nIF WE DON’T ACT\, 190\,000 JOBS\, 83\,000 HOMES\, AND 20\,000 ACRES ARE WET LANDS \nARE THREATENED WITHIN THE NEXT 40 YEARS. \n>>SPEAKER: WE HAVE DONE TOUGH WORK TOGETHER BEFORE. IN THE 1960s WHEN \nTHE BAY’S NATURAL AREAS WERE BEING FILLED FOR DEVELOPMENT CONCERNED \nCOMMUNITY MEMBERS LED THE WAY FOUNDING SAFETY SAVE THE BAY AND LEADING TO THE \nCONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. NOW BCDC IS ORGANIZING \nAROUND COLLECTIVE ACTION ONCE AGAIN CONVENING REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY \nPARTNERS WHO ARE ALREADY WORKING ON SEA LEVEL RISE ISSUES WHILE SUPPORTING \nOTHERS TO GET STARTED. WORKING WITH EACH OTHER AND WITH NATURE\, WE CAN \nPLAN FOR A NEW SHORELINE THAT SUPPORTS THE UNIQUE NEEDS OF EACH COMMUNITY. \n>>SPEAKER: IT CREATES NEW WALKING AND BICYCLE TRAILS. \n>>SPEAKER: THAT ENSURES AURAL AREAS THRIVE INTO THE FUTURE. \n>>SPEAKER: SOME AREAS HAVE HIGHER RISK OR ALREADY AT PREVIOUS HARM AND OUR \nDUTY IS TO MEET THEIR NEEDS FIRST. _. \n>>SPEAKER: WE NEED EVERYONE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PLANNING. \nBECAUSE THIS WILL AFFECT ALL OF US EVEN IF WE DON’T LIVE NEAR THE SHORELINE. \n>>SPEAKER: IT’S A CHALLENGE THAT \nCAN’T BE SOLVED IN A SINGLE GENERATION. WE NEED TO LEARN AND WORK TOGETHER \nOVER TIME TO PREPARE FOR THE FUTURE AHEAD. \n>>SPEAKER: AND NOW YOUR COMMUNITY NEEDS YOU TO GET INVOLVED IN THIS \nUNPRECEDENTED OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE A FUTURE BAY THAT CAN SUPPORT ALL OF US \nFOR GENERATIONS TO COME. (END OF VIDEO) \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THANK YOU FOR THAT. IT SHOULD BE \nPOSTED SHORTLY ON THE WEB SITE. IT IS THERE NOW. AND IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE \nA COPY FOR DISTRIBUTION\, PLEASE CONTACT LARRY OR STAFF\, WE WILL GET THAT TO \nYOU. MY NEXT PIECE IS THE NOMINATION OF A NEW MEMBER OF THE ENGINEERING \nCRITERIA REVIEW BOARD AS AN ALTERNATE. AS YOU MAY RECALL\, ONE OF MY DUTIES AS \nCHAIR IS APPOINT MEMBERS OF THE ECRB. WE HAVE A VACANCY\, AND HAVE GONE \nTHROUGH A PROCESS TO FIND A NEW ALTERNATE. JENN HYMA\, IN OUR CHIEF \nENGINEER DID A SEARCH PROFITED ON THE BCDC WEB SITE LINKEDIN AND REACHED OUT \nTO LOCAL UNIVERSITIES UC BERKELEY\, STANFORD UNIVERSITY AND SAN FRANCISCO \nSTATE AND SENT TO LOCAL CHAPTERS OF SOCIETY OF WOMEN ENGINEERS\, SOCIETY OF \nHISPANIC ENGINEERS AND SOCIETY OF BLACK ENGINEERS WITH COMPLEX PROJECTS IN AND \nNEAR THE BAY AND BROADENING DIVERSITY OF THE MEMBERSHIP IN ACCORDANCE WITH \nTHE COMMISSION RECENTLY ADOPTED ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND SOCIAL \nEQUITY GUIDING PRINCIPLES. AFTER THE SCREENING\, AN INTERVIEW \nPROCESS THERE\, IS A RECOMMENDATION THAT PATRICK RYAN BE APPOINTED TO THE OPEN \nALTERNATE POSITION. MR. RYAN IS A LICENSED SPECIAL INFRASTRUCTURE \nENGINEER AND PRINCIPLE COFOUNDER OF RYAN JOY STRUCTURAL DESIGN SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY ENGINEERING AND DESIGN FIRM. \nHE HAS 31 YEARS OF PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE\, MANAGING BAY AREA PROJECTS \nWITH STRUCTURES ON LAND ALONG THE SHORELINE\, AND IN THE BAY. HE SERVED \nAS A STRUCTURAL PRINCIPLE FOR THE EXPLORATORIA RENOVATION\, AND SEISMIC \nRETROFIT AT PEERS 15 AND 17 AS WELL AS DEVELOPMENTS IN MISSION BAY AND OYSTER \nPOINT. HAS RECENT DESIGN WORK APPEARS AT SEA LEVEL RISE RESILIENCE\, HE IS \nCONSTRUCTION NEAR ON THE ASSOCIATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND SERVES ON \nBOARDS OF AIA\, SAN FRANCISCO\, AND SAN FRANCISCO SPECIFICATION IN SAN \nFRANCISCO. I CONCUR THIS RECOMMENDATION UNLESS I HEAR AN \nOBJECTION I WILL APPOINT MR. RYAN TO THE ECRB. \nSEEING\, HEARING NONE. HE IS SO APPOINTED. THANK YOU\, JENN\, FOR YOUR \nWORK. WE CONTINUE AS THE VIDEO INDICATED \nADVANCING BAY ADAPT FIGURING OUT WHAT WE CAN DO\, STAFF IS WORKING HARD ON \nTHE IMPLEMENTATION AND ROLLING OUT UNDER RESPONSIBILITIES OF SB272. \n_ I AM GLAD TO SEE SO MANY COMMISSIONERS IN THE ROOM. AND HOPE \nTHAT OTHERS WILL JOIN US FOR OUR POST MEETING GET TOGETHER SOCIAL HOUR IN \nTHE TEMESCAL ROOM\, RIGHT OVER THERE. AFTER WE CONCLUDE OUR MEETING. \nNO DISCUSSION OF SPECIFIC BUSINESS UNDER BCDC JURISDICTION WILL OCCUR AT \nTHE SOCIAL GATHERING SO IT IS NOT A MEETING SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF \nBAGLEY-KEENE OPEN MEETINGS ACT BUT IT’S A CHANCE FOR US TO TALK TO EACH OTHER\, \nINCLUDING ALTERNATINGS\, SENIOR STAFF\, AND SENIOR STAFF WHO ARE HERE ARE \nWELCOME. OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE HELD NOVEMBER 16TH HERE AT THE METRO \nCENTER. AT THAT MEETING WE HOPE TO TAKE UP THE FOLLOWING MATTERS CONTRACT \nWITH PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO REGARDING SAN FRANCISCO WATERFRONT AREA WATER \nPLAN DISCUSSION ON THE PROGRAM TO RECONSTRUCT STATE ROUTE 37 IN THE \nNORTH BAY AND UPDATE ON OUR ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM\, AND A BRIEFING ON OUR CURRENT \nAND PAST YEAR’S BUDGET. WE EXPECT TO HOLD ALL OF OUR REGULAR \nSCHEDULED MEETINGS THROUGHOUT THE REST OF THIS YEAR\, INCLUDING A MEETING ON \nA.M. SO\, PLEASE KEEP THOSE ON YOUR CALENDAR AND MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE \nAVAILABLE. WE WILL PROBABLY NOT MEET ON JANUARY 4TH OF 2024. \nTHIS BRINGS US TO THE ALWAYS EXCITING EX PARTE REPORTS F ANY OF YOU HAVE HAD \nDISCUSSIONS OUTSIDE OF THE COMMISSION MEETINGS ON MATTERS THAT ARE \nADJUDICATORY OR YOU THINK ARE IMPORTANT TO DISCLOSE. YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO \nDISCLOSE THOSE IN WRITING. IF YOU HAVE DONE SO\, OR FOR OTHER REASONS WISH TO \nDO SO VERBALLY\, NOW IS THE TIME TO DO IT BUT AGAIN YOU MUST DO IT IN \nWRITING. ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS? SEEING NONE. \nWE MISSED THAT EXCITEMENT. THAT BRINGS US TO THE REPORT OF THE \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. TAKE IT AWAY. >>LARRY GOLDZBAND: THANK YOU CHAIR \nWASSERMAN. ONE THING WE ALL HAVE TO LEARN AS MANAGERS\, LEADERS COLLEAGUES\, \nPARENTS OR FRIENDS IS THAT SIMPLY SOMETIMES THINGS JUST GO WRONG. \nSOMETIMES IT’S BECAUSE WE HAVEN’T THOUGHT THROUGH ALL POSSIBLE \nRAMIFICATIONS OF AN IDEA. OTHER TIMES IT’S BECAUSE WE OVERPLAY OUR HANDS AND \nTHINK WE’RE JUST SMARTER THAN THE OTHER GUY OTHER AND TIMES IT’S SOMETHING \nTOTALLY DIFFERENT. FOR EXAMPLE\, ON THIS DAY IN 1948\, PRESIDENT HARRY \nTRUMAN WON AN ASTOUNDINGLY SURPRISING REELECTION BID. BUT WHAT WE ALL \nREMEMBER ISN’T HOW WE WON IT\, BUT THAT AFTER THE ELECTION WAS CALLED\, HE WAS \nPHOTOGRAPHED HOLDING THE FRONT PAGE OF THE CHICAGO DAILY TRIBUNE WITH THE \nHEADLINE “DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN.” OR WHY DID CORNELL UNIVERSITY GRADUATE \nROBERT MORRIS DECIDE ON DECEMBER 2ND\, 1988 THAT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA TO LET \nLOOSE HAS MORRIS WORM FROM MIT COMPUTER NETWORK TO SEE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN. \nCOSTING PROBABLY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO FIX THE UNINTENDED RAMIFICATIONS OF \nTHE FIRST WORM EVER LET LOOSE ON THE INTERNET. \nI BRING THESE EXAMPLES UP BECAUSE OF TODAY’S VERY SHORT AGENDA. WE HAD \nPLANNED TO HAVE AT LEAST TWO OR THREE MORE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA INCLUDING \nDISCUSSION OF HIGHWAY 37 IN THE NORTH BAY\, AND A CONTRACT TO MOVE FORWARD \nSAN FRANCISCO’S WATERFRONT PLANNING PROGRAM\, BUT NEITHER OF THOSE ISSUES \nCOULD MOVE FORWARD IN TIME. SO\, WE PLEAD FOR YOUR INDULGENCE AND WANT TO \nLET YOU KNOW THAT WE SHALL ENDEAVOR TO PLAN BETTER THROUGHOUT THE REMAINDER \nOF THE YEAR AND BEYOND. AND I WANT TO REINFORCE SOMETHING THAT CHAIR \nWASSERMAN JUST SAID\, WE WILL HAVE COMMISSION MEETINGS TWICE IN NOVEMBER\, \nAND TWICE IN DECEMBER\, AS PLANNED. AND WE NEED YOU AT EACH OF THEM. \nDECEMBER WILL BRING A CONTENTIOUS PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN A VOTE TWO \nWEEKS LATER. I WANT TO LET THE COMMISSION KNOW THAT \nI HAVE MADE A DECISION TO REQUIRE OUR STAFF TO WORK IN THE OFFICE TWO DAYS \nPER WEEK STARTING IN JANUARY\, AN INCREASE FROM THE CURRENT ONE DAY PER \nWEEK. ONE OF THOSE TWO DAYS WILL BE ON THURSDAYS EACH WEEK WHEN OUR ENTIRE \nSTAFF WILL COME INTO IS THE OFFICE TO MAXIMIZE INTERDIVISION WORK AND ALIGN \nWITH COMMISSION MEETING DAYS. TIM COOK CALLS THIS AN ANCHOR DAY. \nWHILE WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GET WORK COMPLETED AND WELL WHILE WORKING \nREMOTELY I BELIEVE WE CAN PRODUCTIVITY GAINS IF WE WORK PHYSICALLY ONE CHA \nDAY PER WEEK. NOT INCREASING BCDC COLLABORATIVE CULTURE EXPANDING \nABILITY TO LEARN FROM EACH OTHER _ FORMALLY AS WELL AS INFORMALLY AND \nCAPITALIZING ON SOCIAL ASPECTS OF ALL IN FAVOR LEAD TO A PRODUCTIVE AND \nINSIGHTFUL STAFF. THE STATE’S CURRENT SYSTEM FAVORS ENABLING OUR STAFF TO \nCOME INTO THE OFFICE TWO DAYS PER WEEK AND I HAVE NO PLANS TO INCREASE THAT \nANY FURTHER. OF COURSE\, WE SHALL REMAIN AS FLEXIBLE AS WE ALWAYS HAVE \nBEEN REGARDING ATTENDING FAMILY AND CARE — OR OTHER PARTS OF THE BAY \nAREA\, I RECOGNIZE THIS MAY IMPACT OUR ABILITY TO MAINTAIN AND RECRUIT STAFF \nBUT I BELIEVE THE ADVANTAGES FAR OUTWEIGH RISKS INVOLVED I’M HAPPY TO \nDISCUSS THIS WITH ANY OF YOU AS COMMISSIONERS JUST AS I’M DOING WITH \nSTAFF THIS WEEK AND NEXT. GIVEN THE COMMISSION AND COASTAL \nCONSERVANCY HAVE STARTED BRINGING BACK STAFF TWO DAYS PER WEEK I DO NOT \nANTICIPATE OUR BARGAINING UNITS WILL OPPOSE THE CHANGE. HAPPY TO REPORT WE \nHOSTED OVER 180 PARTICIPANTS IN BCDC FIRST BAY ADAPT REGIONAL SHORELINE \nADAPTATION PLAN GUIDANCE WORKSHOP. THAT A MOUTHFUL TO BE SURE AND I WANT \nTO LET YOU KNOW IT WAS REMARKABLY ACTIVE VIRTUAL WORKSHOP LOTS OF \nDISCUSSION ABOUT THE BAY SB272 DEFINITION OF REGIONAL PLANS \nEVERYTHING STAFF BRIEFED YOU ON TWO WEEKS AGO. TERRIBLY EXCITING. NOW \nFOR DISAPPOINTING NEWS FOR OUR ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF AND MAYBE FOR \nYOU. STARTING IN JANUARY\, STATE LAW WILL AGAIN REQUIRE COMMISSIONERS WHO \nARE NOT PRESENT AT 375 BEALE STREET DURING OUR FULL COMMISSION MEETINGS TO \nPROVIDE THE PUBLIC WITH THE ADDRESSES FROM WHICH THEY WILL BE PARTICIPATING \nVIRTUALLY. AND OUR REMOTE PARTICIPANTS WILL BE REQUIRED TO DO SO IN A \nPUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE AND NOTICED PHYSICAL SPACE. \nWHILE LEGISLATION HAS BEEN ENACT THAT ESTABLISHES THE BAGLEY-KEENE ACT \nPUBLIC PARTICIPATION — ONLY IF MAJORITY OF COMMISSIONERS ARE PRESENT \nHERE AT METRO CENTER. STAFF CANNOT ENSURE THAT A MAJORITY OF \nCOMMISSIONERS WILL BE PRESENT AT 375 BEALE STREET FOR ANY GIVEN MEETING AND \nWE WILL NOT RUN THE RISK OF NOT HAVING A QUORUM AS FOR THE COMMISSION’S \nADVISORY BODIES WE WILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO PUBLISH LOCATIONS OF ADVISORY BODY \nREMOTELY SO LONG AS ONE STAFF MEMBER IS PRESENT AT 375 BEALE STREET AT THE \nMEETING THAT ISN’T AN EASY BAR TO CLEAR. THAT COMPLETES HIGH REPORT \nCHAIR HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. _ \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR? \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER? >>ANDREW GUNTHER: LARRY\, I’M GLAD TO \nHEAR YOU ARE REQUIRING PEOPLE TO COME IN TWICE A WEEK. \nTHIS IS SOMETHING I HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCING WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS \nTHAT I AM ON THE BOARDS OF\, AND EXECUTIVES SEEM TO BE KIND OF COMING \nBACK TO THAT PLACE. HOWEVER\, I’M QUITE AWARE OF IT\, THAT IT’S REALLY \nCOMFORTABLE FOR THOSE IN MY GENERATION. BUT THE YOUNGER GENERATION\, I HAVE \nHAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM WHO INSIST PRODUCTIVITY. _ I WOULD ASK YOU TO \nSHARE WITH US IN 3 TO 6 MONTHS HOW THINGS ARE GOING AND I HAVE \nEXPERIENCED SOME PEOPLE WHO SAY\, YAY\, I WANT TO COME BACK TO THE OFFICE. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: GREAT QUESTION YES WE WILL. WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT\, IF WE \nFIGURE IT OUT\, WE’LL TELL YOU. THIS HAS BEEN REALLY\, FROM AN \nORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR PERSPECTIVE\, FROM A LEADERSHIP PERSPECTIVE\, THIS \nHAS BEEN ONE OF THE MORE INTERESTING — AND I MEAN THAT NOT IN AN OBFUSCATE \nWAY BUT AN INTERESTING PROCESS FOR ME. \nI AM\, I’LL TELL YOU ALL\, I NOW CARRY A MEDICARE CARD AS OF THIS YEAR WHICH \nHAS AFFECTED ME GREATLY IN A LOT OF WAYS. BUT THE POINT IS THAT I GREW UP \nPROFESSIONALLY IN A WAY THAT PEOPLE UNDER THE AGE\, FOR EXAMPLE\, OF 40 OR \nMAYBE UNDER 30 HAVE NOT. AND THAT’S COMPOUNDED BY THE FACT THAT WE HAD A \nPANDEMIC IN WHICH EVERYBODY CHANGED THE WAY THEY BEHAVE IN TERMS OF HOW WE \nWORKED. AND SO\, I THINK THAT THE REALLY INTERESTING POINT ABOUT THIS IS \nTHAT THE DISCUSSIONS THAT MY WIFE AND I HAVE WITH OUR FRIENDS WHO ARE ALSO IN \nTHE WORKING WORLD ON SATURDAY NIGHTS OR AT DINNER PARTIES OR WHATEVER\, IT \nREVOLVES AROUND THIS. WE’RE ALL INTERESTED IN HOW WE WORK NOW. \nAND I HAVE BEEN REALLY GRATIFIED THAT A NUMBER OF OUR STAFF WHO ARE YOUNGER\, \nLESS VETERAN THAN WE ARE\, BY FAR\, ARE EAGER TO COME BACK INTO THE OFFICE A \nCOUPLE OF DAYS A WEEK AND A COUPLE HAVE GONE SO FAR AS TO SAY I REALLY WANT TO \nMEET EVERYBODY. BECAUSE THEY HAVEN’T MET EVERYBODY. AND SO BECAUSE WE \nHIRED A HUGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN A RELATIVE WAY\, OVER THE PANDEMIC\, AND \nOVER THE PAST YEAR. AND SO THE THURSDAY ANCHOR DAY I THINK IS GOING \nTO BE REALLY\, REALLY PERSONALITY. AND I DO THINK\, BECAUSE I HAVE SEEN IT \nIN THE DAYS THAT I’M IN THE OFFICE THREE DAYS A WEEK\, THAT WHEN PEOPLE \nARE SITTING NEXT TO EACH OTHER\, THEY TALK WITH EACH OTHER\, AND THEY WILL \nRUN INTO EACH OTHER\, AND I HAVE SEEN INFORMAL DISCUSSIONS THAT\, YOU KNOW\, \nWOULD NEVER HAVE TAKEN PLACE\, HAD THEY NOT BEEN IN THE OFFICE\, AND THEY’RE \nLEARNING THINGS FROM THEIR COLLEAGUES. \nI’M LEARNING FROM THEM. SO\, I THINK IT’S REALLY\, REALLY IMPORTANT TO DO \nTHIS. IT’S ONLY TWO DAYS A WEEK\, COMPARED TO FIVE DAYS PRE-PANDEMIC\, \nAND WE WILL GIVE MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY — \nWELL\, MAXIMUM IS THE WRONG WORD — WE’LL GIVE A LOT OF FLEXIBILITY ON \nTHAT SECOND IS DAY. WE’LL LET THE MANAGERS CHOOSE WHEN THAT’S GOING TO \nBE AND THEY WILL FIGURE OUT WHAT’S BEST FOR THEIR TEAMS. SO THERE WILL BE \nFLEXIBILITY THAT WAY TOO. SO WE WILL KEEP YOU INFORMED. \nYOU KNOW\, PRODUCTIVITY IS NOT MEASURED AT P PG&E? IT’S NOT MEASURED BY \nWIDGETS AND NUMBER OF PEOPLE THEY HAVE\, IT’S NOT AS IF YOU CAN QUANTIFY — \nWE’RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO MAKE A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER — OR INCREASE A \nSIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF PERMITS THAT WE ISSUE BECAUSE WE’RE HERE. THAT’S NOT \nTHE WAY THE WORLD WORKS. BUT PRODUCTIVITY CAN WELL BE MEASURED BY \nINCREASING CULTURE\, BY INCREASING SOCIAL ASPECTS AT WORK AND THE LIKE. \nSO\, I THINK BY DOING THIS WE WILL INCREASE OUR GENERAL PRODUCTIVITY. \nTHANKS FOR THE QUESTION. >>SPEAKER: I’LL ALSO POINT OUT MY \nEXPERIENCE THAT I HAVE HEARD FROM OTHERS THAT — THAT THOSE WHO SUFFER \nGREATLY FROM REMOTE WORK ARE THE YOUNGEST STAFF MEMBERS WHO ENDS UP NOT \nHAVING ANY KIND OF REGULAR MENTORING THAT HAPPENS JUST KIND OF ELBOW TO \nELBOW WITH PEOPLE. AND I WOULD SUGGEST MR. CHAIRMAN WE CONSIDER POSSIBLY \nHAVING ANCHOR MEETINGS. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nWE’LL TALK MORE ABOUT THAT. COMMISSIONER GIOIA? WHO DISAPPEARED. \nCOMMISSIONER RANDOLPH. WE’LL COME \nBACK TO COMMISSIONER GIOIA. >>SPEAKER: WE HAVE BEEN BACK NOW\, AT \nMY ORGANIZATION 2\, 2 DAYS A WEEK\, BUT THE TREND IS TOWARD THREE. AND WE’RE \nCLEARLY A BETTER TEAM AND WE’RE EFFECTIVE WHEN WE’RE TOGETHER AND \nHAVING THOSE KIND OF INTERACTIONS. AND I THINK WHAT YOU’RE PROBABLY GOING TO \nSEE IS A TREND IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR. \nIT’S TWO DAYS A WEEK NOW\, BUT TRENDING TOWARD THREE\, AND PROBABLY FOUR DAYS \nOVER THE NEXT MAYBE TWO YEARS. IT’S NEGOTIATION\, IT’S A CULTURAL SHIFT. \nWITH US\, AS WELL\, AND MY YOUNGER WORKERS. BUT AFTER A SPUTTERING \nATTEMPT TO DO THIS IN 2022\, I THINK YOU’RE SEEING MORE OF A CONSENSUS IN \nPRIVATE INDUSTRY THAT WE’RE BETTER TOGETHER AND\, SORT OF\, ACTUAL \nSTANDARDS BEING ENFORCED BY COMPANIES TO ENSURE — I’M NOT SUGGESTING THIS \nFOR THE COMMISSION\, BUT THAT\, YOU KNOW\, PEOPLE’S SALARIES\, THEIR VALUATION OR \nEMPLOYMENT WILL DEPEND ON ACTUALLY BEING IN OVER TIME. SO\, I THINK WHAT \nYOU’RE DOING NOW IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DIRECTION WE’RE SEEING IN THE PRIVATE \nSECTOR. AND IT’S A TRANSITION\, BUT I THINK OVER PROBABLY THE NEXT TWO \nYEARS\, MAYBE THREE\, PROBABLY WE’LL ALL BE BACK 3 TO 4 DAYS. \n>>SPEAKER: CAN I RESPOND TO THAT FOR A SECOND? BECAUSE I WANT TO EDUCATE THE \nCOMMISSION ABOUT SOMETHING WITH CAL HR AND THE WAY WE WORK WITH THE STATE. \nYOU KNOW THIS. I MENTIONED IN MY REPORT\, THERE IS \nTHIS SPLIT WITHIN THE STATE IN TERMS OF HOW THE STATE LOOKS AT TWO DAYS VERSUS \nTHREE DAYS. WHAT THE STATE DID WHEN PEOPLE WERE \nCOMING BACK\, WHEN STATE WORKERS WERE COMING BACK WAS PROVIDE A STIPEND\, AND \nTHIS’S THE AMOUNT OF THAT STIPEND DEPENDS UPON WHETHER YOU ARE EITHER \nOFFICE CENTRIC OR REMOTE CENTRIC. AND YOU’RE OFFICE CENTRIC IF YOU ARE LESS \nTHAN TWO AND A HALF DAYS OUT OF YOUR HOUSE\, AND YOU’RE REMOTE CENTRIC IF \nYOU ARE MORE THAN TWO AND A HALF DAYS OUT OF YOUR HOUSE. WE DON’T HAVE TIME \nAND A HALF AT BCDC THAT BASICALLY MEANS TWO VERSUS THREE. I FIGURED\, AND I \nTHINK THIS IS RIGHT\, AND I THINK THIS IS FAIR _ I DON’T WANT TO GET IN FRONT \nOF THE STATE F THE STATE DECIDES TO CHANGE THE 2/3 SPLIT INTO SOMETHING \nELSE IF THE NEXT GOVERNOR DECIDES TO DO THAT\, I DO NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER THAT. \nBUT AT THIS POINT SINCE EVERYBODY AT BCDC IS REMOTE CENTRIC WITH EXCEPTION \nOF ME BECAUSE I COME IN THREE DAYS A WEEK AND EVERYONE ELSE IS COPYING IN \nTWO DAYS A WEEK I’M NOT GOING TO GO PAST TWO DAYS THAT’S HOW THE STIPEND \nWORKS WITHIN CAL RHR AND IT’S A 2/3 SPLIT. YOU HAVE SOME PEOPLE COMING IN \nCERTAIN DAYS. >>SPEAKER: YOU’RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT \nLARRY IT DEPENDS ON THE BUSINESS NEEDS AND EVERY DISTRICT IS DIFFERENT \nDEPENDING ON NEEDS. OUR CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE FOLKS HAVE BEEN IN FIVE \nDAYS A WEEK THEY NEED TO BE. OTHER DIVISIONS WE’RE ASKING THEM TO COME \nINTO THE OFFICE MINIMUM OF TWO DAYS. THIS IS A DISTRICT FOUR OR BAY AREA \nDIRECTION. WE SEE DEFINITELY THERE IS A NEED WITH A LOT OF YOUNG PEOPLE \nCOMING INTO THE ORGANIZATION WITHOUT ANY PRIOR EXPERIENCE. WE WANT TO BE \nABLE TO DO SOME TEAM BUILDING\, HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO GET TO KNOW \nTHEIR TEAMMATES\, AND ASK QUESTIONS FACE-TO-FACE. THERE IS A LOT OF VALUE \nIN HAVING PEOPLE INTERACT FACE-TO-FACE. SO THAT’S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING SO \nFAR. AND WE’RE GOING TO BE REEVALUATING EVERY SIX MONTHS OR SO TO \nSEE IF WE’RE ON POINT OR NOT. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER GIOIA? >>JOHN GIOIA: I JUST WANT TO SAY WHEN \nWE GET INTO JANUARY AND THE REGIONAL CENTERS I’M WILLING TO HAVE MY OFFICE \nBE A REGIONAL LOCATION\, JUST LIKE WE CURRENTLY ARE FOR THE AIR DISTRICT AND \nTHE SAN 47ING BAY RESTORATION AUTHORITY. SO WE GET OTHER BOARD \nMEMBERS IN THE AIR DISTRICT COMING TO MY OFFICE. \nBECAUSE WE ARE HAVE STAFF THAT CAN RUN THIS WHETHER I’M HERE OR NOT\, BUT I \nWILL USUALLY BE HERE. SO I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT \nTHERE. WE SHOULD PROBABLY BE DOING WHAT THE AIR DISTRICT IS DOING AND\, \nYOU KNOW\, AND WORKING WITH CURRENT MEMBERS WHO ARE ASSOCIATED WITH \nAGENCIES WHERE THEY HAVE PUBLIC OFFICES. AND I SEE MY FRIEND COUNCIL \nMEMBER ZEPEDA HERE\, CESAR CAN COME UP TO MY OFFICE OR WE CAN TAKE THE FERRY \nTO SAN FRANCISCO. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS AVAILABLE. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE WILL TAKE YOU UP ON THAT I’M SURE. \nMY COMMENT IS IT’S PARALLEL IN PART TO THE COMMENT ABOUT EMPLOYEES COMING IN\, \nAND THAT’S ABOUT OUR MEETING IN-PERSON\, VERSUS THESE HYBRID MEETINGS. \nONE\, THERE IS JUST AS MUCH UNCERTAINTY AND EXPERIMENTATION GOING ON IN THAT \nAS THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO SERVE ON OTHER REGIONAL \nBOARDS KNOW. I THINK\, IN PARTICULAR\, THEY HAVE NOT — THEY\, THE LEGISLATURE \n— HAVE NOT LOOKED VERY CLOSELY AT THE DIFFERENCES FOR REGIONAL BOARDS SUCH \nAS OURS. BECAUSE\, AS MUCH AS I THINK HAVING \nPEOPLE HERE IN THE ROOM MAKES A DIFFERENCE\, TO WIT OUR SOCIAL HOUR \nAFTER THIS MEETING\, THERE ARE ALSO OTHER FACTORS. \nRANGING FROM ENVIRONMENTAL TO\, PLAIN AND SIMPLE\, EFFICIENCY\, WHEN YOU HAVE \nGOT PEOPLE COMING IN FROM ALL OVER THE BAY AREA. \nAND MY HOPE IS THAT THE LEGISLATURE WILL CONTINUE REVIEWING THIS AND\, \nPERHAPS\, COME TO SOME BETTER SOLUTIONS THAN THE LEGISLATION THAT WILL TAKE \nEFFECT IN 2024\, IT APPEARS\, AT LEAST TO ME. \nOKAY. SEEING NO OTHER COMMENTS. OH\, PAT? \n>>SPEAKER: I WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE THE CONCEPT ANCHOR MEETINGS AND I \nPRESUME THAT’S A MEETING THAT WE EXPECT EVERYBODY TO SHOW UP TO IN-PERSON. \nAND HAVING SERVED ON A NUMBER OF PROJECTS OVER THE YEARS\, I HAVE \nOBSERVED THAT IF YOU HAVE AN ANCHOR MEETING EVERY QUARTER OR EVERY SIX \nMONTHS\, YOU CAN DO YOUR WORK PRETTY WELL OVER THE PHONE OR BY ZOOM. THOSE \nANCHOR MEETINGS ARE IMPORTANT AND THEY SHOULD BE AGENDAIZED WELL IN ADVANCE \nSO WE CAN PLAN FOR THE TRANSPORTATION TIME. AND\, OF COURSE\, THEY SHOULD \nINCLUDE A SOCIAL HOUR. [LAUGHTER] \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THANK YOU. \nTHAT BRINGS US TO ITEM SEVEN\, ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS WHERE\, FOR THE \nSECOND TIME IN A ROW\, ARE STILL MODERATELY NEW STAFF MEMBER HARRIET \nROSS GETS OFF EASY. ITEM EIGHT IS A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SAN FRANCISCO \nBAY SEAPORT PLAN UPDATE\, BAY PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER 119. \nTHE COMMISSION WILL NOW HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DRAFT PLAN TO UPDATE \nTHE FINDINGS\, TELLSES\, AND MAP DESIGNATIONS OF THE SEAPORT PLAN. WE \nHAVE NOT SCHEDULED A VOTE ON THIS ITEM TODAY TO ENSURE THAT COMMISSION STAFF \nAND MEMBERS CAN ANALYZE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND INCLUDE THE FINAL DRAFT PROPOSAL. \nANY IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROPRIATE CHANGES. \nBEFORE WE HEAR THE STAFF REPORT FROM PRINCIPLE WATERFRONT PLANNER CORY \nMANN\, I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE VICE CHAIR EISEN WHO IS THE CHAIR OF THE SEAPORT \nPLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE CONTEXT IF SHE DESIRES. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: SHE DOES DESIRE. I WAS GRATEFUL CHAIR \nWASSERMAN IS ASKING ME TO SPEAK IT GAVE ME TIME TO TAKE A TRIP DOWN MEMORY \nLANE IN THE PAST FEW DAYS. IT WAS BACK IN JANUARY 2019 WHEN THE COMMISSION \nWAS ASKED TO CONSIDER TWO BAY PLAN AMENDMENTS. ONE IS THIS ONE TO REVISE \nTHE SEAPORT PLAN\, AND THE SECOND ONE WAS TO REMOVE HOWARD TERMINAL FROM THE \nPORT PRIORITY USE DESIGNATION THAT COVERED IT. FOR REASONS OUR CHAIR \nKNOWS VERY WELL\, WE CHOSE TO ADDRESS THE HOWARD TERMINAL AMENDMENT FIRST. \nAND DID YOU SAY SOMETHING ABOUT CONTENTIOUS HEARINGS? \n[LAUGHTER] SO IT WAS — THOUGHT MAYBE I SHOULD \nISSUE A TRIGGER WARNING BEFORE I MENTIONED HOWARD TERMINAL. BUT \nLOOKING BACK ON IT\, IT FEELS SOMETIMES IT WAS AN EXERCISE\, IT PROLONGED \nEXERCISE IN IF YOU TILLITY BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW WHAT HAPPENED AFTER WE \nREACHED OUR CONCLUSION IN JUNE 2022. IN CONNECTION WITH THIS BAY PLAN \nAMENDMENT TO REVISE THE SEAPORT PLAN IT OCCURRED TO ME THAT WE LEARNED A LOT \nDURING THAT PROCESS. WE LEARNED A LOT THAT TURNS OUT TO BE VERY HELPFUL IN \nWHAT WE’RE GOING TO BE DOING NEXT. FOR EXAMPLE\, WE LEARNED ABOUT THE SPECK\, \nTHE SEAPORT PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND THE EXPERTISE WE HAVE THERE _ AND \nHOW IMPORTANT THEY PLAY A ROLE IN ADVISING THIS COMMISSION. I HOPE \nTHERE IS SOMETHING SPAC MEMBERS HERE TODAY. WE LEARNED A LOT ABOUT THE \nPORTS. A GREAT DEAL ABOUT THE PORTS AND DIFFICULTIES IN PLANNING AND \nMAKING SURE THEY CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THIS HUGE ECONOMIC BENEFIT TO THE BAY \nAREA. WE LEARNED MORE THAN I EVER THOUGHT I WOULD KNOW ABOUT CARGO \nFORECAST\, AND HOW DIFFICULT LONG-TERM PLANNING IS. AND HOW IMPORTANT IT IS \nTO UPDATE THESE LONG-TERM PLANS REGULARLY SO THAT WHEN WE DO GET \nCALLED ON TO MAKE DECISIONS\, WE HAVE INFORMATION THAT WE CAN REALLY USE AND \nRELY UPON. AND THE OTHER THING I THOUGHT WAS \nREALLY IMPORTANT IN THAT PROCESS IS WE LEARNED\, OR RELEARNED HOW IMPORTANT IT \nIS WHEN WE MAKE OUR DECISIONS TO INVOLVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITIES\, \nAND THE EQUITY COMMUNITIES IN THE PROCESS. \nAND I WAS REALLY HAPPY WHEN I SAW THE DRAFT SEAPORT PLAN A COUPLE OF MONTHS \nAGO\, I GUESS IT IS NOW\, JESSICA. IT WAS CLEAR THAT OUR STAFF HAS TAKEN \nEVERY ONE OF THOSE LESSONS TO HEART AND HAS INCORPORATED THEM IN THE DRAFT \nSEAPORT PLAN THAT WE’RE GOING TO HEAR ABOUT IN A SECOND\, AND IN THE PROCESS \nOF CREATING THAT DRAFT SEAPORT PLAN. SO\, IT WAS NOT ALL FOR NOT. IN FACT\, \nI THINK IT ACTUALLY PLAYS A VERY IMPORTANT ROLE IN WHAT WE’RE GOING TO \nBE DOING NEXT. THANK YOU CHAIR WASSERMAN. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THANK YOU. IT IS IMPORTANT TO LEARN \nFROM HISTORY. I WOULD NOW ASK CORY MAN TO PRESENT \nTHE SEAPORT PLAN DRAFT. >>SPEAKER: THANK YOU CHAIR WASSERMAN. \nTHANK YOU VICE CHAIR EISEN. I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. \nI’LL GO AHEAD AND SHARE MY SCREEN WITH THE PRESENTATION. \nAND I’LL ASSUME THAT EVERYONE CAN SEE THE PRESENTATION OKAY? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE’RE GOOD. \n>>CORY MANN: WELL\, GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. I AM EXCITED TO GIVE YOU A \nPRESENTATION ON THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA SEAPORT PLAN. \nTHE SEAPORT PLAN WAS FIRST PUBLISHED IN 1982\, AND AS YOU KNOW\, WE HAVE BEEN \nUNDERTAKING A COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE PLAN. \nIN ADVANCE OF TODAY’S MEETING\, STAFF CIRCULATED A NEW DRAFT SEAPORT PLAN \nALONG WITH A STAFF REPORT\, A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT\, AS WELL AS \nAN ADDENDUM TO THE CARGO FORECAST AND I BELIEVE CAT IS GOING TO ADD A LINK TO \nTHE ZOOM DOCUMENTS SO YOU CAN REFER TO THEM. THIS IS A PRESENTATION OF 30 \nMINUTES BUT I’M GOING TO TAKE A BREAK TO ANSWER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. \nAPOLOGIES IF THIS IS ON THE LONGER SIDE BUT THERE IS A LOT TO COVER TODAY AND \nWE’LL HAVE TIME FOR QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION. \nHERE IS A PREVIEW OF WHAT I’LL BE TALKING THROUGH. FIRST GOING THROUGH \nBASIC BACKGROUND ABOUT THE SEAPORT PLAN LIKE THE PURPOSE OF THE PLAN AND HOW \nBCDC HAS BEEN USING IT IN THE PAST AND HOW WE’RE WORKING TO UPDATE. \nAND THEN I’LL GET TO THE DRAFT PLAN ITSELF. I’LL PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF \nPROPOSED CHANGES TO THE POLICIES OF THE PLAN. THERE IS NOT ENOUGH TIME TO GO \nINTO DEPTH OF EVERY POLICY IN THE PRESENTATION I’LL DISCUSS THE LEVEL OF \nTOPIC AREAS AND HOW THEY HAVE CHANGE IN THE DRAFT BUT MORE THAN HAPPY TO \nANSWER SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY POLICY INCLUDED IN THE DRAFT. \nAFTER THAT I’LL SHARE — I’LL TAKE A BREAK TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND I’LL \nSHARE MORE ABOUT PROPOSED CHANGES TO PART TWO OF THE SEAPORT PLAN AND \nTHAT’S THE MAPPED BOUNDARIES OF THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS IN BCDC’S \nJURISDICTION AND SOME RELATED POLICIES. AND THEN FINALLY I WILL OUTLINE NEXT \nSTEPS. SO\, FIRST JUST SOME BACKGROUND ABOUT \nTHE HISTORICAL AND\, LIKE\, LEGAL POLICY CONTEXT FOR THE SEAPORT PLAN. MOST \nSIMPLY YOU CAN THINK OF THE SEAPORT PLAN AS A SPECIFIC APPLICATION OF THE \nSAN FRANCISCO BAY PLAN. SO THE BAY PLAN HAS A SECTION OF FINDINGS AND \nPOLICIES SPECIFIC TO THE PORTS. AND THOSE FINDINGS STATE\, I’LL PARAPHRASE\, \nTHAT IN THE ABSENCE OF A CENTRAL AGENCY TO COORDINATE THE PLANNING AND \nDEVELOPMENT OF BAY AREA SEAPORT TERMINALS\, THERE IS A RISK OF \nUNNECESSARY BAY FILL. THEN IT GOES ON TO STATE THAT A \nSEAPORT PLAN IS BASICALLY THEREFORE NEEDED TO COORDINATE THE PORT \nDEVELOPMENT IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE RISK FILL. \nIN THE 1980s ACTUALLY LATE 1970S BCDC BEGAN TO WORK WITH THE PORTS AS WELL \nAS THE SEAPORT PLANNING AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE\, AND I’LL TALK MORE ABOUT \nTHE COMMITTEE IN THIS PRESENTATION\, TO CREATE THE FIRST SEAPORT PLAN\, IT WAS \nPUBLISHED IN 1982. THE EXISTED PLANNING WAS ACTUALLY \nPUBLISHED IN 1996. AND AS YOU WILL LEARN DURING THIS PRESENTATION IT TOOK \nA PRESCRIPTIVE APPROACH TO PLANNING FOR MARINE TERMINAL DEVELOPMENT\, KIND OF \nON A PROJECT BY PROJECT BASIS\, BUT AGAIN WITH THAT GOAL OF MINIMIZING BAY \nFILL. OF COURSE\, A LOT HAS CHANGED SINCE \n1996 AND BECAUSE MANY OF THE PLAN’S POLICIES ARE OUTDATED\, THE COMMISSION \nDECIDED THERE WAS A NEED TO UNDERTAKE A COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE AND THAT’S WHAT \nWE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. SO\, SOME FAMILIAR \nTHINGS HERE. BUT THAT’STHAT’S CONTEXT OF THE SEAPORT PLAN I WANT TO EXPLAIN \nHOW IT WORKS AND HOW IT FITS INTO BCDC’S AUTHORITY. AS YOU KNOW \nMCATEER-PETRIS ACT ENABLES THE PETITION TO ENABLE WATERWAY FOR ORIENTED USES \nONE OF THOSE IS FOR PORTS THESE ARE CALLED PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS. \nWITHIN THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS ONLY USES ARE BASICALLY FOR PORT PURPOSES \nOR TEMPORARY OTHER USES. AND THE INTENT OF THIS DESIGNATION IS \nTHAT BY RESERVING SPECIFIC AREAS FOR MARITIME CARGO AS A REGION WE CAN MAKE \nSURE THOSE AREAS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PORT USE THEREBY MINIMIZING AMOUNT OF BAY \nFILL THAT MIGHT BE NEEDED FOR FUTURE PORT DEVELOPMENT. SEAPORT PLAN \nDESIGNATES THESE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS ACROSS THE FIVE BAY AREA PORTS. \nAND YOU CAN SEE ON THE SLIDE THAT INCLUDES THE PORTS OF BENECIA\, \nOAKLAND\, SAN FRANCISCO\, RICHMOND\, AND REDWOOD CITY. \nTHERE ARE ALSO TWO RESERVE AREAS IN THE SEAPORT PLAN THAT WERE NEVER \nDEVELOPED. THAT’S SELBY AND THE CONCORD NAVAL WEAPONS STATION AND I’LL \nTALK MORE ABOUT THOSE AND APPLIES SPECIFIC POLICIES TO THESE AREAS. \nAS YOU MIGHT RECALL FROM PREVIOUS PRESENTATIONS THE FINDINGS AND \nPOLICIES IN THE PLAN ARE UNDERPINNED BY A REGIONAL CARGO FORECAST THAT HELPS \nUS UNDERSTAND CARGO GROWTH AND CAPACITY ACROSS THE BAY AREA. \nSO THE PREVIOUS CARGO FORECAST EXPIRED IN 2020 THAT WAS ANOTHER IMPETUS FOR \nUPDATING THE SEAPORT PLAN. SO\, YOU MIGHT REMEMBER SOME OF THIS\, \nBUT BCDC WORKED WITH A PRIVATE CONSULTANT TO DEVELOP A NEW CARGO \nFORECAST WITH THE PORTS PROVIDING SOME SPECIFIC INFORMATION ABOUT THEIR CARGO \nACTIVITIES OVER THE COURSE OF SEVERAL PUBLIC MEETINGS IN 2019 AND 2020. \nTHE NEW CARGO FORECAST WAS APPROVED BY THE SEAPORT PLANNING ADVISORY \nCOMMITTEE IN MAY OF 2020 AND IT’S A 30 YEAR FORECAST. SO IT UNSETS IN 2050 \nNOW. WE HAVE CIRCULATED AN ADDENDUM WITH THE CARGO FORECAST WITH MATERIALS \nTHAT REFLECTS INFORMATION CONCERNING DURING THE BAY PLAN AMENDMENT 2019. \nYOU MIGHT RECALL IT FORECASTS THREE TYPES OF CARGO THAT MOVE THROUGH THE \nBAY AREA PORTS CONTAINER CARGO\, ROLL ON\, ROLL OFF\, ROLL ROW VEHICLE CARGO\, \nAND THE THIRD IS DRIVE OFF CARGO\, AND THAT AFFECTS CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS. \nIN ADDITION TO DEMAND AND GROWTH FORECAST IT HAS HIGH-LEVEL OVERVIEW OF \nCAPACITY WITHIN BCDC EXISTING PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS DESCRIBES WHERE \nTHERE IS ROOM FOR EXPANSION AT THE EXISTING MARINE TERMINALS IN SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY WITHIN BCDCEE JURISDICTION. \nSO FOR BCDC STAFF\, THE CARGO FORECAST IS AN IMPORTANT TOOL PROVIDING DATA TO \nEVALUATE PORTS BASED ON POLICIES AND THE FORECAST ANTICIPATES GROWTH ACROSS \nALL THREE TYPES OF CARGO TYPES THROUGH 2050 WHICH REQUIRES AS A REGION TO \nPLAN CAREFULLY FOR THE FUTURE. SO\, BCDC HAS A SEAPORT PLANNING \nADVISORY COMMITTEE\, OR SPAC. AND THE SPAC OVERSAW DEVELOPMENT OF \nTHE ORIGINAL SEAPORT PLAN IN 1982\, AND ALL OF ITS CONSEQUENTLY UPDATES\, \nINCLUDING THIS ONE. SPAC IS AS AN ADVISORY BODY TO THE \nCOMMISSION AND PROVIDES STAKEHOLDER INPUT ON SEAPORT RELATED MATTERS. \nSPAC IS COMPOSED OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE FIVE BAY AREA PORTS\, BCDC \nCOMMISSIONERS\, MTC AND ABAG\, THE SAN FRANCISCO MARINA EXCHANGE CALTRANS AND \nSAVE THE BAY. AS PART OF THE UPDATE WE’RE PROPOSING REVISIONS TO THE \nCOMPOSITION OF THE SPAC AND I’LL TALK ABOUT THAT IN A COUPLE OF MINUTES. \nCOMMISSIONER REBECCA EISEN IS CHAIRING THE SPAC AND COMMISSIONER HASZ HAS \nSTEPPED IN AS VICE CHAIR I WANT TO THANK THEM BOTH FOR PROVIDING FEEDBACK \nON THE DRAFT PLAN. COMMISSIONER HASZ HAS TAKEN IN STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT \nPROVIDING VALUABLE EDITS AND SUGGESTIONS. AT THIS POINT IF THERE \nARE AREAS IN THE SEAPORT PLAN IT’S PROBABLY BECAUSE I MANAGED TO \nREINTRODUCE THEM AFTER COMMISSIONER EISEN FIXED THEM. _ WITH THAT GENERAL \nOVERVIEW IN MIND I’LL RECAP MAJOR REASONS FOR UPDATING THE SEAPORT PLAN \nNOW. WE NEEDED TO UPDATE THE REGIONAL CARGO FORECAST. WE NEEDED TO REMOVE \nOUTDATED INFORMATION AND UPDATE THE PLAN’S FINDINGS AND POLICIES. WE \nWANTED TO INTRODUCE SOME NEW TOPIC AREAS ESPECIALLY ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND \nON ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND SOCIAL EQUITY TO ALIGN THE SEAPORT PLAN WITH \nCHANGES TO THE BAY PLAN THAT HAVE OCCURRED OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS. \nWE WANTED TO RESPOND TO REQUESTS FROM THE PORTS TO AMEND THE BOUNDARIES OF \nTHE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS. MOST OF THAT’S TO REFLECT ON THE GROUND \nCHANGES TO CARGO ACTIVITY THAT HAVE OCCURRED SINCE THE SEAPORT PLAN WAS \nLAST UPDATED. AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST WE WANTED TO GENERAL REALIGN THE \nSEAPORT PLAN TO BETTER REFLECT THE SCOPE OF BCDC’S AUTHORITY AND TO \nENCOURAGE MORE REGIONAL COORDINATION. THOSE TRANSLATED TO GOALS FOR OUR WORK \nON THE PLAN. FIRST WE WANT TO HAVE POLICIES IN THE PLAN THAT PROVIDE \nCLEAR AND STREAMLINED GUIDANCE FOR PORTS ABOUT WHAT THEY NEED TO PROVIDE \nFOR BCDC WHEN THEY HAVE A PROJECT OR WHEN THEY WANT TO REQUEST A CHANGE FOR \nPORT PRIORITY USE BONDRIES TO STREAMLINE PERMITTING AND PLANS FOR \nTHE PORTS AND ALSO TO GIVE CLEAR GUIDANCE TO BCDC STAFF WHEN THEY \nEVALUATE THOSE PROPOSALS. WE WANT TO PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY FOR HOW PORTS \nDEVELOPMENT WHILE MINIMIZING BAY FILL AND MAKE SURE WE’RE RETAINING IT \nCAPACITY FOR OUR PORT SYSTEM. WE WANT POLICIES THAT ARE MORE FIRMLY \nROOTED IN BCDC’S AUTHORITY TO MINIMIZE BAY FILL PROMOTE WATER ORIENT THE USES \nAND MINIMIZE PUBLIC ACCESSES TO THE BAY. AND WE WANT TO SEAPORT PLAN THAT \nIS CLEAR AND EASY TO UNDERSTAND WITH POLICIES THAT ARE GOING STAY \nUP-TO-DATE AS SPECIFIC PROJECTS COME AND GO. \nALTHOUGH IT’S IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PLAN TO BE TIMELESS THOSE ARE IDEAS WE TRIED \nTO KEEP IN MISUNDERSTOOD WHEN REMOVING OUTDATED POLICIES AND DRAFTING NEW \nONES. TAKEN TOGETHER THE PURPOSE IS TO FACILITATE AND STREAM PERMITTING FOR \nPORT PROJECTS BY MAKING THE PLAN EASIER TO READ AND USE. AND WE BELIEVE THE \nDRAFT PLAN ACHIEVES THAT VISION. SO NEXT I’LL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT \nTHE TIMELINE\, WHICH HAS BEEN PROLONGED AND THIS IS A RELATIVELY CONDENSED \nVERSION. BUT AS YOU MIGHT REMEMBER THE \nCOMMISSION VOTED TO INITIATE A BAY PLAN AMENDMENT TO UPDATE THE SEAPORT PLAN \nIN 2019. BCDC STAFF THEN BEGAN TO WORK WITH A \nPRIVATE CONSULTANT TO DEVELOP THE CARGO FORECAST\, AGAIN WITH THE GUIDANCE OF \nINDIVIDUAL PORTS\, AS WELL AS THE SPAC\, AND THE NEW CARGO FORECAST WAS \nPUBLISHED IN MAY OF 2020. AFTER THAT STAFF BEGAN TO WORK WITH \nTHE PORTS ON SPECIFIC REQUESTS THAT THEY WERE SUBMITTING TO MODIFY THE \nBOUNDARIES OF THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS. I’LL SHOW YOU THE MAP IN A FEW \nMINUTES. THAT PROCESS WAS ONGOING IN 2021 BUT AS MENTIONED EARLIER\, WE HAD \nTO PAUSE WORK ON THE BAY PLAN WHILE CONSIDERING BAY PLAN AMENDMENT 219 \nBECAUSE THAT HAD A LEGISLATIVE TIMELINE ASSOCIATED WITH T WE WERE ABLE TO \nREMOVE WORK ON THE SEAPORT PLAN LAST FALL AND WE BEGAN BY REACHING OUT TO \nPORT AND PORT STAFF REMOVING MAP CHANGES AND WERE ABLE TO START \nDRAFTING NEW FINDINGS AND POLICIES FOR THE PLAN OF THE WE FIRST CIRCULATED \nTHE PUBLIC DRAFT OF THE NEW SEAPORT PLAN THIS JULY — SDPSH HELD A PUBLIC \nMEETING OF THE SPAC TO REVIEW THE DRAFT. SPAC VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO \nAPPROVE THE DRAFT SEAPORT PLAN IN THAT MEETING WITH UNDERSTANDING THAT BCDC \nSTAFF WOULD BE INCORPORATING REVISIONS AND FEEDBACK THAT CAME UP BOTH BEFORE \nAND AT THAT MEETING. SO\, WE DID EXACTLY THAT. WE \nINCORPORATED SOME CHIANGS TO THE FIRST DRAFT OF THE PLAN\, BASED ON INPUT FROM \nSPAC MEMBERS\, FROM THE PORTS\, AND FROM OTHER STAKEHOLDERS WHO PROVIDED PUBLIC \nCOMMENTS. AND THERE IS A SECTION IN TODAY’S STAFF REPORT THAT DESCRIBES \nEXACTLY WHAT THOSE CHANGES ARE. WE HAVE SENT THE REVISED DRAFT SEAPORT \nPLAN TO YOU AT THEN OF SEPTEMBER AND THAT BRINGS US TO THE PRESENT. SO \nAFTER TODAY’S PUBLIC HEARING\, WE’LL UNDERTAKE A FINAL ROUND OF REVISIONS \nTO THE PLAN AS NEEDED AND THEN CIRCULATE A FINAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION \nTHAT DESCRIBES LAST NEW CHANGES RAINING A COPY OF THE DRAFT PLAN. LASTLY \nWE’LL HOLD ONE MORE PUBLIC MEETING FOR THE COMMISSION TO MAKE A VOTE ON THE \nNEW SEAPORT PLAN. IT’S BEEN A SUBSTANTIAL PROCESS WE HAVE HAD FIVE \nPUBLIC MEETINGS OF OUR SEAPORT PLAN MEETING BRIEFINGS TO STAKEHOLDERS AND \nINDIVIDUAL MEETINGS WITH PORT AND PORT STAFF TOO BUT ALL HAS SUBSTANTIALLY \nIMPROVED THE DRAFT PLAN AND WE’RE EXCITED TO SHARE IT WITH YOU TODAY. \nBEFORE I GET INTO CONTENT OF THE NEW DRAFT PLAN I WANT TO TAKE A MINUTE TO \nDISCUSS THE STATUS OF THE SEPARATE AMENDMENT. AS YOU MAY RECALL THE \nCOMMISSION VOTED TO REMOVE THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREA FROM THE HOWARD \nTERMINAL SITE AT THE PORT OF OAKLAND IN JUNE OF 2022. AT THE REQUEST OF THE \nOAKLAND ATHLETICS ALONG WITH THE CITY OF OAKLAND AND PORT OF OAKLAND. \nHOWEVER\, HOWARD TERMINAL REMAINS SUBJECT TO REQUIREMENTS OF ASSEMBLY \nBILL 1191. SO\, I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT A RELEVANT PROVISION OF THIS BILL\, AND \nSORRY FOR THE SMALL TEXT BUT I WILL READ IT. IT STATES IF THE PORT AND \nOAKLAND ATHLETICS HAVE NOT ENTERED INTO A BINDING AGREEMENT BY JANUARY 1ST\, \n2025\, THAT ALLOWS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE OAKLAND SPORTS AND MIXED USE \nPROJECT THE PORT PRIORITY USE DESIGNATION SHALL BE AUTOMATICALLY \nREINSTATED ON THE HOWARD TERMINAL PROPERTY AS IF IT HAD NOT BEEN DELETED \nPURSUANT TO BCDC’S SEAPORT PLAN AND BAY PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS. \nSO\, AGAIN\, THE REMOVAL OF THAT DESIGNATION FROM HOWARD TERMINAL WAS A \nSEPARATE BAY PLAN AMENDMENT FROM THE CURRENT PROPOSED SEAPORT PLAN THE \nCOMMISSION ACTED ON LAST SUMMER SO BCDC STAFF DOESN’T TO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO \nTHE CURRENT STATUS OF HOWARD TERMINAL AS PART OF THE GENERAL UPDATE TO THE \nSEAPORT PLAN. HOWEVER SHOULD AN AGREEMENT NOT BE REACHED REGARDING THE \nPORT AND BETWEEN THE PORT AND OAKLAND ATHLETICS BY JANUARY 1ST\, 2025\, AT \nTHAT TIME\, BCDC STAFF WILL REVERT THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREA BACK TO HOWARD \nTERMINAL PURSUANT TO REQUIREMENTS OF THAT BILL. \nTHE FIRST DRAFT OF THE SEAPORT PLAN THAT WAS CIRCULATED BACK IN JULY \nDIDN’T INCLUDE HOWARD TERMINAL AND SOME OF THE SEAPORT PLANS TABLES THAT \nCONCERNED SOME STAKEHOLDERS DUE TO THE FACT THAT HOWARD TERMINAL MAY GO BACK \nTO PRIORITY USE. DUE TO COMMENTS STAFF REVISED THE DRAFT SEAPORT PLAN THAT WE \nSENT TO YOU TODAY TO INCLUDE HOWARD TERMINAL IN THE RELEVANT TABLE OF THE \nPLAN\, THAT LISTS OUT MARINE TERM NAT EXPANSION SITES IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY\, \nWITH A FOOTNOTE TO DESCRIBE ITS UNIQUE STATUS. \nI WANT TO CLARIFY THAT BCDC STAFF HAVE INTENTIONALLY USED A LIGHT TOUCH HERE \nIN THE UPDATE THE SEAPORT PLAN REGARDING HOWARD TERMINAL IN A PROCESS \nTO ADD HOWARD TERMINAL BACK INTO THE PLAN IN THE EVENT THE COMMISSION MUST \nREVERT TO PORT PRIORITY USE ON JANUARY 25\, ’20. \nWE’RE TRYING TO MAKE IT SIMPLE AND EASY TO ADD HOWARD TERMINAL BACK INTO PORT \nPRIORITY USE NOT TRYING TO CREATE BARRIERS IN REQUIREMENTS OF THAT BILL. \nSORRY THAT’S A LOT. BUT THAT’S AN \nOVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS AND TIMELINE TO DATE. SO NOW I’M GOING TO SHIFT TO \nCONTENT AND PREVIEW PROPOSED POLICY CHANGES TO THE SEAPORT PLAN. YOU \nKNOW\, THIS UPDATE IT’S TECHNICALLY A REVISION TO THE EXISTING SEAPORT PLAN \nBUT WE’RE REVAMPING THE ENTIRE PLAN. IT’S GOING TO BE A HIGH-LEVEL OVERVIEW \nOF TOPIC AREAS AND HOW THEY HAVE CHANGED FROM THE 1996 PLAN TO THE NEW \nDRAFT. BUT AGAIN HAPPY TO GO INTO DEPTH ABOUT ANY PARTICULAR POLICIES \nAFTER THE PRESENTATION IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. \nSO\, FIRST\, AS I MENTIONED\, THE ENTIRETY OF THE SEAPORT PLAN HAS BEEN REWRITTEN \nINTRODUCTION TO THE 1996 PLAN IF YOU LOOK AT IT IT’S REALLY TECHNICAL AND \nWE TRIED TO SCALE THAT BACK IN THE NEW DRAFT PLAN TO IMPROVE THE PLAN’S \nGENERAL READABILITY AND CLARITY. WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE SEAPORT PLAN IT’S A \nREGULATORY DOCUMENT AND MANY PEOPLE WHO ACCESS IT ARE LIKELY TO BE PORT STAFF \nOR OTHER BCDC APPLICANTS. WE WANTED TO USE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO \nMAKE SURE THAT ANYONE WHO PICKS THIS UP CAN LEARN ABOUT BCDC\, UNDERSTAND BCDC \nROLE AS IT RELATES TO THE PORTS\, AND LEARN SOME BASIC INFORMATIONS ABOUT \nTHE FIVE PORTS AND WHY THEY’RE VITAL TO THE REGIONAL AND NATIONAL ECONOMY. SO \nTHE INTRODUCTION WITH SOME MAJOR GOALS OF THE PLAN AND IT EXPLAINS BCDC \nAUTHORITY. IT TALKS ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THE PLAN AND HOW IT WAS UPDATED \nTHEN THERE ARE NICE SUMMARIES OF EACH OF THE FIVE PORTS AND THEIR \nACTIVITIES. THE LANGUAGE FOR THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE PORTS THEMSELVES WHICH \nWAS REALLY NICE OF THEM. AND THEN THERE IS A HIGH-LEVEL SUMMARY OF THE \n2050 CARGO FORECAST. THEN WE GET TO THE ACTUAL POLICY TOPIC \nAREAS. IN EACH OF THESE TOPIC AREAS THERE ARE NUMEROUS FINDINGS AND \nPOLICIES. I’LL GO INTO EACH TOPIC AREA IN THE NEXT FEW SLIDES. AS AN \nOVERVIEW YOU SEE THERE ARE FOUR NEW TOPIC AREAS. ONE IS ON THE SEAPORT \nPLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE ITSELF AND THEN CLIMATE CHANGE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE \nAND SOCIAL EQUITY AND REGIONAL COORDINATION AND FUTURE SEAPORT PLAN \nUPDATES. WE ARE ALSO RETAINING A COUPLE OF \nTOPIC AREAS AND RECITATION THEM IN THE NEW PLAN. ONE OF THOSE IS ON \nPRESERVING AND ENHANCING PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS AND THE OTHER ARE THE \nPOLICIES FOR THE CARGO FORECAST ITSELF. AND THEN FINALLY WE’RE PROPOSING TO \nREMOVE TWO TOPIC AREAS\, NOT BECAUSE THE ISSUES THEMSELVES ARE UNIMPORTANT\, BUT \nJUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE ESSENTIALLY BECOME OUTDATED AND REDUNDANT WITH \nOTHER REGIONAL PLANNING EFFORTS OR OTHER EFFORTS THAT BCDC HAS \nUNDERTAKEN. BUT WE ACTUALLY RETAIN STILL A COUPLE OF POLICIES \nPARTICULARLY RELATED TO GROUND TRANSPORTATION. BUT HAVE BROUGHT THEM \nOVER TO THE NEW SECTION ABOUT REGIONAL COORDINATION. \nTHAT’S A HIGH-LEVEL OVERVIEW OF WHAT’S HAPPENING WITH THE TOPIC AREAS. \nSO\, THE FIRST NEW TOPIC AREA\, IT’S SPECIFIC TO THE SPAC ITSELF. THE SPAC \nWAS ESTABLISHED\, ORIGINALLY\, THROUGH A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING\, AN MOU\, \nBETWEEN BCDC IN 1978\, THE SEAPORT PLAN NICKS INCONSISTENCIES PLAN DOESN’T \nHAVE FINDINGS OR POLICIES THAT SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBE WHAT THE PURPOSE \nAND ROLE OF THE SPAC. WE THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR THIS \nTO BE SPELLED OUT IN THE SEAPORT PLAN ITSELF. WE ADDED FINDINGS AND \nPOLICIES TO IDENTIFY COMPOSITION ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SPAC. \nPREPSED CHANGES TO THE COMPOSITION OF THE SPAC. I KNOW THIS SLIDE IS A BIT \nHARD TO READ YOU ABOUT BASICALLY WE ARE PROPOSING TO REMOVE A COUPLE OF \nDEFUNCT POSITIONS. FOR EXAMPLE\, THERE IS AN APPOINTMENT FOR SOMEONE \nFROMENSENAL TERMINALS WHICH DOESN’T EXIST ANYMORE. \nWE’RE PROPOSING TO REBALANCE BCDC AND MTC AND ABAG APPOINTMENTS\, AND WE’RE \nSUGGESTING TO ADD TWO NEW MEMBERS FROM COMMUNITY-BASED AND OUR ENVIRONMENTAL \nJUSTICE ORGANIZATIONS AND ONE FROM A MARITIME INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDER. \nWE HOPE THESE PROPOSED CHANGES ARE GOING TO STRENGTHEN THE SPAC’S ROLE AS \nAN EXPERT ADVISORY GROUP TO THE COMMISSION. BUT I ALSO WANT TO \nEMPHASIZE\, AND THIS IS ALSO DESCRIBED IN A FINDING ABOUT THE SPAC THAT THE \nPURPOSE OF THE SPAC IS TO PROVIDE BASICALLY EXPERT TECHNICAL ADVICE TO \nTHE COMMISSION. THE SPAC PROVIDES OPPORTUNITY FOR SOME STAKEHOLDERS TO \nADVISE THE COMMISSION ON PORT RELATED TOPICS\, BUT CONSULTATION WITH THE SPAC \nIS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE MEANINGFUL INVOLVEMENT OF PORT COMMUNITIES IN \nDECISION-MAKING PROCESSES. Y IS EMPHASIS OF THE COMMITTEE IS ON \nTECHNICAL EXPERTISE. NEXT ABOUT POLICIES OF THE FORECAST WE \nHAVE WRITTEN FINDINGS THAT SUMMARIZE CONCLUSIONINGS OF THE CARGO FORECAST. \nTHERE ARE TWO POLICIES IN THIS TOPIC AREAS. \nFIRST DESCRIBES HOW THE FORECAST SHOULD BE UPDATED AND THE SECOND DESCRIBES \nHOW THE SPAC AND COMMISSION SHOULD IMPLEMENT AND RELY ON THE FORECAST. \nSO THOSE POLICIES IN PART STATE THAT THE CARGO FORECAST SHOULD BE UPDATED \nAT LEAST ONCE EVERY TEN YEARS BUT THERE ARE ALSO ALLOWANCES FOR UPDATES \nBASICALLY BASED ON THE COMMISSION’S DISCRETION. \nNEXT I’LL TALK ABOUT THE POLICIES FOR THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS. SO THESE \nARE THE BULK OF POLICIES THAT WOULD BE RELIED ON WHEN A PORT OR ENTITY NEEDS \nA PERMIT FOR A SPECIFIC PROJECT IN BCDC’S JURISDICTION. \nWE’RE PROPOSING TO SIMPLIFY FOUR TOPIC AREAS FROM THE 1996 PLAN BY COMBINING \nTHEM INTO A SINGLE CONSOLIDATED\, PRESERVING AND ENHANCING PORT PRIORITY \nUSE TOPIC. THE 1996 PLAN HAD SOME OUTDATED CARGO SPECIFIC POLICIES THAT \nWERE BASICALLY WANTING TO REMOVE IN A SINGLE TOPIC AREA THAT’S ALIGN WITH \nBCDC’S SCOPE MISSION AND AUTHORITY. _ THIS TOPIC AREA HAS A RANGE EVER \nPOLICIES. MOST RELATE TO DEVELOPMENT OR ALLOWABLE USES IN PORT PRIORITY USE \nAREAS. I’M NOT GOING TO GO INTO ALL THIS INCLUDES POLICY FOR ADDING OR \nREMOVING PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS\, FILL\, USING TERMINALS TOPICS LIKE INTERIM \nUSES\, PUBLIC ACCESS\, FERRIES AND HISTORIC BUILDINGS. \nHAPPY TO ANSWER ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OF THESE POLICIES \nAGAIN. YOU KNOW\, IN THIS SECTION\, STAFF BASICALLY SOUGHT TO IMPROVE THE \nCLARITY OF THE FINDINGS AND\, ESPECIALLY\, THE DEFINITIONS OF \nDIFFERENT TERMS. THERE IS ALSO A GENERAL FOCUS ON THE PROCESS AND \nSTANDARDS THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD APPLY TO DIFFERENT PROJECTS. \nSO\, COMBINED\, WE HOPE THESE CHANGES ARE GOING TO PROVIDE CLEAR GUIDANCE TO \nPORTS\, AS WELL AS FOR BCDC STAFF TO USE TO EVALUATE PROPOSALS. BASICALLY\, \nLIKE\, HERE IS THE INFORMATION TO PROVIDE IN AN APPLICATION\, AND HERE IS \nWHAT THE INFORMATION NEEDS TO SHOW TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE SEAPORT PLAN. \nSO TRYING TO REMOVE ANY AMBIGUITY AND HOPE TO STREAMLINE PERMITTING. \nWE’RE HOPES PROPOSING A NEW TOPIC ON ADDING CLIMATE CHANGE WHICH IS NOT \nADDRESSED IN THE EXISTING SEAPORT PLAN THE INTENT IS TO ALIGN THE SEAPORT \nPLAN WITH POLICIES. THIS IS BRIEF RECOGNIZING THE SEAPORT PLAN ITSELF IS \nUNLIKELY TO BE A DRIVING FORCE FOR ADAPTATION PLANNING IN THE BAY AREA\, \nRATHER FINDINGS AND POLICIES ARE INTENDED TO BRIDGE AND REFERENCE OUT \nTO EXISTING AND PLANNED EFFORTS TO ADDRESS SEA LEVEL RISE. SO THEY’RE \nNOT NECESSARILY NEW REQUIREMENTS BUT INSTEAD THEY REFLECT REQUIREMENTS THAT \nARE ALREADY LAID OUT IN THE BAY PLAN POLICIES ON CLIMATE CHANGE. \nSO\, THERE ARE FOUR NEW FINDINGS THERE THAT SUMMARIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF \nPORTS\, GENERAL VULNERABILITIES\, BCDC LED ADAPTATION EFFORTS AND THE ROLE OF \nTHE PORTS IN EMERGENCY RESPONSE. AND THERE ARE THREE NEW POLICIES THAT YOU \nCAN SEE ON THE SLIDE\, THEY SPEAK TO THE NEED TO INCLUDE PORTS AS CRITICAL \nSTAKEHOLDERS IN ADAPTATION PLANNING EFFORTS. \nNEED TO INCORPORATE SEA LEVEL RISE CONSIDERATIONS INTO ANY FUTURE UPDATES \nTO THE SEAPORT PLAN OR THE CARGO FORECAST. AND NEED TO RECOGNIZE THE \nROLE OF THE PORTS IN DISASTER RESPONSE. \nSO WE RECOGNIZE THAT MANY OF THE PORTS ARE UNDERGOING THEIR OWN SEA LEVEL \nRISE PLANNING PROCESSES THOSE ARE RAMMED RAPIDLY EVOLVING AT DIFFERENT \nSTAGES. BAY ADAPT IS GOING TO IMPACT HOW LOCAL PORTS AND GOVERNMENTS PLAN \nFOR RISE IN SEA LEVEL. NOW THAT IS. B 272 HAS PASSED THAT’S GOING TO BE A \nPRIMARY FOCUS FOR BCDC WORK. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THE PORTS ARE INFORMED AS \nPART OF THE PROCESS AND WE WANT POLICIES TO ACT AS A BRIDGE TO PROVIDE \nGUIDANCE WHILE WE SEE HOW THE LANDS SCAPE EVOLVES OVER THE NEXT FEW \nYEARS. WE HAVE INTRODUCED A NEW TOPIC AREA ON \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND SOCIAL EQUITY. THIS IS\, AGAIN\, TO ALIGN THE \nBAY PLAN POLICIES ON ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND SOCIAL EQUITY THAT WERE \nADOPTED IN 2019. SO\, AS YOU KNOW\, THE BAY PLAN REQUIRES \nEQUITABLE\, CULTURALLY RELEVANT COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT TO \nBE CONDUCTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND PROJECT APPLICANTS TO MEANINGFULLY \nINVOLVE POTENTIALLY IMPACTED COMMUNITIES FOR PROJECTS THAT ARE IN \nUNDERREPRESENTED\, VULNERABLE\, OR IN DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES. SO THOSE \nPOLICIES ALSO REQUIRE APPLICANTS TO IDENTIFY POTENTIAL DISPROPORTIONATE \nIMPACTS OF PROJECTS AND TAKE MEASURES THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND \nPERMITTING PROCESSES TO REQUIRE MITIGATION FOR ANY DISPROPORTIONATE \nADVERSE PROJECT IMPACTS. SO\, THOSE REQUIREMENTS\, OF COURSE\, \nALSO APPLY TO ANY ACTIVITIES IN THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS. IN THE \nSEAPORT PLAN\, WE HAVE INTRODUCED THREE NEW FINDINGS THAT DESCRIBE GENERAL \nPORT RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH IMPACTS\, EFFORTS TO REDUCE \nENVIRONMENTSAL BURDENS AND ROLE AND AUTHORITY THAT BCDC OTHER AND AGENCIES \nAND MUNICIPALITIES HAVE IN REDUCING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS. \nWE HAVE INTRODUCED 33 NEW POLICIES HERE — FIRST ONE INTRODUCES PLANS AND \nPOLICIES\, PROJECTS REDUCE AIR MUSICIANS\, REGIONAL COLLABORATION AND \nSEAPORT PLAN UPDATES AND STREAMLINE PROJECTS FOR SOAR POWER IMPROVEMENTS \nOR INFRASTRUCTURE MODIFICATIONS THAT COULD BE IMPROVED IN THE PORT PRIORITY \nUSE AREAS. AND THIRD SPEAKS TO REGIONAL COLLABORATION AND FUTURE PLAN \nUPDATES. _ IMPORTANTLY\, THERE ARE OTHER POLICIES IN THE DRAFT SEAPORT \nPLAN THAT HAVE EJ RELATED REQUIREMENTS\, BUT SOMETIMES THOSE REQUIREMENTS ARE \nWOVEN INTO THE APPROPRIATE RELEVANT POLICIES THEMSELVES. \nFOR EXAMPLE\, THE POLICY FOR ADDING OR REMOVING PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS WILL \nNOW HAVE A REQUIREMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE BAY PLAN FOR APPLICANTS TO \nUNDERTAKE MEANINGFUL ENGAGEMENT IN CONSISTENCY WITH EJ AND SOCIAL EQUITY \nPOLICIES. AS I MENTIONED\, WE’RE PROPOSING TO \nREMOVE DREDGING AND NAVIGATION FINDINGS AND POLICIES FROM THE EXISTING SEAPORT \nPLAN. BOTH POLICIES WERE WRITTEN PRIOR TO \nTHE COMPLETION OF THE BAY AREA LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT STRATEGY OR LTMS \nFOR DREDGING BACK IN 2001. SO THEY HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR A WHILE AND THE \nBAY PLAN ALREADY CONTAINS POLICIES ON DREDGING. SO WE LOOKED AT THIS AND \nDIDN’T IDENTIFY ANY ISSUES THAT ARE NOT ALREADY COVERED BY THE BAY PLAN\, LTMS \nOR OTHER EXISTING EFFORTS SO WE’RE GOING TO REMOVE THAT SECTION FROM THE \nSEAPORT PLAN TO REMOVE REDUNDANCY. THIS DOESN’T AFFECT PLANS FOR DREDGING \nPROJECTS THIS IS CLEAN UP OF OUTDATED INFORMATION. \nAND FINALLY WE’RE PROPOSING TO DELETE A TOPIC AREA THAT INCLUDES SOME GROUND \nTRANSPORTATION POLICIES THAT SPOKE MORE DIRECTLY TO MTC’S PRIOR ROLE IN THE \nSEAPORT PLAN. INSTEAD WE HAVE DEVELOPED A NEW TOPIC \nAREA CALLED REGIONAL COORDINATION AND FUTURE SEAPORT PLAN SEEP UPDATES TO \nBETTER REFLECT BCDC ROLE IN JURISDICTION. SO THE FIRST TWO \nPOLICIES IN HERE WERE PREVIOUSLY IN THE GROUND TRANSPORTATION TOPIC AREA OF \nTHE PLAN AND WE BROUGHT THEM INTO THE PLAN WITH MINOR REVISIONS. FIRST \nSPEAKS TO THE NEED TO PRESERVE _ ACCESS TO MARINE TERMINALS AND SECOND FOCUS \nIS ON MITIGATION RELATED TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF TRAFFIC. \nPOLICY THREE HERE IS NEW. IT ENCOURAGES BCDC AND MTC TO COORDINATE \nREGARDING MAP CHANGES WHEN EITHER BCDC UPDATES THE SEAPORT PLAN OR MTC \nUPDATES PLANNED BAY AREA. SO\, BASICALLY BCDC AND MTC WANT TO MAKE \nSURE THAT WE’RE WORKING TOGETHER TO ALIGN OUR REGIONAL THINKING AND REDUCE \nANY POTENTIAL CONFLICTS IN THESE KIND OF DIFFERENT LAND USE CATEGORIES. \nAND FINALLY POLICY FOUR HERE SETS MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR UPDATING THE \nSEAPORT PLAN AND ENCOURAGES FUTURE UPDATES WE DO TO BE SYNCHRONIZED WITH \nTIMING OF MTC’S SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA GOODS MOVEMENT PLAN AND/OR PLANNED BAY \nAREA UPDATES WHEN POSSIBLE. NEXT TIME WE GO TO UPDATE THE CEQA PLAN WE HOPE \nTO PLAN AND COORDINATE THE TIMING OF THAT WITH SOME OF MTC’S WORK. \nSO\, THAT’S AN OVERVIEW OF ALL OF THE POLICY CHANGES TO THE PLAN. \nBEFORE I TALK ABOUT PART TWO OF THE PLAN\, WHICH ACTUALLY HAS THE MAPS OF \nTHE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS AND SOME POLICIES RELATED TO SOMETHING CALLED \nMARINE TERMINAL DESIGNATIONS\, I THOUGHT I SHOULD PAUSE HERE\, JUST TO ANSWER IF \nTHERE ARE ANY BRIEF CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS ABOUT \nJUST WHAT I HAVE PRESENTED SO FAR. SO\, I’LL BRIEFLY STOP SHARING MY SCREEN SO \nI CAN SEE YOU ALL. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY \nQUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS THUS FAR? \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER? >>SPEAKER: YOU HAD SAID THAT THE \nCARGO FORECAST IS A CRITICAL COMPONENT OF THE PLAN. AND MY MEMORY\, FROM OUR \nPREVIOUS HEARINGS WAS THAT THERE WAS REALLY UNAVOIDABLE UNCERTAINTY IN THE \nCARGO FORECAST. LIKE\, I REMEMBER PARTICULARLY PROJECTIONS OF ROLO CARGO \nWERE SOMETHING LIKE TESLA WOULD MAKE. WHAT DOES IT MEAN WAS THE FORECAST \nPROVES INACCURATE? AND WAS THERE A PREVIOUS FORECAST THAT WE WERE ABLE TO \nLOOK AT AND SEE HOW ACCURATE THE PROJECTIONS WERE? \n>>CORY MANN: GREAT QUESTION. THANKS. I THINK THAT’S RIGHT. \nTHERE IS INHERENT UNCERTAINTY TO FORECASTING. IT’S DEFINITELY REALLY \nCHALLENGING AND ESPECIALLY DOING SOMETHING SPECIFIC TO THE BAY AREA \nREGION. AND I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO KEEP THAT \nIN MIND IN OUR DECISION-MAKING. WE REALLY THOUGHT ABOUT THAT WHEN MAKING \nNEW POLICIES FOR THE CARGO FORECAST ITSELF. SO\, ONE OF THE POLICIES CALLS \nFOR THE COMMISSION IN THE SPAC IN COORDINATION WITH THE PORTS TO TRY TO \nMONITOR THE REGION’S CARGO VOLUMES\, MARINE TERMINAL USES AND SHIP CALLS AS \nNEEDED. AND\, ALSO\, TO KEEP AN EYE ON EMERGING \nTRENDS THAT COULD IMPACT THE REGION’S CARGO CAPACITY. FOR EXAMPLE\, LIKE\, \nINFRASTRUCTURE FOR ZERO-EMISSIONS TRUCK CHARGING\, OFFSHORE WIND HAS COME UP\, \nAND TRYING TO KIND OF CONTINUOUSLY COLLECT AND ASSESS THAT DATA. \nWE ALSO ADDED A BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY IN THE SEAPORT PLAN FOR FIRST THE \nCOMMISSION TO REQUIRE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATES TO THE CARGO FORECAST IF \nGROWTH IS SIGNIFICANTLY DEVIATING FROM EXPECTED TRENDS OR IF\, YOU KNOW\, A \nPARTICULAR CHANGE\, LIKE ADDING OR REMOVING A PORT PRIORITY USE AREA \nCOULD IMPACT A REGION’S CAPACITY FOR CARGO GROWTH. \nTHERE IS QUITE A BIT OF INFORMATION IN THERE\, THERE IS ANOTHER POLICY WE \nADDED IN TERMS OF IMPLEMENTING THE CARGO FORECAST. YOU MIGHT REMEMBER IT \nHAS DIFFERENT GROWTH SCENARIOS AND HAS A MODERATE GROWTH SCENARIO WHICH WAS \nDEVELOPED BASICALLY AS THE BASELINE FORECAST\, AND SO WE HAVE PUT A POLICY \nIN THERE SAYING SPAC AND COMMISSION SHOULD GENERALLY RELIES ON THE \nBASELINE FORECAST BUT THE COMMISSION CAN ALWAYS CONSIDER NEW INFORMATION ON \nCARGO GROWTH\, YOU KNOW\, IF IT’S DEVIATING FROM THAT TREND IN ORDER TO \nSUPPLEMENT THE CARGO FORECAST. AND WE ALSO SAID WHEN POSSIBLE IT SHOULD BE \nUPDATED PRIOR TO A PARTICULAR ISSUE. THOSE ARE THINGS WE TRIED TO THINK \nABOUT HOW TO ADDRESS AND MITIGATE FOR THAT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: COMMISSIONER SHOWALTER THEN \nCOMMISSIONER GIOIA? >>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: THIS WAS REALLY \nVERY\, VERY FASCINATING. AND I WANT TO MAKE MAINLY A FEW \nCOMMENTS AND I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS TO. ONE COMMENT IS THIS IS A SEAPORT PLAN \nBUT IS REALLY A CARGO — A SEAPORT PLAN RELATED TO CARGO. SEAPORTS DO OTHER \nTHINGS IN OUR WORLD BESIDES JUST FOR CARGO\, THEY’RE USED FOR RECREATION\, \nAND THEY’RE — YOU KNOW\, PUBLIC ACCESS\, THERE IS OTHERS THINGS THAT WE USE OUR \nSEAPORTS FOR. AND WIND POWER WAS MENTIONED AS LOCATIONS AT SEAPORTS \nBECAUSE IT’S OFTEN WINDY AT THE EDGES OF WATER BODIES. ANOTHER THING I WANT \nTO MENTION IN THE LARGE VIEW TALKING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE\, WE HAVE TALKED \nABOUT HOW TO PROTECT THE SEAPORTS. BUT ANOTHER THING I THINK WE WANT TO TALK \nABOUT IN A SENSE IS HOW DO THE SEAPORTS PROTECT US. BECAUSE WHEN YOU THINK \nABOUT THE ENERGY THAT’S INVOLVED IN MOVING CARGO\, IT’S MUCH\, MUCH MORE \nEFFICIENT TO MOVE IT BY BARGE THAN IT IS BY AIRPLANE. AND PARTICULARLY FROM \nGHG EMISSIONS. NOW THAT\, IT DEPENDS A LOT ON HOW THE SHIPS ARE\, YOU KNOW\, \nARE POWERED\, BUT THERE IS OPPORTUNITIES FOR THAT TO BE IMPROVED DRAMATICALLY. \nSO\, YOU KNOW\, WHEN WE THINK OF \nCONTRIBUTING TO CLIMATE CHANGE IMPROVEMENTS\, THIS ISN’T SO MUCH OF AN \nADAPTATION THING\, IT’S A MITIGATION\, A HUGE MITIGATION\, ALLOWING THIS CARGO \nINDUSTRY TO PERSIST AND PROSPER IN OUR AREA IS JUST A LONG-TERM BIG \nMITIGATION. SO\, I WANTED TO MENTION THAT. I ALSO WANTED TO SAY THAT JUST \nTHESE STRUCTURES\, THESE SEAPORTS THEMSELVES\, THEY ARE SEA LEVEL RISE \nINFRASTRUCTURE. I MEAN\, THEY DO FUNCTION THAT WAY. THE ROADS INSIDE \nTHEM OFTEN FUNCTIONS AS LEVIES FOR FLOODING. WE DON’T USUALLY THINK \nABOUT IT THAT WAY BUT IF YOU LOOK AROUND THE BAY AREA\, IT’S REALLY CLEAR \n_ THAT OUR ROADS ARE\, SORT OF\, A — THE ULTIMATE LEVEES. AND THEN ANOTHER \nTHING I WANTED TO MENTION THAT IS\, SORT OF\, THE OPPOSITE IS FROM AN ENDANGERED \nSPECIES PROTECTION POINT OF VIEW. CARGO SHIPS HAVE BEEN A VERY BAD ACTOR \nOVER TIME IN BRINGING IN INVEGAS INVASIVE SPECIES IN THEIR HULLS. HOW \nWE OPERATE SEAPORTS CAN BE PROTECTIVE OF\, YOU KNOW\, OF THE NATURAL — OUR \nNATURAL BIODIVERSITY. NOW\, I PRESUME THAT NOAA FISHERIES IS TAKING CARE OF \nTHAT. WE’RE NOT TAKING CARE OF THAT. I WANT TO MENTION IT AS ANOTHER \nENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE THAT’S ASSOCIATED WITH THIS\, THAT WE SHOULD — YOU KNOW\, \nI THINK WE SHOULD JUST BE KEEPING IN MIND IN THE BIG PICTURE. \nAND THEN I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I\, JUST AS A QUESTION\, THAT THE — \nTHIS IS SILENT ON DREDGING. AND THAT’S BECAUSE\, OF COURSE\, OF THE LTMS\, SINCE \n2001\, AND IT’S ALSO BECAUSE OF THE POLICY WORK THAT WE’RE DOING IN THE \nSEDIMENT\, WORKING GROUP\, RIGHT NOW\, TO PRODUCE NEW POLICIES FOR THE BAY PLAN. \nSO\, THAT IS BEING DEALT IN A DETAILED MANNER SOMEWHERE ELSE. \nI WANTED TO CONFIRM\, EVERYBODY\, YEAH\, THAT’S THE CASE. OKAY. \nTHEN MY OTHER QUESTION\, MORE DETAILED\, IS ABOUT POLICY FIVE. \nPOLICY FIVE IS\, CORY\, IS BAY FILL FOR NEW MARINE TERMINALS. \nAND WHEN I READ POLICY FIVE\, GRANTED IT DOES HAVE LANGUAGE THAT SEEMS SIMILAR \nTO THE MCATEER-PETRIS ACT\, BUT IT ALSO SEEMS VERY RESTRICTIVE ALL AVAILABLE \nBERTHS WILL HAVE BEEN USED\, ALL REASONABLE INVESTMENTS\, NO OTHER \nFEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES. I MEAN\, DOES THAT GIVE US THE FLEXIBILITY THAT WE \nMAY NEED IN THE FUTURE? >>SPEAKER: DO YOU WANT TO ANSWER \nTHAT? >>CORY MANN: I CAN START. \nTHANKS FOR THE QUESTION. THERE ARE TWO RELATED POLICIES NEXT TO EAR OTHER \nTHERE\, THERE IS THE BAY FILL FOR NEW MARINE POLICY\, AND BAY FILL TO DEVELOP \nEXISTING MARINE TERMINAL SITES. POLICY FIVE THERE\, BAY FILL FOR NEW MARINE \nTERMINALS IS BASICALLY — THAT POLICY IS ORIENTED TOWARD IF A \nBRAND-NEW MARINE TERMINAL WAS TO BE PROPOSED. WHERE ONE DOESN’T CURRENTLY \nEXIST SO THAT’S THE KIND OF PROJECT WHERE YOU WOULD BE CONTEMPLATING \nLARGER VOLUMES OF BAY FILL THAN A SITE THAT’S BEING REDEVELOPED. \nAND\, SO THAT’S WHY THE STANDARD THERE IS HIGH. \nAND IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT ERIK. \n>>SPEAKER: I CAN SAY IT ECHOES THE MAC TEAR PET RICK REQUIREMENTS. WE’RE \nTALKING ABOUT BAY FILL FOR PORT USE. MCATEER-PETRIS ACT HAS TO DO WITH \nEXCEEDING THE FILL\, WATER USE WATER FILL NECESSARY AND NO ALTERNATIVE \nLOCATION. WHEN WE’RE DOING WITH PRIORITY USE AREAS IN MARINE TERMINALS \nTHAT COULD EXIST OUTSIDE OF THOSE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS WE WANT TO BE \nTHINKING ABOUT ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS THAT’S WHY WE’RE USE THE PRIORITY USE \nAREAS FOR INFILL FOR SOME PLACE THAT ALREADY HAS A LOCATION. _ THAT’S WHY \nWE DRAFTED IT THAT WAY. THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS COULD BE ADDED TO \nOR CHANGED BASED ON REGIONAL NEEDS OVER TIME. SO THAT WOULD BE WHAT WE WOULD \nRECOMMEND IN THAT CASE BUT YOU NEVER KNOW. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nSORRY. A LITTLE BIT OF A CATERING ISSUE FOR THE SOCIAL HOUR. \nCOMMISSIONER GIOIA? >>JOHN GIOIA: THANK YOU FOR THE \nPRESENTATION. ONE COMMENT\, ON THE BCDC APPOINTMENTS TO THE SPAC\, ONE OF THEM \nSAYS COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATION\, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ORGANIZATION\, \nAPPOINTED BY BCDC. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF WE CAN JUST ADD \nTO THAT DESCRIPTION\, A CBO\, OR EJ ORGANIZATION FROM A COMMUNITY IMPACTED \nBY THE — BY ONE OF THE PORTS. WHAT WE DON’T WANT TO HAVE IS\, LET’S SAY \nSOMEONE APPLIES THAT’S NEAR THE PORT OF OAKLAND\, VERSUS SOMEONE WHO MAY COME \nFROM AN EJ COMMUNITY THAT IS NOWHERE NEAR A PORT. SO\, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE \nIF WEEKEND ADD THAT DESCRIPTOR THAT IT WOULD BE\, YOU KNOW\, ONE OF THOSE \nORGANIZATIONS REPRESENTING COMMUNITIES IMPACTED BY A PORT. CAN WE DO THAT? \n>>ERIK BUEHMANN: YEAH. THANK YOU FOR \nTHAT RECOMMENDATION. >>JOHN GIOIA: THANKS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANYBODY ELSE ON THE COMMISSION? \nWE WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I WOULD FIRST LIKE TO WELCOME COMMENTS \nFROM ANY MEMBERS — >>SPEAKER: WE HAVE PART TWO? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I’M SORRY. CORY. YOU HAVE PART TWO. \n>>CORY MANN: SORRY. IT’S A LONG PRESENTATION. \n[LAUGHTER] NO PROBLEM. I’LL DO PART TWO NOW. \nPART TWO IS SHORTER\, TOO. OKAY. I’LL ASSUME EVERYONE CAN SEE MY \nSLIDES AGAIN. THANKS FOR THOSE QUESTIONS. NEXT I’LL TALK ABOUT\, THIS \nIS BOTH PART TWO OF THE PRESENTATION\, AND PART TOFT SEAPORT PLAN. THIS PART \nOF THE SEAPORT PLAN IS CALLED THE MARINE TERMINAL DESIGNATIONS. \nAND WE’RE PROPOSING SOME CHANGES IN TERMS OF HOW WE APPROACH THIS IN THE \nNEW DRAFT PLAN. AND THEN FINALLY I’LL REVIEW THE MAPS OF THE PORT PRIORITY \nUSE AREAS THEMSELVES AND CHANGES REQUESTED BY THE INDIVIDUAL PORTS. \nANOTHER RELATIVELY HIGH-LEVEL OVERVIEW BUT OF COURSE I’M HAPPY TO TAKE \nQUESTIONS AGAIN ON ANYTHING SPECIFIC. FIRST I’LL TALK ABOUT THE MARINE \nTERMINAL DESIGNATIONS WHICH ARE PART OF THE 1996 SEAPORT PLAN. THIS IS A BIT \nIN THE WEEDS BUT A BIG COMPONENT ABOUT HOW THE 1996 PLAN WORKS. I WANTED TO \nMAKE SURE TO DESCRIBE HOW THIS IS CHANGING. SO\, I MENTIONED AT THE \nBEGINNING OF THE PRESENTATION THAT THE SEAPORT PLAN APPLIES SPECIFIC POLICIES \nTO THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS. AND IN THE EXISTING PLAN\, IT BASICALLY \nALLOCATES PROJECTED CARGO VOLUMES TO EVERY MARINE TERMINAL IN BCDC \nJURISDICTION. SO I HAVE INCLUDED AN EXAMPLE TABLE \nFROM THE PORT OF OAKLAND UP ON THIS SLIDE\, BUT IT WORKS THE SAME FOR ANY \nOF THE PORTS. AND THIS TABLE BASICALLY ASSIGNS OUT \nCARGO VOLUMES AND CARGO TYPES TO EACH OF THE BOARDS BASED ON THE CARGO \nFORECAST PROJECTIONS. THEN THERE’S A POLICY THAT ACCOMPANIES EACH TABLE \nTHAT SAYS EACH OF THE MARINE TERMINALS SHOULD BE CAPABLE OF HANDLING CARGO BY \n2020. AT THE TIME WE COULD ACCURATELY PROJECT CARGO VOLUME AND ASSIGN TO THE \nPORTS AND ANTICIPATE WHERE BAY FILL WAS GOING TO BE NEEDED TO MEET THE \nREGION’S NEEDS. BUT AS YOU CAN IMAGINE\, IN PRACTICE\, ALLOCATING \nSPECIFIC CARGO TYPES AND PROJECTED VOLUMES TO INDIVIDUAL TERMINALS IS \nVERY DIFFICULT FOR A FEW DIFFERENT REASONS. YOU KNOW\, FIRST\, AND THIS \nKIND OF ALREADY CAME UP\, BUT UNLESS THE CARGO FORECAST AND THE MARINE TERMINAL \nDESIGNATIONS ARE UPDATED VERY FREQUENTLY. THIS INFORMATION IS GOING \nTO BE OUTDATED BY THE TIME A SPECIFIC PROJECT OR PERMIT ARISES. AND INDEED \nTHESE TABLES HAVEN’T BEEN UPDATED IN QUITE SOMETIME. \nSECOND\, AS I WAS GETTING TO\, THIS APPROACH MAKES ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHERE \nFUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND BAY FILL MIGHT OCCUR AND THOSE ASSUMPTIONS ARE ALSO \nUNLIKELY TO BE ACCURATE AS CONDITIONS AND AS TECHNOLOGY AND OTHER THINGS \nCHANGE. SO THE PROPOSAL FROM STAFF IS BASICALLY TO REMOVE THOSE TERMINAL \nDESIGNATIONS TO SIMPLIFY THE SEAPORT PLAN\, PROVIDING A LITTLE BIT MORE \nFLEXIBILITY FOR THE PORTS\, BUT WE DON’T THINK WE’RE GOING TO BE LOSING \nANYTHING BY MAKING THIS CHANGE. WE ALREADY HAVE POLICIES IN THE SEAPORT \nPLAN TO GUIDE THE COMMISSION’S DECISION-MAKING ABOUT PERMITS OR ABOUT \nPROJECTS THAT MIGHT BE REQUESTED BY THE PORTS. AND WE HAVE WORKED TO MAKE \nTHESE POLICIES MORE ROBUST AND MORE CLEAR IN THE UPDATE. AND OF COURSE\, \nWE CAN STILL RELY ON INFORMATION FROM THE CARGO FORECAST TO MAKE DECISIONS. \nBUT BY NOT HAVING ALL OF THESE TABLES IN THE PLAN IT’S GOING TO SIMPLIFY THE \nSEE PORT PLAN HOW IT READS MAKE IT MORE APPROACHABLE TO UNDERSTAND. SO THAT \nIS OUR SUGGESTED CHANGE FOR THAT. AND SO FINALLY I’LL GET TO THE ACTUAL \nMAPS THEMSELVES. BEGINNING IN 2021\, BCDC RECEIVED \nREQUESTS TO MODIFY THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREA BOUNDARIES FROM THE PORT OF \nREDWOOD CITY\, THE PORT OF RICHMOND\, THE PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO\, AS WELL AS THE \nCITY OF OAKLAND. BCDC ALSO RECEIVED PUBLIC COMMENTS REQUESTING TO REMOVE \nCELLY STATUS AS A RESERVE PORT PRIORITY USE AREA. \nSO\, WHY DOES THIS MATTER? WELL\, AS I EXPLAINED EARLIER\, THE ONLY ALLOWABLE \nUSES IN PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS ARE FOR CARGO OR OTHER RELATED USES. \nSO\, ADDING THE PORT PRIORITY USE DESIGNATION BASICALLY PROTECTS A SITE \nFOR PORT USES. CONVERSELY\, HOWEVER\, REMOVING PORT \nPRIORITY USE DESIGNATION FROM A SITE\, IT DOESN’T ACTUALLY PREVENT PORTS FROM \nUSING THAT AREA FOR CARGO PURPOSES. THEY CAN CERTAINLY STILL DO THAT\, BUT \nIT DOES FREE THE SITE UP TO POTENTIALLY BE USED FOR NON-PORT USE. \nSO\, THAT’S THE KIND OF\, LIKE\, WHY IT MATTERS. AND\, SO\, AT ITS MARCH 2021 \nMEETING\, THE SPAC RECEIVED A PRESENTATION BY BCDC STAFF SUMMARIZING \nSTAFF’S ANALYSIS OF THESE CHANGES. AS YOU MAY RECALL\, DELETIONS OF PORT \nPRIORITY USE AREAS\, MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH BCDC’S POLICIES FOR REMOVING PORT \nPRIORITY USE AREAS\, GENERAL POLICY FOUR IN THE EXISTING PLAN\, AND IT STATES \nTHAT DELETION SHOULD NOT RETRACT FROM THE ABILITY TO MEET THE GROWTH IN \nCARGO. BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT ANALYSIS\, STAFF ALSO SUMMARIZED \nINFORMATION ON SOME OTHER RELEVANT TOPICS\, INCLUDING PORT PLANNING AND \nOPERATIONS\, LAND USE CONSISTENCY AND COMPATIBILITY\, PUBLIC ACCESS\, SEA \nLEVEL RISE\, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE\, AND BAY FILL TO PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL \nCONTEXT FOR THE SPAC IN MAKING ITS RECOMMENDATION ON THE PORT’S REQUESTS. \nPOTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS \nASSOCIATED WITH THESE PROPOSED MAP CHANGES HAVE ALSO BEEN ANALYZED IN THE \nENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT THAT WE DISTRIBUTED IN SEPTEMBER. AND THE \nENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CONCLUDES THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT \nIN ANY SUBSTANTIAL AND ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. \nTHE CARGO FORECAST DIDN’T IDENTIFY ANY OF THE AREAS BEING REQUESTED FOR \nREMOVAL FROM PORT PRIORITY USE AS BEING FEASIBLE SITES FOR CARGO HANDLING. \nAND THUS STAFF HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THOSE REQUESTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE \nSEAPORT PLAN POLICY. IN EFFECT\, IT MEANS THESE REMOVALS \nWERE ACCOUNTED FOR ALREADY IN THE CARGO FORECAST SINCE THESE WEREN’T ACTIVE \nSITES AND MAKING THESE CHANGES WON’T IMPACT WHAT THE CARGO FORECAST SAYS. \nSTAFF ALSO ASKED THE PORTS TO \nUNDERTAKE MEANINGFUL COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE \nCOMMUNITIES\, COMMENSURATE WITH THE NATURE OF THE CHANGES THAT THEY \nREQUESTED REGARDING THE PROPOSED MAP CHANGES. SOME PORTS HAD ALREADY TAKEN \nUNDER\, LIKE\, AN OUTREACH RELATED TO THEIR OWN PROCESSES OR THEIR OWN \nREQUIREMENTS\, THEIR OWN MEETINGS\, THEIR OWN BOARDS AND SOME UNDERTOOK OUTREACH \nTO BCDC REQUEST THAT IS SUMMARIZED IN THE STAFF REPORT BUT NEITHER THE PORTS \nNOR BCDC STAFF IDENTIFIED ANY SPECIFIC CONCERNS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED MAP \nCHANGES. AND\, FINALLY\, THE SPAC VOTED IN FAVOR \nOF THE PROPOSED CHANGES\, BOTH AT ITS MARCH 2021 MEETING\, AND THEN THEN THIS \nJULY WHEN APPROVING THE DRAFT PLAN. I’LL RUN THROUGH EACH OF THE FOUR \nREQUESTS. FIRST THE PORT OF REDWOOD CITY IS PLANNING A FUTURE EXPANSION OF \nA WHARF TO ACCOMMODATE A NEW OMNI TERMINAL THAT COULD ACCOMMODATE DRIVE \nOFF OR RAIL CARGOS TO ENSURE THE AREA IS PROTECTED FOR FUTURE PORT USE THE \nPORT IS ADDING 1.3 ACRES TO THE WHARF\, OR TO AN AREA SOUTH OF WHARF FIVE TO \nTHE PORT PRIORITY USE DESIGNATION. AND STAFF ANALYZED THAT REQUEST IN \n2021 AND RECOMMENDED AND STILL RECOMMEND APPROVING IT. \nTHE CITY OF RICHMOND HAS REQUESTED REMOVAL OF THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREA \nFROM THE ENGRAVING DOCKS AS WELL AS THE BUILDING SOUTH OF THE MARINE TERMINAL \nDUE TO HISTORIC STATUS AS WELL AS A SITE AT THE SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF \nHARBOR WAY SOUTH ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE. \nTHOSE DOC DOCKS ARE PART OF THE ROSY THE RIVETER NATIONAL PARK AND THE SITE \nIS ADJACENT TO THE PARKING LAT TO THE FERRY TERMINAL\, OFFERS PUBLIC ACCESS \nAND A FISHING PEER AND CONNECTS TO THE BAY TRAIL THOSE WERE NOT IDENTIFIED AS \nBEING VIABLE FOR CONTINUED CARGO USE AND STAFF RECOMMENDED AND CONTINUED TO \nRECOMMEND APPROVING THAT REQUEST. A FEW DIFFERENT CHANGES FOR THE PORT \nOF SAN FRANCISCO. PEER 48 UP THE NORTH THERE\, AND A RELATED AREA WERE \nACTUALLY ALREADY REMOVED FROM PORT PRIORITY USE IN 2016. PER AN ASSEMBLY \nBILL THAT FOUND THAT THE PIER IS A CONTRIBUTOR TO THE EMBARCADERO \nHISTORIC DISTRICT AND NO LONGER VIABLE FOR CARGO OPERATIONS. SO IN THAT CASE \nWE’RE UPDATING THE MAPS. THE PORT REQUESTED TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE \nPORT AT PIER 50 NO LONGER VIABLE FOR BULK OPERATIONS BUT THE PORT IS \nRESERVING FOR MARITIME PURPOSES SUCH AS PORT MAINTENANCE. PORT 70 REQUESTED \nTO REMOVE SIX ACRES OF PORT PRIORITY USE AREA THAT INCLUDES A PIER THAT WAS \nPHYSICALLY REMOVED AS WELL AS AN AREA THAT ENCOMPASSES PARKING. \nFINALLY THE PORT REQUESTED TO REMOVE ABOUT TEN ACRES OF PORT PRIORITY USE \nFROM PIER 94 DUE TO THE PRESENCE OF A WETLAND AS WELL AS 15 ACRES FROM \nUPLAND SITES\, BASICALLY DUE TO THEIR SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER ELEVATION \nRELATIVE TO THE MARINE TERMINAL. THEY ALSO REQUESTED TO ADD TEN ACRES \nBETWEEN PIERS 92 AND 94 TO REFLECT WHERE THERE ARE ALREADY CURRENTLY DRY \nBULK OPERATIONS BUT TO MAKE SURE THE AREA IS PROTECTED FOR FUTURE PORT USE. \nTHIS WAS ANALYZED IN 2021 AND STAFF \nFOUND NONE OF THOSE SITES REQUESTED FOR APPROVAL IDENTIFIED AS SITES FOR CARGO \nHANDLING AND CONTINUED TO HANDLING REQUESTS. _ FINALLY 20 TOUR BCDC HAD \nREQUEST TO SPOP PORT PRIORITY USE AREA THAT’S FOR ANCILLARY USE\, SPAPD AN \nADDITIONAL 1.2 ACRINGS OF PORT PRIORITY USE AREA THAT REQUESTS STEMS BACK TO \nAN EARLY 2000s AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE PORT THAT THEY BOTH MADE \nTO PROVIDE TRUCK PARKING WHEN THE OAKLAND ARMY BASE WAS REDEVELOPED. SO \nTHE SITE THE CITY WANTS TO REDESIGNATE FOR PORT PRIORS USE HAS BETTER \nLOCATION AND ACCESSIBILITY TO SUPPORT THE AREAS FOR MARITIME SERVICES THAN \nTHE CURRENTLY DESIGNATED AREA. BOTH AREAS PROPOSING TO BE ADDED OR REMOVED \nARE INLAND FROM THE MARINE TERMINALS NEITHER SITE WAS IDENTIFIED IN THE \nCARGO FORECAST FOR HANDLING BOTH SITES ARE WELL OUTSIDE BCDC PERMITTING \nJURISDICTION. IF BCDC SEES APPROVAL OF THE PORT PRIORITY USE SWAP HERE ONE \nWAY OR THE OTHER IT WOULD NOT IMPACT THE CITY OF OAKLAND’S ABLE FOR TRUCK \nPARKING. BECAUSE USES OF THE SITE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE PORT PRIORITY USE \nDESIGNATION THAN THE CURRENT ONE STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVING THAT REQUEST. \nFINALLY\, SO I MENTIONED THE EXISTING SEAPORT PLAN 96 PLAN DESIGNATED TWO \nPORT PRIORITY USE SITES CONCORD NAVAL WEAPONS STATION AND SELBY. CONCORD \nRESERVE AREA WAS PREVIOUSLY A NAVY MILITARY BASE CALLED CONCORD NAVAL \nWEAPONS STATION. IN 2005 THE NAVY TRANSFERRED PART OF \nTHE BASE TO THE ARMY\, AND IT’S NOW OCCUPIED BY THE MILITARY OCEAN CONCORD \nMOTCO. AND THEN THE SELBY SITE ON THE RIGHT \nTHERE IT WAS ANOTHER RESERVE AREA\, IT WAS PREVIOUSLY THE SITE OF A SMELTING \nOPERATION THAT PRODUCED SWAG AS A WASTE PRODUCT AND _ DEPOSITED ON THE SITE \nTHAT SITE IS UNDERGOING REMEDIATION FOR EXTENSIVE HEAVY METAL CONTAMINATION. \nBCDC RECEIVED PUBLIC COMMENT LETTERS FROM CONCERNED CITIZENS IN THE AREA \nNEAR SELBY REQUESTING WE MOVEMENT THAT SITE FOR PORT PRIORITY USE. STAFF \nLOOKED AT BOTH OF THESE SITES BOTH DESIGNATED FOR PORT PRIORITY USE IN \n1982 AS POSSIBLE RESERVE SITES THAT THE REGION COULD POTENTIALLY ACTIVATE AND \nDEVELOP IF NEEDED FOR CARGO HANDLING BUT NO PLANS TO DEVELOP EITHER SITE \nFOR PORT USE HAVE EMERGED IN THE 40 YEARS SINCE. STAFF ARE RECOMMENDING \nTO REMOVE THE PORT PRIORS USE STINGS FROM BOTH SITES. TIMELINE OF \nFEASIBILITY OF REDEVELOPING EITHER FOR CARGO USE IS UNCLEAR. OF COURSE\, \nEITHER SITE COULD BE ADDED BACK INTO PORT USE INTO THE FUTURE BUT AT THIS \nPOINT WE’RE RECOMMENDING TO THE COMMISSION ESPECIALLY TO OCCUR AS TO \nTHE PROCESS IN THE FUTURE IF IT ENDS UP WARRANTED. _ THOSE ARE THE LAST OF \nTHE PORT PRIORITY USE BOUNDARIES. FINALLY TO LET YOU KNOW WHAT’S \nHAPPENING HERE AFTER TODAY’S PUBLIC HEARING STAFF WILL WORK TO REVISE THE \nDRAFT PLAN IN RESPONSE TO COMMISSIONER FEEDBACK OR PUBLIC COMMENTS. \nAFTER THAT WE’LL RELEASE A FINAL DRAFT OF THE PLAN ALONG WITH THE \nENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AND SOME OTHER INFORMATION \nTHAT MAKES UP THE FINAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSION. \nTENTATIVELY THOSE ITEMS MIGHT BE MAILED ON NOVEMBER 10TH OF THE FINALLY THERE \nWILL BE ANOTHER COMMISSION MEETING TO VOTE ON WHETHER TO ADOPT THE NEW \nSEAPORT PLAN WE’LL VOTE AT THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 16TH \nDEPENDING ON REQUESTED REVISIONS. I WANT TO CONCLUDE BY THANKING EVERYONE \nWHO HAS CONTRIBUTED THEIR TIME ON GETTING TO THIS POINT. THIS WAS A \nCHALLENGING PROJECT. THERE WERE DELAYS. AND SO I REALLY \nWANT TO THANK THE FIVE BAY AREA BOARDS AND THEIR STAFF FOR WORK STICKING WITH \nBCDC ON THIS PROJECT\, PUBLIC FEEDBACK AND COMMENT ALONG THE WAY\, AS WELL AS \nSEAPORT PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS\, AND STAFF WANT TO EXTEND \nGRATITUDE TO OUR FORMER COMMISSIONER TO JIM McGRATH FOR SUPPORT DURING EARLIER \nPHASES OF THIS PROJECT AND WE WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE LATE COMMISSIONER ANNE \nHALSTED WHO CHAIRED WHEN THIS WAS LAUNCHED AND THIS WOULDN’T HAVE \nHAPPENED WITHOUT HER LEADERSHIP. THAT’S IT FOR ME AND I’M HAPPY TO \nANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHERE MAY BE QUESTIONS\, BUT WE’RE ACTUALLY\, ONCE AGAIN\, GOING TO OPEN \nTHE HEARING. UNLESS THERE IS A THIRD PART? \nAND I WOULD LIKE TO START BY OFFERING ANY MEMBERS OF THE SPAC OR ANY PORT \nREPRESENTATIVES\, IF THEY HAVE ANY COMMENTS. \nANYBODY OUT THERE IN PUBLIC LAND\, REYLINA? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO PUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ALL RIGHT. THEN\, I THINK WE WILL GO — \n>>SPEAKER: [INDISCERNIBLE]. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. THAT’S WHAT I WAS GOING TO. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER RANCHOD. \n>>SPEAKER: I HAD ONE COMMENT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OR ONE \nQUESTION\, IN THE DOCUMENTS WE GOT IT STATED THERE WASN’T ANY EVIDENCE \nBEFORE BCDC OF FAILED PROPOSAL IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE PROPOSED SEAPORT \nPLAN UPDATE. AND I WANT TO CONFIRM THAT’S STILL THE CASE F STAFF CAN \nCONFIRM THAT? >>SPEAKER: I CAN PROBABLY FIELD THAT \nQUESTION. MICHAEL AMES STAFF ATTORNEY FILLING IN FOR GREG SCHARFF TODAY. \nDISCUSSION OF SUBSEQUENT PROJECTS IN RELATION TO THE REMOVAL OF THE POA \nDESIGNATIONS IS RELATED TO A CONCEPT IN CEQA\, BASICALLY EVALUATING THE \nINDIRECT EFFECTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT\, YOU KNOW\, IS \nBEFORE YOU TODAY\, UPDATING THE SEAPORT PLAN. SO\, OBVIOUSLY THOSE PROJECTS \nARE NOT PART OF THIS PROJECT\, THE SEAPORT PLAN UPDATE. BUT THERE HAS TO \nBE CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER\, YOU KNOW\, THERE WILL BE\, SORT OF\, THESE INDIRECT \nEFFECTS\, VIS-A-VIS\, THOSE PROJECTS AS A RESULT OF WHEN WE’RE DOING TODAY. AND \nBASED ON OUR WORK WITH THE CONSULTANT\, YOU KNOW\, THE EVALUATION WAS BASICALLY \nTHAT THOSE PROJECTS\, WHILE\, YOU KNOW\, THERE MAY BE GENERAL DISCUSSION OR \nIDEAS FLOATING OUT IN THE ETHER ABOUT\, YOU KNOW\, THE POSSIBILITY THAT THEY’RE \nNOT THE KEY TERM OF ART IS THEY’RE NOT REASONABLY FORESEEABLE CONSEQUENCES OF \nWHAT WE’RE DOING. YOU KNOW\, THERE MAY BE SOME IMPETUS TO PURSUE THOSE \nPROJECTS BUT IT’S NOT BECAUSE OF WHAT WE’RE DOING THAT THOSE PROJECTS WILL \nBE REALIZED OR THE LEAD AGENCIES WILL BE PURSUING THOSE PROJECTS. THAT’S \nWHERE THAT STATEMENT COMES FROM. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. I WILL NOW GO TO THE SPEAKERS IN THE \nROOM AND NOW WE’LL START ON THE APPROPRIATE ITEM WITH SUNG LEE. \n>>SPEAKER: BEFORE YOU MAKE MY REMARKIS JUST WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE \nCOMMISSION AND STAFF FOR THIS WONDERFUL REPORT. \nSOMEBODY FROM THE TRADE COMMUNITY. IF I COULD GIVE YOU IMMEDIATE FEEDBACK\, \nVERY GOOD JOB\, LOOKS AWESOME. ALL RIGHT. SO\, MY NAME IS SUNG LEE. \nI AM THE PRESIDENT OF CB\, ASSOCIATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. WE ARE AN \nINTERNATIONAL TRADE PROFESSIONAL REPRESENTING CLIENTS BEFORE YOU. \nOUR CLIENT COMPRISES OF IMPORTERS AND EXPORTERS IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA SUCH \nAS RETAILERS\, FARMERS AND MANUFACTURES. IT IS OUR POSITION TO SUPPORT STAFF \nAMENDED BPA 1-19 TO INCLUDE STIPULATION THAT IF A BINDING AGREEMENT IS NOT \nEXECUTED BETWEEN THE PORT OF OAKLAND AS\, PORT AND OAKLAND AS BY JANUARY \n1ST\, 2025 THE PORT PRIORITY USE DESIGNATION BE AUTOMATICALLY \nREINSTATED FOR MARITIME AT HOWARD TERMINAL PROPERTY. I AM ALSO VICE \nCHAIR OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COUNCIL A PRIVATE INDUSTRY ADVISORY \nBOARD FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE A POSITION OF EXPERT COUNSEL ADVISORY \nBOARD THAT BCDC SUPPORT MARITIME BUSINESS AT THE PORT OF OAKLAND. \nSTATE OF CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS\, MANDATE CLEAN TRUCKS\, CLEAN \nPORT OPERATIONS\, AND ALSO CLEAN CONTAINER SHIPS CALLING THE PORT OF \nOAKLAND. AND TO THAT END\, PRESIDENT BIDEN IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE BILL HAS \nPROVIDE HAS PROVIDED UPGRADES TO THE COMMUNITY. THE GOALS SET BEFORE US WE \nASK BCDC TO CONTINUE TO AND GIVE THE ADMINISTERED — \nDEMONSTRATED WITH THIS REPORT THAT YOU ALL\, THE GOALS OF THE FEDERAL \nGOVERNMENT\, STATE GOVERNMENT PRIORITIES TO PROMOTE\, EXPORT AND TRADE WITH OUR \nTRADE PARTNERS ALLIES OVERSEAS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: EVY WANG. \n>>SPEAKER: THIS BUTTON. OKAY. I HAVE PRESSED THE BUTTON. MY NAME IS \nEVY WONG. I AM A BOARD MEMBER OF THE CUSTOM [INDISCERNIBLE] ASSOCIATION OF \nCALIFORNIA\, A FELLOW BOARD MEMBER WAS SUNG LEE. I WANT TO COMMEND CORY MANN \nAND THE SUPPORT PLANNING STAFF. WHAT AN OUTSTANDING REPORT. AND I \nUNDERLINED REWRITTEN FOR READABILITY AND CLARITY\, THAT IS SUPER. THANK YOU \nSO MUCH. SO\, I — WE ARE USERS AND SUPPORTERS \nOF THE PORT OF OAKLAND AND RELATED MARITIME SERVICES. WE CONTINUE TO \nSHOW UP BECAUSE AS SEAPORT STAKEHOLDERS WHO CARE DEEPLY FOR OUR HOME PORTS \nFUTURE\, I WANT TO EXPRESS THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SEAPORT PLAN TO \nINCLUDE STATEMENTS THAT IF A BINDING AGREEMENT IS NOT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE \nPORT OF OAKLAND AND OAKLAND AS BY JANUARY 1ST\, 2024\, THAT THE PORT \nPRIORITY USE DESIGNATION WILL BE REINSTATED BACK TO HOWARD TERMINAL \nPROPERTY. I WOULD ALSO REQUEST THAT ANY PROPOSAL FOR THE HOWARD TERMINAL \nPROPERTIES\, OR ANY OTHER PORT ADJACENT TO PROPERTIES\, THAT IT MIGHT BE \nCONSIDERED FOR RESIDENTIAL OR CONTRARY TO MARITIME SERVICES THAT THEY UNDER \nGO THOUGHTFUL AND TRANSPARENT PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS. THANK YOU FOR THE \nOPPORTUNITY\, FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION\, WE’RE GRATEFUL BCDC FOR ITS CONTINUED \nTHOUGHTFUL AND TRANSPARENT PROCESS FOR STATE LANDS IN RELATION TO MARITIME \nSERVICES. AT AND ADJACENT PORT LANDS WHICH IS \nREALLY IMPORTANT. LET’S KEEP THE BUSINESS AT THE PORT\, LET’S GROW \nCENTRIC AND SUSTAINABLE INTO THE FUTURE. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR ALL OF \nTHE WORK THAT IS DONE FOR OUR PUBLIC USE AND MARITIME AT THE PORT OF OAK. \nTHANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THANK YOU. NEXT IS BILL DOW WHO WILL \nBE FOLLOWED BY BILL DOW. >>SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON MY NAME IS \nBILL TAO\, LOCAL SIX RETIRED MEMBER OF OUR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT \nCOUNCIL. OAKLAND IS A WORKING PORT. NOT\, YOU \nKNOW\, IT — IT’S TOO — PARDON ME FOR A SECOND. I’M WATCHING \nTHIS CLOCK. IT INTIMIDATES ME. BUT ANYWAY\, OAKLAND\, I’M HERE HERE TO URGE \nYOU TO REMOVE THE PORT DESIGNATION\, TO PUT PORT DESIGNATION BACK ON HOWARD \nTERMINAL. WHEN YOU REMOVE THE PORT DESIGNATION\, YOU SEND OUT THE WRONG \nINFORMATION TO THE MARITIME INDUSTRY\, YOU SAY YOU’RE NOT INTERESTED IN PORTS \nANYMORE. PORT OF OAKLAND IS TOO IMPORTANT FOR US IN THE AREA\, FOR \nWORKING — IT’S A WORKING CLASS PORT. AND WE HAVE TO KEEP IT THAT WAY. AND \nBY REMOVING THE PORT DESIGNATION YOU SEND OUT THE WRONG MESSAGE. PUT IT \nBACK ON\, SEND OUT THE MESSAGE THAT THE PORT OF OAKLAND IS OPEN FOR BUSINESS. \nTHANK YOU. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU\, SIR. MELVIN MCKAY FOLLOWED BY SUZANNE \nRANSON >>SPEAKER: THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. \nLONG TIME COMING. YOU KNOW? LIKE BILL SAID\, WE SENT THE WRONG MESSAGE OUT TO \nA LOT OF OUR SHIPPERS AND LABOR. WHEN WE STARTED THIS\, WE HIRED OVER A \nTHOUSAND PEOPLE TO WORK IN THESE PORTS WE LOST A LOT OF COMMODITY HERE. I \nHEARD SOMETHING DISTURBING WE USED TO BE 3 AND 4 IN THE WORLD NOW WE’RE \nNUMBER TEN TO GEORGIA. WE NEED TO GET BACK TO WHERE WE WERE BEFORE THIS \nSTARTED. I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU HAVE DONE AND WHAT YOU ARE DOING. THANK \nYOU VERY MUCH. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU\, SIR. SUZANNE RANSON FOLLOWED BY MIKE JACOB. \n>>SPEAKER: IS THERE A BUTTON TO PUSH \nHERE? IT’S ON. HELLO I’M SUSAN SSA TERMINAL THE LARGEST PORT TENANT WITH \nPORT OF OAK AND WE’RE ON THE INNER HARBOR. \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME TODAY LISTENING TO COMMENTS REGARDING \nIMPORTANCE EVER UPDATING EPA 1-19 TO THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA SEAPORT \nPLAN TO INCLUDE A REFERENCE TO THE STATE LAW THAT REQUIRES THAT\, AND A \nTHIRD TIME WE’RE GOING TO SAY THAT IF A BINDING AGREEMENT IS NOT EXECUTED \nBETWEEN THE PORT OF OAKLAND AND OAKLAND AS BY JANUARY 1\, 2025 THAT THE PORT \nPRIORITY USE DESIGNATION WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE REINSTATED AT THE \nHOWARD TERMINAL PROPERTY AS REQUESTED TO SPAC AT OUR LAST MEETING. WE LOOK \nFORWARD TO BEING AT THE TABLE AND SUPPORTING THE PORT OF OAKLAND ON \nIDEAS FOR USAGE OF HOWARD TERMINAL THAT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO GROWING THE \nECONOMY\, A WIN-WIN FOR THE PORT\, ESTATE\, ENVIRONMENTALISTS\, AND \nMARITIME STAKEHOLDERS. AS THE AS HAVE MADE THEIR INTENTIONS CLEAR AFTER \nPUTTING EVERYONE THROUGH THE RINGER\, WE ENCOURAGE BCDC TO ACCEPT SPAC’S \nRECOMMENDATION AND SEVEN. AMENDMENT TO THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA SEAPORT \nPLAN. IT REALLY IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. \nLAST TWO COMMENTS\, COMMISSIONER SHOWALTER\, I PERSONALLY INVITE YOU TO \nSSA TERMINAL TO SHOW YOU THE GREAT STRIDES WE HAVE MADE\, ENVIRONMENTALLY\, \nWE HAVE INVESTED MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS INTO ENVIRONMENTAL — \nEXCUSE ME — CLEAN UP IN TANDEM WITH THE PORT OF OAKLAND. \nEVERYBODY ON THIS COMMISSION CAN COME TO SSA TERMINAL\, BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE \nIMPORTANT DECISIONS ARE BEING MADE AND YOU REALLY NEED TO COME AND SEE WHAT \nTHE TERMINALS ARE DOING. FOR YOU I’M LEAVING MY CARD PLEASE FEEL FREE TO \nGIVE MY E-MAIL AND PHONE NUMBER TO EVERYBODY HERE. \nLASTLY AS YOU KNOW PART OF HOWARD TERMINAL PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED FOR \nTHE TOURNEY BASIN WHICH IS SO FAR MOVING FORWARD WE’RE EXCITED ABOUT \nTHAT. THE PORT OF OAKLAND IS A HUGE CHEER LEADER FOR THAT\, THANK YOU. \nPLEASE COME SEE ME AT THE TERMINAL. _ \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: MIKE JACOB. \n>>SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR WASSERMAN\, MIKE JACOB WE REPRESENT \nOCEAN CARRIERS\, ALL OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC PORTS INCLUDING PORT OF \nOAKLAND. WE DID SUBMIT EXTENSIVE COMMENTS TO SPAC AT THE JULY MEETING \nBUT IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING WE SUBMITTED COMMENTS THAT ARE PRETTY EXTENSIVE AT \nMOST OF THE SPAC MEETINGS GOING BACK OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS. IT WAS A \nLONG PROCESS. I’M GLAD THE STAFF RECOGNIZED THE EFFORTS OF BOTH THE \nFORMER CHAIRS IN THIS PROCESS. IT TOOK A LOT LONGER THAN IT SHOULD HAVE TAKEN \nDUE TO SOME DISTRACTIONS BUT THE PRODUCT IN FRONT OF YOU IS NOT ONLY \nSOUND IN TERMS OF THE FACTS\, BASED ON A VERY ROBUST\, AND WE THINK WELL DONE \nCARGO FORECAST IN EXERCISE\, BUT THE STAFF THEN WAS ABLE TO SYNTHESIZE \nTHOSE IN IMPROVEMENTS TO OUR CURRENT PLAN. WE SUBMITTED A LOT OF COMMENTS. \nAND THOSE COMMENTS REALLY DID RANGE \nFROM SMALL SCALE\, NIT-PICKY ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO HOW INDIVIDUAL POLICIES \nWOULD BE ADDRESSED VERSUS OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE CHANGED OVER THE SCOPE IN \nTHE LAST FOUR YEARS WITH RESPECT TO THE MARKET SPACE INCLUDING NEW OFFSHORE \nDEVELOPMENT PRESSURES WHICH DID NOT EXIST AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS\, \nADDITIONAL PRESSURES ON DEDICATION OF PORT PROPERTY\, FOR THINGS SUCH AS \nCHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR PORT TRUCKS. THOSE ARE NEW DEVELOPMENTS\, \nNEW PRESSURES ON PROPERTY THAT DID NOT EXIST BEFORE. THEY DO EXIST NOW. SO\, \nTHE PROCESS THAT WAS SET UP IN PROPOSING THIS PLAN\, TAKE THOSE INTO \nACCOUNT\, PROVIDE A PATHWAY NOT JUST FOR THE COMMISSION\, BUT FOR THE PUBLIC AND \nFOR PORTS TO MAINTAIN OUR IMPORTANT PLACE IN THE FABRIC OF THE BAY\, WHICH \nIS OUR WATER DEPENDENT USES FOR INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES THAT CANNOT BE \nREPLICATED. WE CANNOT DO WHAT WE DO ANYWHERE ELSE\, EXCEPT IN THE AREAS \nTHAT YOU DESIGNATE. THOSE ARE NOT GETTING BIGGER\, AND WE \nDO NOT ANTICIPATE THEY WILL BE GETTING BIGGER OVER TIME SO WE HAVE TO USE \nWHAT WE HAVE MORE EFFICIENTLY E EFFECTIVELY AND MOVE MORE PRODUCT AS \nTHE ECONOMY GROWS AS WE ADD MORE PEOPLE BUT ALSO ADDING DEMANDS ON THE SYSTEM \nINCLUDING ENERGY AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. WE APPRECIATE THE WORK. WE \nAPPRECIATE YOU WORKING WITH US ON MAKING THIS A BETTER PLAN MOVING \nFORWARD\, AND\, OF COURSE\, I DON’T THINK IT SHOULD GO UNRECOGNIZED THAT YOU ARE \nSTILL HEARING FROM STAKEHOLDERS BECAUSE WE’RE HERE AND WE CARE ABOUT THIS \nPROCESS AND OUR PORT INVESTMENTS REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS WITH ONE \nPARCEL. [LAUGHTER] \nIN ONE PORT. THANK YOU. >>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: JOHN COLEMAN. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU CHAIR WASSERMAN COMMISSIONERS. I USUALLY DON’T SPEAK \nAT MEETINGS NOR TWICE. I WANT TO THANK BCDC ON THIS PROCESS. I HEARD THE \nINITIAL PRESENTATION AT A SPAC MEETING. I REACHED OUT TO LARRY GOLDZBAND\, AND \nCORY AND ERIK MADE A PRESENTATION WHO OUR MEMBERS AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE \nTHAT OUR MEMBERS ARE AWARE OF WHAT YOU’RE DOING SO WE WOULDN’T HAVE THE \nISSUE WE HAD A DECADE AGO WITH THE BAY PLAN AMENDMENTS AND WE DID NOT HAVE \nNEGATIVE FEEDBACK FROM OUR MEMBERS ON THIS\, AND I THINK THAT’S KUDOS TO THE \nHARD WORK THAT YOU AND YOUR STAFF AND SPAC HAVE DONE IN PRAYING TO EMBRACE \nDIFFERENT ISSUES THAT EXIST OUT THERE. \nAND SINCE I HAVE TWO MINUTES AND 14 SECONDS LEFT\, THE PORTS PLAY A \nCRITICAL ROLE TO THE ECONOMY NOT ONLY OF OUR REGION\, OUR STATE\, AND OUR \nNATION. THE AMOUNT OF GOODS THAT GO IN AND OUT OF OUR PORTS DRIVE THE ECONOMY \nTO A VERY LARGE EXTENT OF CALIFORNIA\, THE TAX REVENUE AS GENERATED BY THE \nPORTS IS HUGE FOR OUR ECONOMY. AND HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR STATE AND FEDERAL \nMONEY COMING IN\, WE WOULDN’T BE ABLE TO CLEAN THE PORTS UP AS THEY NEEDED TO \nBE CLEANED UP IN AN ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE. AND DREDGING GOES ALONG \nWITH THAT. IF WE DON’T DREDGE WE’RE NOT GOING TO GET THE BIG SHIPS IN FF \nWE DON’T GET THE BIG SHIPS IN THEY’RE GOING TO GO ELSEWHERE AND THAT DOESN’T \nHELP US BECAUSE WE HAVE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS THAT ARE HIGH PAYING \nUNION JOBS THAT BENEFIT ACTIVITIES AT THE PORT AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT \nALL THE PORTS IN THE REGION ARE BENEFITTING\, AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE \nTHAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF PORTS IN OUR REGION. AND I \nBELIEVE THAT THIS SEAPORT PLAN ADDRESSES THOSE ISSUES. AND\, AGAIN\, \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. KRISTINE ZINTMAN. >>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. KRISTINE \nZORTMAN\, I AM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AT THE PORT. THIS HAS BEEN A GREAT PROCESS \nFROM OUR PERSPECTIVE _ AS MR. COLEMAN MENTIONED\, YOU KNOW\, PORTS ON AN \nECONOMIC ENGINE FOR THIS REGION\, AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA\, \nTHERE ARE 11 MUNICIPAL PORTS THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THE PORTS \nTHAT ARE IN BCDC’S JURISDICTION\, FOUR OF THOSE PORTS\, ONE IS PRIVATE\, BUT \nFOUR OF THOSE PORTS ARE IN YOUR JURISDICTION\, AND I WANT TO SAY THAT \nTHROUGH THIS PROCESS I HAVE TRULY APPRECIATE THE COLLABORATIVE APPROACH. \nI KNOW THAT THERE WAS A LITTLE DIFFICULTY THERE SOMETIMES\, BUT I \nTHINK THE COLLABORATIVE APPROACH\, IN PARTICULAR\, I WANT TO DEFINITELY \nRECOGNIZE CORY AND ERIK\, BECAUSE — AND OTHER BCDC STAFF\, IN REACHING OUT TO \nMEMBERS OF THE SPAC\, IN REACHING OUT TO PORT STAFF\, AND OTHERS TO MAKE SURE \nTHAT WHAT WAS COMING INTO THIS PLAN IS TRULY A PLAN THAT I THINK WE CAN ALL \nBE PROUD OF\, AND WE CAN ALL BE PROUD OF THE COLLABORATION AND THE COOPERATION \nTHAT EXISTS. AND SO WITH THAT\, I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THANK YOU. \nANY SPEAKERS REMOTELY? >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO PUBLIC \nCOMMENT. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nOTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER GUNTHER? \n>>SPEAKER: I FIRST WANT TO THANK \nEVERYBODY WHO TOOK THE TIME TO COME HERE AND TELL US HOW GREAT WE ARE. \nTHAT’S REALLY — THAT’S ALWAYS NICE TO HEAR. \nBUT OF COURSE COMMISSIONERS LIKE ME HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. \nTHAT’S RESPONSIBILITY OF STAFF AND ALL OF YOU WORKING TOGETHER AND I’M JUST \nREALLY\, REALLY PLEASED TO HEAR THAT\, YOU KNOW\, THAT WHILE I’M SURE THERE \nWERE DISAGREEMENTS\, THAT EVERYBODY FEELS HEARD\, RESPECTED AND \nCOLLABORATED WITH\, AND THAT THAT’S GOING TO SERVE AS GOING FORWARD. SO \nTHAT’S REALLY WONDERFUL. CORY\, I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR YOU IN REGARDS TO SEA \nLEVEL RISE AND IT HAS TO DO WITH THE DIFFERENT — ARE THERE DIFFERENCES IN \nVULNERABILITY TO SEA LEVEL RISE AMONG OUR PORTS? \nAND I KNOW JUST ENOUGH TO BE DANGEROUS ABOUT THIS\, THAT I WAS SURPRISED AT \nONE POINT TO LEARN THAT THE PORT OF OAKLAND IS ACTUALLY LESS VULNERABLE \nTHAN I EXPECTED BECAUSE [INDISCERNIBLE] \nWERE RISEN _ YOU CAN RESPOND TO THAT? \n>>CORY MANN. I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I’LL SEE IF STAFF WANT TO \nJUMP IN\, OF COURSE THERE ARE DIFFERENCES AMONG PORTS IN TERMS OF \nVULNERABILITY TO SEA LEVEL RISE. I THINK THERE IS STILL A LOT OF WORK FOR \nUS TO DO AT BCDC IN TERMS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SB272 AND OUR \nPLANNING PROCESSES AS IT RELATES TO PORTS. TO BE HONEST WE DIDN’T \nUNDERTAKE REALLY IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS RELATED TO SEA LEVEL RISE AND MAKING \nTHE POLICIES FOR THE SEAPORT PLAN THOSE POLICIES ARE A BRIDGE TOWARDS EFFORTS \nTHAT WE’RE WORKING ON NOW. I’M NOT SURE IF I HAVE ANY PARTICULARLY GOOD \nINSIGHTS OTHER THAN TO SAY RECOGNIZE THAT THAT’S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. \n>>ERIK BUEHMANN: CAN I JUST ADD\, THERE WASN’T A BIG\, SORT OF\, RESILIENCE OR \nRISK ASSESSMENT TAKEN TO THE PORTS AS PART OF THIS PROCESS. THE PROCESS WAS \nDRIVEN BY THE THE CARGO FORECAST BEING\, SORT OF\, OUTDATED. THE PREVIOUS CARGO \nFORECAST THAT GOVERNED THE PLAN AND TO DO A NEW CARGO FORECAST AND UPDATE THE \nPOLICIES. WE ACKNOWLEDGED WHILE WORKING THROUGH IT THAT THE PLANNING \nLANDSCAPE ESPECIALLY WITH SEA LEVEL RISE IS SHIFTING A LOT. \nOBVIOUSLY WE HAVE SB272\, BAY ADAPT\, AND ALSO THE STATE LEGISLATION THAT \nREQUIRES THE PORTS TO INDIVIDUALLY GO THROUGH A RISK ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS \nFOR SEA LEVEL RISE. AND THAT WAS\, SORT OF\, ONGOING AT THE SAME TIME WE WERE \nDOING THIS PROCESS. SO WE THINK IT’S VERY LIKELY ESPECIALLY WITH SB272 AND \nSOME OF THE SUBREGIONAL PLANS THAT WILL BE CREATED THROUGH BAY ADAPT\, THAT \nWE’LL BE LOOKING AT THIS IN MORE DETAIL IN TERMS OF RESILIENCE TO THE PORTS. \n>>SPEAKER: I WAS GOING ASK YOU TO GO \nTO JESSICA. >>SPEAKER: I WANT GOING ADD ON \nSPECIFICS TO THE PORTS THE STATE LANDS COMMISSION THERE WAS A LAW THAT STATE \nLANDS COMMISSION REQUIRED EACH OF THE PORTS TO PREPARE A SEA LEVEL RISE \nADAPTATION PLAN. IN ADDITION OUR BAY AREA REPORT LOOKED ACROSS THE REGION \nOF THE PORTS WHAT WE FOUND IS AT THE LOWER LEVELS OF SEA LEVEL RISE IT’S \nTRUE THERE IS NOT IMMEDIATE RISKS TO PORT OPERATIONS THAT YOU MAY EXPECT \nBUT AS YOU LOOK OUT TO THE HIGHER NUMBERS OF COURSE THESE ARE AREAS ON \nWATER GOING TO BE INUNDATED WITH CONNECTIONS AND BEHIND PORTS SEA LEVEL \nRISE IS IMPORTANT AND PORTS CAN’T RETREAT _ WE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO \nFIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE THOSE FUNCTIONAL IT’S NOT OVER TOPPING AT THE TERMINALS \nIT’S WATER COMING IN FROM OTHER WAYS. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: . >>SPEAKER: I WOULD ASSUME THAT THE \nPORTS ARE PLACES WHERE THERE ARE NEIGHBORING LOWER LANDS THAT MIGHT \nHAVE VULNERABILITY ALTERS AND I ASSUME THAT WILL BE PART OF OUR ANALYSIS OF \nEQUITY IN THE PLAN. _. >>SPEAKER: YES\, THANK YOU. YOU KNOW\, \nI — SO\, I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THIS DECISION TO RENAME\, TAKE AWAY THAT \nSECTION THAT WAS ON GROUNDS TRANSPORTATION AND RENAME IT TO \nREGIONAL COORDINATION AND FUTURE SEAPORT PLAN UPDATES. I WAS ASKING \nMYSELF WHAT BOTHERED ME ABOUT IT AND PART OF IT IS\, YOU KNOW\, JUST THINKING \nABOUT WHAT BCDC’S ROLE\, WHICH IS — I MEAN IT’S KIND OF FOCUSED ON THE 100 \nFOOT BAN AND BAY FILL\, AND I GET THAT\, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE \nCARGO FORECAST\, YOU’RE KIND OF LOOKING AT IT\, THE DEMAND AND SUPPLY MOSTLY \nFROM THE WATER SIDE. BUT I DON’T SEE AS MUCH ANALYSIS\, YOU KNOW\, FROM THE \nLAND SIDE IN TERMS OF\, YOU KNOW\, THE — AND I KNOW THERE IS MANY OTHER \nAGENCIES INVOLVED IN ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRIFICATION\, AND \nTHAT’S GREAT. BUT THERE IS NOT A LOT ABOUT THE MULTIMODAL CONNECTIONS AND \nDO WE HAVE ENOUGH ROOM FOR\, YOU KNOW\, ALL THE STAGING THAT NEEDS TO TAKE \nPLACE THERE\, BUT\, SO\, I WAS JUST WONDERING HOW MUCH THOUGHT HAS GONE \nINTO THE LAND SIDE PLANNING FOR THE 100 FOOT BAN FOR THE PORTS. BAND FOR THE \nWORDS. _. >>CORY MANN: THANK YOU FOR THE GREAT \nQUESTION. THERE ARE ORIGINS TO THE SEAPORT PLAN AND WHAT WE HAVE DONE \nWITH THE UPDATE THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. \nOF COURSE\, THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF SHIFTS\, ESPECIALLY THE FIRST SEAPORT \nPLAN WAS PUBLISHED BUT IN LAST VERSIONS\, IN TERMS OF REGIONAL \nPLANNING IN HOW DIFFERENT AGENCIES ARE COORDINATING ON THAT KIND OF WORK. \nEARLIER VERSIONS OF THE SEAPORT PLAN WERE DEVELOPED AS A COOPERATIVE EFFORT \nORIGINALLY BETWEEN BCDC AND MTC. SO THAT A SEAPORT PLAN CONSTITUTED \nMARITIME MANAGEMENT PLAN AND USED BY TO MAKE PROJECT FUNDING DECISIONS \nSENTENCE THEN MTC HAS SHIFTED ITS FOCUS AND HAS PUBLISHED SAN FRANCISCO BAY \nGOODS MOVEMENT PLAN WHICH IS THE PLAN THAT SPEAKS MOST TO THE QUESTIONS \nYOU’RE RAISING PLANNED BAY AREA. AND SO THE SEAPORT PLAN ITSELF HAS NOT \nBEEN AN EFFECTIVE DRIVER OF REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING EFFORTS. \nSO\, YOU KNOW\, WE\, OF COURSE\, WORK WITH MTC ON UPDATING THE PLAN\, BUT THE KIND \nOF THE SCOPE OF THE UPDATE HAS BEEN MORE FOCUSED ON BCDC’S SPECIFIC KIND \nOF LEGAL AUTHORITY UNDER THE MCATEER-PETRIS ACT AND THE BAY PLAN. \nSO THOSE EFFORTS HAVE CHANGED. BUT THAT’S ALSO WHY WE INCLUDED A POLICY \nIN THAT SECTION ON REGIONAL COORDINATION THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO TRY \nTO TIME THE TIMING OF FUTURE UPDATES TO THE SEAPORT PLAN TO SYNCHRONIZE THAT \nWITH SOME OF MTC’S WORK. WE HAVE BEEN TALKING WITH MTC STAFF ABOUT THAT. WE \nTHINK THAT WOULD BE A GREAT WAY TO WORK TOGETHER AND MIGHT HELP US TO LEVERAGE \nSUPPORT FOR THINGS LIKE OUTREACH AND PUBLIC MEETINGS AND THAT KIND OF \nTHING. SO THAT’S SOME OF THE THINK THAT’S GONE INTO THAT. \n>>SPEAKER: SO DOES THAT MEAN THAT BCDC WILL BE A BIG PARTNER OR PARTICIPANT \nIN THE GOODS MOVEMENT PLAN? >>CORE M: I WOULD CERTAINLY HOPE SO. \nYEAH. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY OTHER \nCOMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS? \nI WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. \n>>SPEAKER: SO MOVED. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER MOVED. COMMISSIONER RANCHOD SECONDS. \nIF THERE IS NO OPPOSITION\, AND SEEING NONE\, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED\, AS \nWE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED\, WE ARE NOT VOTING ON THIS TODAY\, BUT WE DO LOOK \nFORWARD TO IT COMING BACK TO US WITH THE INCLUSION OF THE COMMENTS AND \nQUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE AND RAISED. \nWITH THAT\, AS WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY INDICATED THAT BOTH ITEMS 9 AND 10 ARE \nPOSTPONED\, WE COME TO ADJOURNMENT. I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN \nREMINDING EVERYONE\, PLEASE\, TO ADJOURN TO THE TEM TEMESCAL ROOM FOR SOCIAL \nTIME. MOTION TO ADJOURN? COMMISSIONER \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs 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. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant 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. \nIf 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. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf 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. \nCampaign Contributions\nState 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. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings 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.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/november-2-2023-commission-meeting-2/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231019T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231019T170000
DTSTAMP:20250320T225949Z
CREATED:20230920T040845Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250320T225949Z
UID:10000047-1697720400-1697734800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:October 19\, 2023 Commission Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 189 (2022). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed above. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/81421033671?pwd=ZTRqWHRDcTd6YmNWanJRbk52eXJsdz09 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID814 2103 3671 \nPasscode080569 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic 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]Public Comment Letters (PDF)\nApproval of Minutes of September 7\, 2023 Meeting (PDF)(Reylina Ruiz) [415/352-3638; reylina.ruiz@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nConsideration of an Environmental Justice Advisors Organizational Development Contract (PDF)The Commission will consider authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a contract of up to $45\,000 with MIG\, Inc. and Benchmarq Consulting\, LLC to provide organizational development support for the Environmental Justice Advisors Program.(Phoenix Armenta) [415/352-3604; phoenix.armenta@bcdc.ca.gov\nBriefing on Updates to the California Sea-Level Rise Guidance – POSTPONEDRepresentatives 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.(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3653; larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov]\nRegional Shoreline Adaptation Plan Presentation and DiscussionThe Commission will hear an update on the Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan’s vision and goals phase\, including initial takeaways from pop-up events throughout the region and the online survey. The update will include the most recent Bay Adapt website improvements and Commissioners may discuss considerations of the next phase of the project\, including how subregional plans should be organized.(Jaclyn Mandoske) [415/352-3631; jaclyn.mandoske@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing on Commission Strategic Plan ProgressSenior staff will present an update on the progress associated with the Commission’s 2023-2025 Strategic Plan.(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3653; larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				This report lists the administrative matters that have been filed and are pending with the Commission. The Executive Director will take the action indicated on the matters unless the Commission determines that it is necessary to hold a public hearing. The staff members to whom the matters have been assigned are indicated at the end of the project descriptions. Inquiries should be directed to the assigned staff member prior to the Commission meeting. \nAdministrative Permits Applications \nApplicants \nPort of San FranciscoPier 1\, The EmbarcaderoSan Francisco\, CA 94105 \nSkyStar Wheel\, LLC1610 Des Peres Road\, Suite 130St. Louis\, MO 63131 \nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.023.00 \nFiled on 10/13/23 \n90th Day on 01/11/24 \nLocationWithin the Commission’s 100-foot shoreline band jurisdiction\, at Seawall Lot 301 between The Embarcadero and Jefferson Street\, in the City and County of San Francisco \nDescriptionTemporarily install and operate a ferris wheel and associated facilities within a footprint of approximately 5\,634 square feet for a period of six months\, with the option to extend the authorization for up to an additional 18 months. The project will include: \n\nConstructing an approximately 148-foot-tall ferris wheel with 36 fully enclosed gondolas that hold six people each; and\nConstructing support structures including an operations office\, a retail and photo pick-up tent\, an employee break room\, a storage container\, an emergency back-up generator\, ADA-accessible ramps\, 10 concrete planters\, bicycle and scooter parking\, a photo capture tent\, a queuing area with stanchions\, a ticketing counter/kiosk\, a temporary diesel generator\, informational and wayfinding signage\, and security fencing.Tentative Staff Position:Recommend Approval with Conditions. Please note that the City of San Francisco’s environmental review of the project is still in progress and is anticipated to be completed by October 20\, 2023.Katharine Pan; 415/352-3650 or katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov\n\nEmergency PermitsThe Executive Director has issued the following emergency permit since the last listing. \nApplicantReclamation District1607 4301 Inverness DrivePittsburg\, CA 94565 \nEmergency Permit No. E2023.005.00 \nFiled on 08/28/2023 \n90th Day on 11/26/2023 \nLocationIn the Primary Management Area of the Suisun Marsh at Van Sickle Island\, on the Sacramento River in Solano County. \nDescriptionRepair a 500-linear-foot section of a breached exterior levee by placing 1\,100 cubic yards of rip rap and 3\,400 cubic yards of imported fill to replace material that had been lost after storm damage in December 2022. The fill will not extend or increase fill in the Bay beyond what existed prior to the damage. The project was authorized via email on August 18\, 2023. The permit includes special conditions requiring the permittee to monitor the levees over the next rainy season and submit a permit application for further repairs to the Island’s levees by March 31\, 2024 to forestall the need for future emergency permitting at this Island. \nRowan Yelton [415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov] \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Commission Mailing October 6\, 2023 \n\n Staff Report and Recommendation on a Contract for Environmental Justice Advisors Organization Development (PDF)\nA joint statement on Senator Feinstein’s passing (PDF)\n\nCommission Mailing October 13\, 2023 \n\nDraft Minutes of September 7\, 2023 Hybrid Commission Meeting (PDF)\nIssued Permits and Received Permit Applications\nApplications for Permits\, Federal Consistency Actions\, and Amendments\nPublic Comment Letters (PDF) – Sierra Club letter regarding Oakland Trash Diversion\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nA big cleanup is underway on San Francisco Bay. Here’s what’s involved\nS.F. power plant set to become new ‘neighborhood’ with 2\,600 homes\, 1.6 million feet of commercial space\nAt the end of the Mississippi\, a saltwater wedge overwhelms a community\nIn the battle over hate speech at Bay Area public meetings\, are the Zoombombers winning?\nSeverely congested Bay Area highway is about to see first phase of $1.6 billion revamp\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				Audio Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/09/10-19-cm-audio.mp3 \nTranscript \nUNDER TELECONFERENCE RULES ESTABLISHED BY THE BAGLEY-KEENE OPEN MEETING ACT. \nCOMMISSIONERS ARE LOCATED BOTH AT METRO CENTER AND AT PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE \nVENUES THROUGHOUT THE BAY AREA AS SPECIFIED ON THE MEETING NOTICE. \nCOMMISSIONERS WHO PARTICIPATE VIRTUALLY WILL KEEP THEIR CAMERAS ON THROUGHOUT \nTHE MEETING SO THEY WILL BE VISIBLE TO THE PUBLIC FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC \nATTENDING VIRTUALLY\, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK EITHER DURING THE PUBLIC \nCOMMENT PERIOD\, WHICH IS ITEM THREE ON THE AGENDA OR DURING A PERIOD RESERVED \nFOR PUBLIC COMMENT DURING ANOTHER AGENDA ITEM YOU WILL NEED TO DO SO IN \nONE OF TWO WAYS. FIRST IF YOU ARE ATTENDING VIRTUALLY ON ZOOM\, PLEASE \nRAISE YOUR HAND IN ZOOM. TO DO SO CLICK THE PARTICIPANTS ICON \nAT THE BOTTOM OF YOUR SCREEN\, FIND YOUR NAME AND THE SMALL HAND TO THE LEFT \nAND CLICK ON THAT HAND. IF YOU ARE JOINING OUR MEETING VIA PHONE\, YOU \nMUST PRESS STAR SIX ON YOUR KEY PAD TO UNMUTE YOUR PHONE TO MAKE A COMMENT. \nINDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE RAISED THEIR HANDS WILL BE CALLED IN THE ORDER THEY HAVE \nBEEN RAISED AND THEY WILL BE UNMUTED. ATTENDING THIS MEETING IN-PERSON \nEITHER AT METRO CENTER OR AT A PUBLICLY NOTICED TELECONFERENCE LOCATION WHO \nWANT TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION SHOULD FOLLOW THE PROTOCOL AT YOUR LOCATION. \nTHOSE ATTENDING THE MEETING AT THE \nMETRO CENTER WILL USE THE PODIUM ON THEIR RIGHT. \nWHEREVER YOU CHOOSE TO ATTEND FROM PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME TO PROVIDE YOUR \nCOMMENTS. ALL MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WILL BE ALLOWED THREE MINUTES TO \nADDRESS THE COMMISSION AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIR. \nCOMMENTS MUST BE RESPECTFUL AND FOCUSED EACH INDIVIDUAL HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY \nTO ACT IN A CIVIL MANNER WITHOUT USING HATE SPEECH DIRECTOR\, INDIRECT \nTHREATS\, AND/OR ABUSIVE LANGUAGE. BCDC HAS ALSO ESTABLISHED AN E-MAIL ADDRESS \nTO COMPILE PUBLIC COMMENTS ITS ADDRESS PUBLIC COMMENT AT BCDC@CA.GOV. \nE-MAILS RECEIVED BEFORE TEN THIS MORNING HAVE BEEN SHARED WITH THE \nCOMMISSIONERS AND ANY RECEIVED SINCE THEN WILL ALSO BE SHARED WITH THE \nCOMMISSIONERS AND THE PUBLIC. WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO \nBAY CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: GOOD AFTERNOON\, ALL. AND WELCOME TO \nOUR HYBRID BCDC COMMISSION MEETING. MY NAME IS ZACK WASSERMAN\, AND I AM THE \nCHAIR OF BCDC. BEFORE WE START\, I DO WANT TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW THAT WE \nWILL POSTPONE OUR DISCUSSION OF THE STATE’S NEW RISING SEA LEVEL GUIDANCE \nBECAUSE THE OCCASION PROTECTION COUNCIL HAS NOT YET PUBLISHED ITS DRAFT OF \nTHAT POLICY. WE HOPE TO LEARN ABOUT THAT FORECAST AND HOW BCDC MAY \nIMPLEMENT IT BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR. \nOUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS AS ALWAYS IS TO CALL THE ROLL. \nCOMMISSIONERS IF YOU ARE PARTICIPATING VIRTUALLY\, PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF WHEN \nYOU ARE CALLED THEN UNMUTE YOURSELF AFTER RESPONDING. REYLINA\, WELCOME \nBACK. IT’S GOOD TO HAVE YOU. I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT ANUP DID A SPLENDID \nJOB IN YOUR ABSENCE. PLEASE CALLING THE ROLL \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: CHAIR >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: CHAIR \nWASSERMAN? >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nHERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: VICE CHAIR \nEISEN? >>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nHERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? >>MARK ADDIEGO: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: COMMISSIONER AHN? \n>>EDDIE AHN: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER AMBUEHL? >>DAVID AMBUEHL: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: COMMISSIONER BEACH? \n>>SPEAKER: PRESENT. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKERLY? >>JENN ECKERLE: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: COMMISSIONER GORIN? \n>>SUSAN GORIN: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER HASZ? >>V. CHAIR\, KARL HASZ: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: COMMISSIONER JOHN-BAPTISTE? \n>>SPEAKER: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER PESKIN? >>AARON PESKIN: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: RAMOS? >>BELIA RAMOS: HERE\, 95 THIRD STREET. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER VAZQUEZ? >>JOHN VASQUEZ: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: DID I FORGET ANYONE? BAR. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: >>SPEAKER: COMMISSIONER NELSON IS HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: THANK YOU. WE HAVE A QUORUM. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: NEXT ITEM IS THREE PUBLIC COMMENT IF \nANYONE WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON A MATTER THAT IS NOT ON OUR AGENDA \nOR ON WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET HELD A PUBLIC HEARING\, YOU WILL HAVE THREE \nMINUTES TO DO SO. PRIOR TO STARTING PUBLIC COMMENT I WANT TO REEMPHASIZE \nONE OF THE COMMENTS IN THE VIDEO INTRODUCTION. AND WANT TO MAKE SURE \nTHAT EVERYONE IS AWARE OF THE INCREASE IN A PHENOMENON THAT UNFORTUNATELY NOW \nHAS ITS OWN NAME\, ZOOM BOMBING\, IT IS MAKING RACIST OR HATE COMMENTS BY ZOOM \nAT PUBLIC AND LOCAL AND REGIONAL MEETINGS. \nAS STATED IN THAT VIDEO\, WE WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY FORM OF HATE SPEECH OR \nTHREATS AGAINST ANY GROUP OR ANY INDIVIDUALS. AND AS CHAIR\, I WANT TO \nLET EVERYONE KNOW THAT I WILL ENFORCE THAT RIGIDLY. \nI HOPE NOT TO HAVE TO DO SO. I AM GOING TO START WITH MEMBERS OF \nTHE PUBLIC WHO ARE HERE. REYLINA\, DO WE HAVE ANY CARDS FROM \nPEOPLE IN THE ROOM? >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO CARDS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: NO PUBLIC CARDS. \nAND ANY HANDS FROM PEOPLE ON ZOOM WHO WISH TO ADDRESS US FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: ALLISON \nMADDEN. LET ME GO AHEAD AND UNMUTE YOURSELF. \n>>SPEAKER: OKAY THANK YOU. CAN YOU HEAR ME? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: YES. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. I’M REALLY SAD ABOUT THE ZOOM BOMBING TOO. I WANTED \nTO BE THERE IN-PERSON TODAY BECAUSE I WANTED TO THANK YOU\, AND I WANTED TO \nSHOW THAT EXTRA EFFORT TO BE THERE IN-PERSON. NOT ONLY BECAUSE I’M \nINTERESTED IN ALL OF THE CONTENT OF YOUR MEETINGS\, BUT DUE TO HOW \nCOMPASSIONATE YOUR DISCUSSION WAS ON SEPTEMBER 7TH\, AGENDA ITEM 11 NOT JUST \nON LIVEABOARD POLICIES BUT ON OYSTER COVE SITUATION IN GENERAL ALSO THE \nDISCUSSION THAT HAPPENED AFTER THE PRESENTATION WAS REALLY SOPHISTICATED \nPOLICY ANALYSIS THAT SHOWS THE LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING YOU ALL HAVE OF THE \nPUBLIC TRUST AS POLICY MAKERS BOTH ELECTED AND APPOINTED\, AND OF THE \nNUANCES\, NOT JUST OF THE PUBLIC TRUST\, BUT THE BCDC UNDERLYING POLICIES. \nAND\, SO\, WERE REALLY ENCOURAGED BY THAT. DURING THIS YEAR\, WHICH IS \nBOOKENDED BY SEPTEMBER 15TH OF 2022 WHEN WE STARTED LOOKING AT OYSTER COVE \nAND TALKING ABOUT THE LIVEABOARD POLICIES IN SEPTEMBER 7TH OF THIS \nYEAR\, YOU KNOW\, WE HAVE TRIED TO SHOP AND SPEAK\, NOT TOO MUCH\, AND NOT TOO \nLITTLE BUT TO ASK FOR THAT PUBLIC PROCESS BUT BECAUSE SO MUCH OF THE \nINFORMATION THAT IT SEEMS LIKE COMMISSIONERS WERE ASKING ABOUT THE \nDATA WOULD REALLY COME FORTH IN A PUBLIC PROCESS THAT INCLUDES THE \nPUBLIC ACCIDENT UPLANDOWNERS\, LIVEABOARDS\, HASH BORE AND MARINA \nOWNERS AND OPERATORS AT HARBOR MASTERS ET CETERA\, AND THOSE OF US WHO HAVE \nBEEN SPEAKING WERE AN UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION OF DOZENS OF LIVEABOARDS \nWE HAVE BEEN MEETING FOR OVER A YEAR AND SOME OF US WORKING ON THIS FOR \nEVEN OVER A DECADE AND REALLY WANTED TO PARSE OUT IN THAT PUBLIC PROCESS HOW \nMUCH LIVEABOARD COMMUNITIES SERVE THE PUBLIC TRUST WHICH IS WHY I’M KIND OF \nSAD HOW PRIMARILY IT’S TIED TO THE RECREATION POLICY. \nBECAUSE A LOT OF LIVEABOARDS HAVE A SEPARATE RECREATIONAL BOAT THAT THEY \nTAKE OUT. SO THERE\, IS SO MUCH INFORMATION TO CONVEY. BUT ONE OF THE \nTHINGS I WANT TO SAY IS\, ONE OF THE LAST THINGS THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA DID\, \nTHE LAST BILLS HE SIGNED BEFORE HE LEFT OFFICE WAS A FUNDING BILL FOR THE \nCOAST GUARD AND THE ARMY CORP OF ENGINEER THAT PRESERVED 1500 \nHOUSEBOATS ON THE TVA PROPERTIES ON THE 13 SOUTHEASTERN STATES IN THE UNITED \nSTATES\, AND AT FIRST IT WAS THE REPUBLICS THAT CAME TO THE AID OF THE \nPEOPLE THAT WERE GOING TO BE DISPOSSESSED\, AND THEN THE DEMOCRATS \nDID IT TOO\, BIPARTISAN MEMBERS OF CONGRESS UNANIMOUSLY OVERWHELMINGLY \nTHEY GRAND FATHERED TO PRESERVE ALL OF THAT WHICH AVOIDED THE KIND OF CARNAGE \nTHAT HAS HAPPENED WITH OUR LOSS OF MARINAS SO WE’RE OFFERING TO BE A \nCONDUIT OF THE INFORMATION WE HAVE BEEN COLLECTING ALL THE INFORMATION ABOUT \nTHE MARINAS AND LIVEABOARDS OVER THE LAST YEAR SO WE WOULD APPRECIATE \nCONTINUING THE DISCUSSION YOU HAD LAST TIME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY OTHERS? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THAT CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC COMMENT \nPERIOD. YOU\, CERTAINLY\, WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC \nITEMS ON THE AGENDA AS THEY COME UP. ITEM FOUR IS THE APPROVAL OF THE \nMINUTES OF OUR SEPTEMBER 7TH MEETING. WE HAVE ALL BEEN FURNISHED DRAFT \nMINUTES OF THAT MEETING. I WOULD APPRECIATE A MOTION AND SECOND TO \nAPPROVE THE MINUTES. PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE \nMOTION. >>SPEAKER: SO MOVED. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: COMMISSIONER PESKIN MOVES. AND? \n>>SPEAKER: [INDISCERNIBLE]. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \n[LAUGHTER] COMMISSIONER ADDIEGO SECONDS. \nDO I HEAR ANY OBJECTIONS TO APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OR ABSTENTIONS? \n>>SPEAKER: CAN I ABSTAIN? CHAIR\, [INDISCERNIBLE] HAS ABSTAINED. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHAT BRINGS US TO — >>SPEAKER: THIS IS THE COURT \nREPORTER\, WHO WAS THE FIRST ABSTENTION? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: COMMISSIONER ZEPEDA\, THE NEW \nCOMMISSIONER AND COMMISSIONER ECKERLE. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: MY FIRST \nITEM IS TO RECOGNIZE TWO NEW COMMISSIONERS. COMMISSIONER JESSE \nARREQUIN WILL NO LONGER BE REPRESENTING THE EAST BAY ON BEHALF OF ABAG\, AND \nABAG HAS APPOINTED RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL MEMBER SEIZURE CESAR ZEPEDA AS \nTHE REPLACEMENT\, NO STRANGER TO BCDC HE IS A MEMBER OF OUR LOCAL ELECTED TASK \nFORCE THAT HAS BEEN HELPING OUR BCDC PREPARE OUR REGIONAL SHORELINE \nADAPTATION PLAN STARTING WITH OUR GUIDELINES I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT HIS \nALTERNATE IS RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL MEMBER HELIA BANA\, AND WE WILL BE \nHEARING MORE ABOUT THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN LATERED IN \nTHE MEETING. CESAR IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY A FEW WORDS? \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH EVERYONE. \nRICHMOND DOES HAVE 32 MILES OF SHORELINE THE MOST OUT OF ANY OTHER \nBAY AREA CITY. I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING TOGETHER. \nTHANK YOU. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE HAS \nAPPOINTED STEVEN BEN SENAS ITS NEW COMMISSIONER\, THE DEPARTMENT’S NEW \nPRINCIPAL PROGRAM BUDGET ANALYST FOR THE SECTION THAT INCLUDES BCDC. WE \nLOOK FORWARD TO WORKING CLOSELY WITH HIM AND HIS STAFF. \n>>SPEAKER: HE TOLD ME BEFORE THE MEETING HE CANNOT ATTEND THIS MEETING. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: HE CANNOT \nATTEND THIS MEETING BUT I AM SURE HE WILL ATTEND FUTURE ONES. \nI WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT OF SOME SADNESS\, BUT NOT TOTALLY SAD\, TO SAY A \nFEW WORDS ABOUT DIANNE FEINSTEINFEINSTEIN. WITH HER PASSING\, \nWE HAVE LOST A TRUE PUBLIC SERVANT. ONE OF HER MANY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE \nBAY AND ITS PEOPLE WAS HER INVOLVEMENT IN MEASURE AA. TO THE FRUSTRATION OF \nSOME OF ITS SUPPORTERS. SHE PUSHED TO MAKE IT BETTER. AND SHE DID MAKE IT \nBETTER AND SHE HELPED SUPPORT IT AND TO PASS IT AND IT’S A VERY IMPORTANT PART \nOF OUR EFFORTS TO BOTH PRESERVE THE BAY AND TO PROTECT IT. \nI ALSO WANT TO RECOGNIZE SOME LESS RECOGNIZED CONTRIBUTIONS THAT SHE MADE \nOVER THE YEARS TO A NUMBER OF BLACK ORGANIZATIONS. \nSHE HOSTED THE FIRST ANNUAL RETREAT FOR BLACK WOMEN ORGANIZED FOR POLITICAL \nACTION. ONE OF THE — A STRONG LOCAL AND LONG \nINVOLVED ORGANIZATIONS. AND SHE\, WHICH HAS BEEN A STRONG VOICE \nFOR BLACK WOMEN THROUGH THE OUR COMMUNITIES AND SHE WAS ONE OF THE \nORIGINAL SUPPORTERS OF BLACK AMERICAN POLITICAL ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA \nFOUNDATIONED BY PERCY PINKNEY WHO WORKED ON HER STAFF. BUT MOST OF ALL\, \nI WANT TO RECOGNIZE HER STEADY\, COMMITTED\, AND DEDICATED LEADERSHIP\, \nAS SAN FRANCISCO’S MAYOR AND AS OUR UNITED STATES SENATOR. TO SOME SHE \nWAS NOT AS AGGRESSIVE OR PROGRESSIVE AS THEY WOULD LIKE YET SHE WAS NOT ONLY \nTHE AUTHOR BUT REALLY THE CHAMPION OF THE 1994 FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN \nAND HEAVEN ARE KNOWS WE NEED MORE OF THOSE. SHE BROKE THROUGH SO MANY \nGLASS SEALINGS\, I CAN’T COUNT THEM SHE WAS A CHAMPION OF THE PEOPLE AND SHE \nWILL BE MISSED. AS YOU KNOW\, THE GOVERNOR SIGNED THE LAIRD BILL SB272\, \nAND I WANT TO THANK ALL OF YOU AND YOUR ORGANIZATIONS WHO HELPED SUPPORT THAT \nAND PERSUADE THE GOVERNOR THAT THIS TIME ROUND\, YOU REALLY SHOULD SIGN IT \nAND IT WORKED. AND WE WILL BE HEARING MORE ABOUT THAT \nIN THIS MEETING AND IN FUTURE MEETINGS. IT’S GOING GIVE US SOME VERY NEEDED \nHELP IN BOTH PROVIDING GUIDANCE\, BUT\, ALSO\, BEING ABLE TO PUSH LOCAL \nJURISDICTIONS TO ADOPT THE PLANS THAT ARE VERY NECESSARY TO PROTECT OUR BAY. \nI WANT TO ALSO NOTE THAT LARRY AND I \nHAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE LEADERS OF MTC AND ABAG AND THE CALIFORNIA \nCONSERVANCY TO COASTAL CONSERVANCY\, TO TALK ABOUT HOW WE CAN COORDINATE \nEFFORTS IN SEEKING ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ADAPTING TO RISING SEA LEVEL. THE \nGOAL IS TO MAKE US MORE EFFECTIVE AND TO ENSURE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE THAT \nLOCAL COMPETITION DOESN’T HURT US. WE HAD A SUCCESSFUL EXAMPLE OF THIS WITH \nTHE APPLICATION TO NOAA FOR LOCAL FUNDS THAT WE ARE HOPEFUL WILL BE SUCCESSFUL \nSO WE KNOW IT CAN WORK BUT WE NEED TO MAKE IT MUCH MORE VIGOROUS AND MUCH \nMORE THOUGHTFULLY COORDINATED. YOU WILL BE HEARING MORE ABOUT THESE \nEFFORTS AT FUTURE MEETINGS. I HOPE WE’LL GET A MAJORITY OF OUR \nCOMMISSIONERS HERE IN PHYSICAL PRESENCE FOR OUR NOVEMBER 2ND MEETING. I’LL BE \nHOSTING A GET-TOGETHER HERE AT 375 BEALE STREET AFTER OUR COMMISSION \nMEETING\, FOR OUR COMMISSIONERS\, AND SENIOR STAFF\, SO THAT WE CAN TALK A \nLITTLE\, AND SOCIALIZE AND RENEW OUR BONDS WITH EACH OTHER AS WE\, MORE OR \nLESS\, COME OUT OF COVID. SO\, HOPEFULLY THAT YOU CAN COME FOR \nTHAT. OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE ON NOVEMBER \n2ND\, AND AT THAT MEETING\, WE EXPECT TO TAKE UP THE FOLLOWING MATTERS. \nCONSIDERATION OF A CONTRACT WITH THE PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO REGARDING THE \nSAN FRANCISCO WATERFRONT SPECIAL AREA PLAN\, A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE UPDATED \nDRAFT SEAPORT PLAN\, A BRIEFING AND STATUS REPORT ON DEVELOPMENTS \nCONCERNING HIGHWAY 37. AND THIS IS THE MOMENT IN TIME WHEN \nCOMMISSIONERS MAY REPORT ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS THAT YOU HAVE NOT \nREPORTED IN WRITING\, REMEMBERING THAT YOU DO NEED TO REPORT THEM IN WRITING \nANYWAY. SO\, IF ANY COMMISSIONERS WISH TO MAKE A REPORT ON COMMUNICATIONS\, \nTHEY HAVE RECEIVED FROM OUTSIDE ON MATTERS BEFORE THE COMMISSION\, NOW IS \nTHE TIME TO DO SO. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I DO NOT \nSEE ANY HANDS. THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM SIX\, THE — \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: THANK YOU CHAIR WASSERMAN. I WANT TO ADD SOMETHING TO \nCHAIR WASSERMAN’S REMARKS ON THE PASSING OF SENATOR FEINSTEIN. AS MANY \nOF YOU KNOW I WAS SENIOR MEMBER OF SENATOR PETE WILSON’S GUBERNATORIAL \nCAMPAIGN IN 1989 AND 1990 SO I LEARNED A GREAT DEAL ABOUT MAYOR FEINSTEIN \nTHEN WITHOUT TELLING LONGER STORIES I CAN SAY THAT EACH CANDIDATE HAD \nRESPECT FOR OTHERS GIVEN THEY WERE VERY SUCCESSFUL BIG CITY MAYORS. MY \nFAVORITE SENATOR FEINSTEIN STORY\, HOWEVER\, OCCURRED FOUR YEARS AGO WHEN \nI WAS LAST IN WASHINGTON\, D.C. I WAS WAITING FOR OUR FLIGHT BACK TO SAN \nFRANCISCO WHEN THE SENATOR CAME INTO THE GATE AREA SHE WAS GREETED BY THE \nVIRGIN AMERICA STAFF WHO OBVIOUSLY KNEW HER TRAVEL HABITS VERY WELL. \nWHILE WE WERE WAITING FOR OUR BOARD DELAYED FLIGHT I SCREWED UP MY COURAGE \nAND WALKED OVER TO HER AND INTRODUCED MYSELF AS BCDC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND \nAS A FORMER FELLOW. NOT A SECOND AFTER I DID AND THANKED HER FOR BEING SUCH A \nVISIBLE SUPPORTER OF THE COMMISSION SHE BROKE ENTER A BIG SMILE AND LET ME \nKNOW IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS HOW MUCH SHE ADMIRED BCDC AND HOW MUCH SHE ENJOYED \nBEING A COMMISSIONER SHE OBVIOUSLY LOVED THE BAY AND ASKED ME A COUPLE OF \nQUESTIONS ABOUT OUR WORK DURING THE PAST 20 YEARS I HAVE MET WITH SEVERAL \nSTAFF MEMBERS AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS HELPED ME UNDERSTAND IMMEDIATELY THE \nREPORTS THAT HER STAFF HAD TO WORK VERY HARD TO KEEP UP WITH HER. SHE WAS \nTREMENDOUSLY GRACIOUS THAT EVENING AND MAY HER WORK AND DEVOTION TO WHAT WE \nDO KEEP HER AS A BLESSED MEMORY FOR ALL ASSOCIATED WITH BCDC. \nFOR THE FIRST TIME IN BCDC HISTORY STAFF HAS COLLABORATED WITH THE \nCALIFORNIA CONSERVATION CORP TO PLACE CORP MEMBER ROSE ONE VELAZQUEZ AT BCDC \nAS AN INTERN TO BE PAID FOR BY THE CONSERVATION CORP. ROSE ONE HAS BEEN \nA CORP MEMBER FOR 18 MONTHS DURING WHICH SHE HAS CANDIES EXPERIENCE IN \nTRAIL BUILDING SALAMON RESTORATION AND FUEL REDUCTION AND NOW IS ON THE FIRE \nCREW MAYBE WE COULD HAVE USED HER THIS MORNING DURING THE EARTHQUAKE DRILL. \nA HORN ET FROM FIRST GENERATION COLLEGE GRAD FROM \n>>MARY SACKETT: STATE UNIVERSITY FROM WHICH SHE EARNED BACHELOR OF SCIENCE \nIN ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES WITH MINOR IN SPANISH AND CERTIFICATE IN HEALTH CARE \nSPANISH ROSY WILL BE WORKING WITH OUR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS AND \nWILL HELP US GROW OUR SMALL SOCIAL MEDIA PRINCES CONCURRENTLY AND WE’RE \nPLEASED SHE VOLL TIERED TO JOIN US. ALSO INTRODUCING A MEMBER OF OUR \nCLIMATE POLICY FOR THE STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL HARRIET ROSS HAS JOINED AS \nBCDC REGULATORY DIRECTOR YOU WILL SEE HER IN A MOMENT SHE WONDERED WHETHER \nTHERE WILL BE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR ADMINISTRATIVE LISTING. BCDC HAS \nPOWED TO PARTNER WITH THE COASTAL CONSERVANCY SAVE THE BAY\, BAY \nRESTORATION AUTHORITY SAN FRANCISCO HISTORY PROGRAM ESTUARY INSTITUTE \nDUCKS UNLIMITED AND BAY JOINT VENTURE TO ISSUE A COLLABORATIVE COMPREHENSIVE \nSTATEMENT AFTER SENATOR FEINSTEIN’S PASSING IT’S BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO EACH \nOF YOU AND IS POSTED ON OUR WEB SITE AS WELL. I WANT TO NOTE COMMISSIONER \nJENN ECKERLE HAS BECOME A NUMBER OF THE NOAA’S NEW NA RENE AND COASTAL AREA \nBASED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE NATIONAL BODY ADVISES UNDER SECRETARY \nOF COMMERCE FOR OCEANS ATMOSPHERE ON SCIENCE BASED APPROACHES TO AREA BASED \nPROTECTION CONSERVATION RESTORATION MANAGEMENT COASTAL MARINE AREAS ITS \nMEMBERSHIP REPRESENTS A WIDE SPECTRUM OF PERSPECTIVES ON AMERICA’S OCEAN \nCOASTAL AND GREAT LAKES COMMUNITIES RELYING ON INCLUDING RESOURCE MANAGERS \nCOMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL USERS AND SCIENTIFIC EXPERTS INDIAN TRIBES AND \nINDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES PHILANTHROPIC NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AND EDUCATORS \nIN SHORT A TERRIFIC PLACE FOR CALIFORNIA POLICY MAKERS AND WE LOOK \nFORWARD TO HEARING ABOUT ITS WORK LAST MONTH BCDC WAS PLEASED TO SUPPORT THE \nCOASTAL CONSERVANCY’S REQUEST TO THE CONGRESS US ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS \nAUTHORIZING COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE NINE COUNTIES SHORELINE OF THE SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY WHICH WOULD HELP THE REGION PREPARE AND ADAPT TO RISING SEA \nLEVELS. OCTOBER 9TH IN THE ABSENCE OF CHAIR WASSERMAN VICE CHAIR EISEN \nAPPROVED AN EMERGENCY PERMIT APPLICATION FROM THE OWNERS OF A HOUSE \nBUILT ON PILES OVER THE BAY IN TIBURON WHILE DOING OTHER WORK ON THE HOUSE \nENGINEERS FOUND THAT THE ROCK SEA WALL UNDER THEIR HOUSE HAD BEEN \nDESTABILIZED ALONG ITS ENTIRE LENGTH DUE TO WAVE ACTION AND MAY FAIL \nCOMPLETELY AT ANY TIME WHICH WOULD RESULTED IN CATASTROPHIC FAILURE OF \nHOUSE FOUNDATION THE ENGINEERS ALSO ADVISED THE OWNERS TO VACATE THE HOUSE \nIMMEDIATELY. I WANT TO THANK VICE CHAIR EISEN FOR WILLINGNESS TO STEP \nINTO THE CHAIR’S SHOWALTER SHOES SO THE REPAIRS COULD BEGIN. \nFINALLY I’M PLEASED TO LET THE COMMISSION KNOW THAT THE BCDC BOCCE \nTEAM\, THE MEAN HIGH TIDES EMERGED AS VICTORS IN THE WEDNESDAY FERRY \nBUILDING BOCCE LEAGUE PLAY OFFS. BCDC’S TEAM WHICH INCLUDES STALWARTS \nTOLL HALLENBECK\, JIM\, KATHARINE PAN AND STEVE GOLDBECK AMONG OTHERS THE PLAY \nOFF GAMES AGAINST THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND POVERTY \nSAN FRANCISCO WEREN’T GRUDGE MATCHES OR ANYTHING STEVE IS ACTUALLY SHOWING THE \nMEDAL THAT EVERYBODY RECEIVED AFTER WINNING. HAPPY TO REPORT THAT OUR \nFRIENDS WHO PLAY FOR THE COASTAL COMMISSION TEAM THERE’S A GRUDGE MATCH \nLOANED BCDC SUPPORT IN A TERRIFIC DISPLAY OF COLLABORATION WHICH NO \nDOUBT PRESTAGES COLLABORATION AS WE MOVE FORWARD TOGETHER TO IMPLEMENT \nSB272. THAT COMPLETES MY REPORT\, CHAIR \nWASSERMAN. I’M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE EXECUTIVE \nDIRECTOR ON HIS REPORT? >>SPEAKER: NOT A QUESTION. BUT A \nCOMPLIMENT. I WANT TO COMPLIMENT OUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR COMING OUT TO \nOUR MARIN MAYORS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS GATHERING LAST MONTH AND GIVING A \nFABULOUS BCDC 101 AND THEN ENGAGING ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS AFTERWARDS. IT WAS \nFANTASTIC\, LARRY. THANK YOU. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I WANT TO \nMAKE A BRIEF COMMENT ON THE EMERGENCY PERMIT. I HAVE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS \nWITH SOME CONTRACTORS AND OTHERS\, AND I THINK THE PROBLEM THAT CAUSED THE NEED \nFOR THAT EMERGENCY PERMIT IS NOT UNCOMMON. \nAND I’M NOT SURE THERE IS A LOT WE CAN DO. BUT A LOT OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE \nPURCHASED HOUSES OVER THE WATER\, PARTICULARLY IN MARIN\, NOT \nEXCLUSIVELY\, THERE ARE SOME IN CONTRA COSTA AND ELSEWHERE\, DON’T EVEN KNOW \nTHEY HAVE PERMITS FROM BCDC OR THAT THEY’RE REQUIRED\, AND THEY MAY WELL \nNOT KNOW THAT THE WORK THAT WAS DONE PURSUANT TO THOSE PERMITS MAY HAVE \nBEEN UNDERMINED. SO\, I THINK WE NEED TO GIVE A LITTLE \nBIT OF THOUGHT ABOUT HOW WE CAN PUBLICIZE THAT AND ALERT THEM SO THAT \nWE DON’T FACE A RASH OF EMERGENCY PERMITS. \nTHAT BRINGS US TO ITEM SEVEN\, CONSIDERATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE \nMATTERS. WE RECEIVED A POSTING ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND AS LARRY \nSAID\, OUR NEW HEAD OF REGULATORY MATTERS\, HARRIET ROSS IS HERE\, EAGER \nTO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. \nNOBODY WANTS TO JUMP IN. ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC REYLINA? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO PUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: YOU GET OFF EASY. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM EIGHT\, WHICH IS \nCONSIDERATION OF A CONTRACT TO PROVIDE ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT FOR \nTHE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISERS PROGRAM. \nPHOENIX ARMENTA\, OUR SENIOR MANAGER FOR CLIMATE EQUITY AND COMMUNITY \nENGAGEMENT WILL PRESENT THE ITEM. >>PHOENIX ARMENTA: THANK YOU\, CHAIR\, \nCOMMISSIONERS. AGAIN I’M PHOENIX ARMENTA\, SENIOR MANAGER FOR CLIMB \nEQUITY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT COMING BEFORE YOU TODAY FOR CONSIDERATION OF \nAN ENVIRONMENT JUSTICE ADVISERS ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT. \nNEXT SLIDE. THE EJ ADVISORS PROGRAM RECENTLY \nCOMPLETED ITS SECOND YEAR THE PROGRAM WAS DEVELOPED AFTER THE CREATION OF \nOUR EJ AND SOCIAL EQUITY POLICIES IN 2019. BCDC CREATED THE PROGRAM \nBECAUSE WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR EJ POLICIES WERE IMPLEMENTED WITH THE \nHELP OF OUR PARTNERS. THIS EJ ADVISERS PROGRAM IS A PILOT PROGRAM AND A \nUNIQUE MODEL BEING EMULATED BY OTHER AGENCIES ACROSS THE STATE. THE \nPROGRAM WAS CODEVELOPED WITH EJ ADVISORS AND OVER THE TWO YEARS HAS \nSEEN MANY SUCCESSES WHICH INCLUDE HELPING US TO DEVELOP OUR RACIAL \nEQUITY ACTION PLAN\, ADVISING US ON CREATING AN EQUITY PROCESS AND BAY \nADAPT WORK\, ALSO SEEN CHALLENGES OVER THE YEARS EXEMPLIFIED BY THE RECENT \nRESIGNATION OF THREE ADVISORS. WITH ANY PROGRAM IT’S IMPORTANT TO \nEVALUATE HOW THINGS HAVE BEEN GOING AND ASSESS WHERE YOU WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO \nIN THE FUTURE\, ISSUING RFP FOR ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT \nTO CONDUCT ANALYSIS OF THE EJ PROGRAM AND HELP DESIGN THE PROGRAM FOR \nMAXIMUM IMPACT. NEXT SLIDE. THROUGH A COMPETITIVE \nBIDDING PROCESS STAFF HAS SELECTED MIG\, INC. IN COLLABORATION WITH BENCHMARQ \nCONSULTING LLC. MIG HAS FOUR DECADES OF PLANNING RESEARCH AND STRATEGY \nSUPPORT TO A DIVERSE ARRAY OF PARTNERS THEIR BACKGROUND INCLUDES WORKING WITH \nPUBLIC AGENCIES COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS FACILITATING THESE \nINSTITUTIONS UNDERSTANDING EQUITY DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION WHILE LEADING \nCOLLECTIVE CULTURAL SHIFTS TO COLLABORATIVE DYNAMIC BETWEEN \nGOVERNMENT AND COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS WORKING DIRECTLY WITH \nBCDC AND EJ ADVISERS IN THE BAY AREA. \nWORKING WITH 20 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGH IMPLEMENTING SPECIALIZED TRAINING \nSOLUTIONS FOCUSING ON CHANGE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT \nDIVERSITY AND INCLUSION AND OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES. \nCONSULTING IS A FORM PARTNERING ON THIS CONTRACT. I’LL OPEN UP TO ANY \nQUESTIONS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS MATTER? I WOULD \n— I DO NOT HAVE A QUESTION. I WOULD MAKE ONE COMMENT. NOT SO MUCH \nRECENTLY BUT OVER THE YEARS WITH A NUMBER OF PUBLIC AGENCIES I HAVE \nREPRESENTED I WORKED WITH MIG AND FOUNDATION THEM TO BE AN EFFECTIVE \nCREATIVE ORGANIZATION ASSISTING PUBLIC AGENCIES. SO I LOOK FORWARD TO THEIR \nWORKING ON THIS PROJECT. SEEING NO QUESTIONS. STAFF — \nOH\, PUBLIC. THERE ARE NO PUBLIC — >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO PUBLIC \nCOMMENTS. >>SPEAKER: NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. \nYOU CAN PUT UP THE SLIDE FOR THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION? \nOKAY. THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE COMMISSION AUTHORIZES ITS \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT UP TO $45\,000 CONTRACT WITH \nMIG INC. PARTNERSHIP WITH BENCHMARQ CONSULTING \nHLLC PROVIDING THE COMMISSION FACILITATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL \nDEVELOPMENT FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORS PROGRAM OVER A PERIOD \nFROM OCTOBER 19TH\, 2023 THROUGH MARCH 1ST\, 2024 STAFF FURTHER RECOMMENDS \nTHAT THE COMMISSION AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO AMEND THE \nCONTRACT AS NECESSARY INCLUDING REVISING THE AMOUNT AND DURATION OF \nTHE AGREEMENT. >>SPEAKER: I WILL MOVE THE ITEM. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: COMMISSIONER PETERS MAKES THE MOTION. \nCOMMISSIONER AHN SECONDS. CALL THE ROLL\, PLEASE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: COMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: YES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER AHN? COMMISSIONER AMBUEHL? \n>>DAVID AMBUEHL: YES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER BEACH? >>SPEAKER: ABSTAIN. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: COMMISSIONER BURKE? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKERLY? >>JENN ECKERLE: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: COMMISSIONER GORIN? \n>>SUSAN GORIN: YES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER HASZ? >>V. CHAIR\, KARL HASZ: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: COMMISSIONER LEE? \n>>OTTO LEE: YES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS? >>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nYES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: YES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER PESKIN? >>AARON PESKIN: AYE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: COMMISSIONER RAMOS? \n>>BELIA RAMOS: YES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER SHOWALTER? >>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: COMMISSIONER VAZQUEZ? \n>>JOHN VASQUEZ: YES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER ZEPEDA? >>CESAR ZEPEDA: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: VICE CHAIR EISEN? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: YES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: CHAIR \nWASSERMAN? >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: 17 YESES\, AND \nONE ABSTENTION. NO-NOS HEARD. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. \nWE LOOK FORWARD TO THE WORK GOING FORWARD. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHAT BRINGS US TO ITEM TEN\, SINCE ITEM NINE HAS BEEN POSTPONED. THIS IS AN \nUPDATE ON THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN’S VISION AND GOALS \nPHASE. JACKIE MENDOSKY OUR SENIOR CLIMATE \nADAPTATION PLANNER WILL PRESENT THE ITEM. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: BEFORE JACKIE STARTS\, I JUST — I HAVE RECEIVED \nQUESTIONS FROM\, NOW\, THREE COMMISSIONERS SAY WHEN ARE WE GOING TO \nTALK ABOUT 272. [LAUGHTER] \nPAY ATTENTION TO JACKIE\, PLEASE. >>JACLYN MANDOSKE: ALL RIGHT LET ME \nGO AHEAD AND GET MY SCREEN SLIDES UP. OOPS. \nSORRY ABOUT THAT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU EVERYONE. \nGOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR WASSERMAN AND COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS JACLYN \nMANDOSKE\, I AM A SENIOR CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLANNER HERE AT BCDC AND \nTHE PROJECT MANAGER FOR THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN HERE TO \nSHARE AN UPDATE ON OUR PROGRESS TOWARDS DEVELOPING GUIDELINES FOR O A REGIONAL \nSHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN. YOU LAST HEARD UPDATE ON THIS PROJECT BACK IN \nFEBRUARY WHEN WE INTRODUCED THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN AND \nWE HAVE BEEN DOING A LOT OF EXCITING WORK SINCE THEN. I WANT TO REMIND US \nWHY WE’RE HERE AND WHAT WE HOPE TO ACHIEVE. AS WE ALL KNOW RISING SEA \nLEVEL AND SHALLOW GROUNDWATER WILL AFFECT ALL OF US WHO LIVE NEAR AND \nEVEN FAR FROM THE BAY SHORELINE AND WHILE LOCAL ADAPTATION IS OCCURRING \nIT’S HAPPENING UNEVENLY AND DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE SHORELINE FACE DIFFERENT \nRISKS AND DIFFERENT RESOURCES TO RESPOND JURISDICTIONS ARE WELL ON \nTHEIR WAY WHILE OTHERS HAVE NOT YET GUN WHILE FLOODING DOESN’T CARE ABOUT \nJURISDICTION AT BOUNDARIES PROTECTING OUR COMMUNITIES NOW AND IN THE FUTURE \nWILL REQUIRE US TO ACT TOGETHER AS A CONNECTED REGION THAT WE ARE IN WAYS \nTHAT ARE COORDINATED AND CONSISTENT THIS IS WHY WE’RE DEVELOPING A \nREGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN AS A REMINDER THIS THIS PROJECT IS WOW OF \nMANY WAYS WE’RE IMPLEMENTING THE BAY ADAPT JOINT PLATFORM IT’S FUNDED BY \nTHE OCEAN PROTECTION COUNCIL AND THE STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY AND IS \nENVISIONED TO SERVE AS A MODEL FOR HOW REGIONS IN CALIFORNIA CAN PLAN \nCOLLECTIVELY FOR CLIMATE IMPACTS AS COMMISSIONER WASSERMAN EXECUTIVE \nDIRECTOR LARRY GOLDZBAND SAID IN THE OPENING REMARKS WE HAVE VERY EXCITING \nNEWS ON OCTOBER 7TH GOVERNOR OF — HOW DOES THIS AFFECT OUR WORK WHAT DOES IT \nCHANGE? THESE ARE GREAT QUESTIONS AND WE’LL ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS LATER IN \nTHE PRESENTATION. STAY TUNED. I’M GOING TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THE WORK \nTHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING TO DEVELOP THESE GUIDELINES. \nWHEN WE USE THE TERM REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN WHAT WE MEAN BY THAT \nIS THREE MAIN PARTS FIRST PART IS CREATING GUIDELINES THIS WORK WE’RE \nDOING WILL INCLUDE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA THAT WILL BE REQUIRED IN THE \nSUBREGIONAL PLANS FOLLOWING ADOPTION OF THE GUIDELINES THE NEXT STEP IS \nSUPPORTING LOCAL JURISDICTION THROUGH POLICY AND TECHNICAL STANZAS IN \nCREATING THEIR OWN SUBREGIONAL PLANS LASTLY DEVELOPING AN ONLINE MAPPING \nPLATFORM TO SUPPORT LOCAL JURISDICTIONS AND COMMUNITIES TO ACCESS GUIDELINES \nTO ALLOW US TO TRACK PROGRESS ON ADAPTATION SO WE CONDITIONED HOW AND \nWHERE THE REGION IS WORKING TOGETHER TO ACHIEVE SHARED SUCCESS. WHERE ARE WE \nIN THE PROCESS TO DEVELOP THE GUIDELINES? WE’RE HERE IN LATE \nOCTOBER AND HAVE BEEN SPENDING THE LAST TWO MONTHS CONDUCTING OUTREACH WITH \nPRACTITIONERS PLANNERING RESIDENTS AND MORE TO ASK PEOPLE ABOUT THEIR VISION \nSUPERVISOR VALUES FOR THE FUTURE OF THE BAY SHORELINE WE HAVE HELD MEETINGS \nWITH OUR EXPERT ADVISORY GROUP ATTENDED LOCAL COMMUNITY EVENTS AND CURRENTLY \nHAVE A SURVEY OUT TOGETHER FOR FEEDBACK ON THE VISION WE’LL HOST OUR FIRST \nPUBLIC WORKSHOP TO HELP US WRAP THE VISION A BIT LATER I’M LOOKING HERD \nYOU CAN SEE IN THE TRANSITION DEPENDING GUIDELINES IN THE COMING MONTHS. \nEQUITY STRATEGY HAS BEEN DEVELOPED THIS PARTNERSHIP WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL \nJUSTICE AND EQUITY SUBCOMMITTEE STRATEGY ALLOWS US TO TRANSPARENTLY \nDOCUMENT PRACTICES OF EQUITY THAT WE’RE FOLLOWING IN THIS WORK IT CONTAINS TWO \nPARTS\, PROCESS HOW WE PAY OUR EQUITY REPRESENTATIVES\, CONDUCT OUTREACH WORK \nIN PARTNERSHIP WITH COMMUNITIES DEVELOP GUIDELINES AND SECOND PART IS ENSURING \nTHAT WE’RE EVALUATING AT EACH STAGE OF THE PROCESS AND HOW AND WHERE EQUITY \nIS BEING INTEGRATED ACROSS THE OUTCOMES OF OUR WORK. DEVELOPING VISIONS FOR \nTHE FUTURE WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT IS TO ENSURE THAT THE GUIDELINES REFLECT OUR \nVALUES AS A REGION AND ARE COLLECTIVE ACTIONS THROUGHOUT THE SUBREGIONAL \nPLANS ADDING UP TO SHARED OUTCOMES WE HAVE DEFINED. \nTOPICS AND ISSUES WE’RE PLANNING INCLUDE GUIDELINES\, PEOPLE AND HEALTH \nECOSYSTEMS RESILIENCE DEVELOPMENT AND MORE WILL BE DEVELOPING VISION \nSTATEMENTS GUIDELINES WILL BE WRITTEN TO GET US TOWARDS THESE MEASURES\, \nCONTINUING TO ELEVATE EQUITY ALONG WITH EVALUATING PRIORITIES PRIORITIES SUCH \nAS IMPROVING NATURE-BASED INITIATION AND ADAPTATION\, ACHIEVING MULTIPLE \nBENEFITS. WE HAVE ATTENDED NINE COMMUNITIES EVENTS IN THE LAST TWO \nMONTHS AND WE HAVE ONE MORE COMING UP THIS WEEKEND WE HAVE BEEN OUT IN \nCOMMUNITIES EVERY WEEKEND SINCE SEPTEMBER. WE HAVE BEEN ALL OVER FROM \nTHE NORTH BAY TO THE CENTRAL BAY AND THE SOUTH BAY. AND I WANT TO NOTE \nTHAT WE WERE INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN EACH OF THESE EVENTS THROUGH \nPARTNERSHIPS INCLUDING THROUGH THE SUPPORT OF MANY OF OUR COMMISSIONERS\, \nAS WELL AS ADVISORY GROUP MEMBERS AND MEMBERS OF OUR LOCAL ELECTED’S \nREGIONAL TASK FORCE. THANK YOU SO MUCH TO EVERYBODY WHO \nHELPED US GET INTO THE EVENTS THEY HAVE BEEN REALLY SPECIAL AND IMPORTANT \nEXPERIENCES. YOU SHOULD HAVE ALL HOPEFULLY RECEIVED \nAN E-MAIL FROM US THIS MORNING THROUGH OUR BAY ADAPT E-MAIL WITH A LINK TO \nTHIS SURVEY. THIS IS ANOTHER WAY THAT WE’RE CAPTURING FEEDBACK ON THE \nVISION. IF YOU DIDN’T GET THAT E-MAIL PLEASE LET ME KNOW AND I AM HAPPY TO \nRESEND. I’LL MAYBE PAUSE FOR ONE MOMENT AND ASK FOLKS IF THEY WOULD \nLIKE TO TAKE THEIR PHONES OUT AND SCAN THE QR CODE. SAVE IT FOR LATER. \nTHE SURVEY IS ABOUT 5 TO 7 MINUTES SO MAYBE AFTER THE MEETING TODAY. WE \nENCOURAGE ALL OF TO YOU TAKE IT AND SHARE IT WITH YOUR NETWORKS AND \nCOMMUNITIES. WE’LL BE CLOSING THE SURVEY AT THE END OF THIS MONTH ON \nOCTOBER 31ST. SO\, WHAT HAVE WE BEEN DOING AT ALL OF \nTHESE EVENTS? WE HAVE TALKED TO HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE. \nWE HAVE HAD OVER 250 INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE INTERACT WITH OUR — OR ENGAGE ON OUR \nINTERACTIVE BOARD. AND ON THIS BOARD\, WHICH YOU CAN SEE A BIT IN THESE \nPHOTOS\, WE ASK PEOPLE WHAT’S IMPORTANT TO YOU. WE PROVIDED A SERIES OF VALUE \nSTATEMENTS AND ASKED PEOPLE TO IDENTIFY THE TOP THREE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS TO \nTHEM RIGHT NOW. AND WE ALSO ASKED THEM THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS TO THEM FOR \nFUTURE GENERATIONS. WE USED THIS ACTIVITY TO INITIATE CONVERSATIONS AND \nSHARE THE CONTEXT THAT SEA LEVEL RISE WILL HAVE LONG-TERM GENERATIONAL EXACT \nIMPACTS AND CHOICES TODAY WILL AFFECT OPPORTUNITIES FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS. \nINCLUDING TOP PRIORITIES FROM ALL NINE COMMUNITIES BOTH IN RIGHT NOW AND FOR \nTHE FUTURE. UNSURPRISINGLY RIGHT NOW PEOPLE ARE \nTHINKING ABOUT THE DAY-TO-DAY ISSUES INCLUDING COST OF LIVING AND HOUSING \nAFFORDABILITY. WE SAW THAT PEOPLE VALUE PHYSICAL HEALTH AND WELL-BEING \nOF BAY AREA RESIDENTS IT WAS A HIGH PRIORITY TODAY AND FOR FUTURE \nGENERATIONS AS WE LOOK AT PRIORITIES HELD FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS WE SEE \nVALUES CHANGED A BIT. YES FOLKS ARE STILL CONCERNED ABOUT COST OF LIVING \nBUT THE HIGHEST PRIORITY FOR THE FUTURE BY FAR IS PROTECTING NATURAL HABITATS \nAND WILDLIFE. IT’S REMARKABLE THAT NEARLY EVERY COMMUNITY PRIORITIZED \nTHIS FOR THE FUTURE. WHILE THIS ACTIVITY WAS NOT INTENDED \nTO BE AN OFFICIAL SURVEY WE WILL USE THESE RESULTS TO HELP US VERIFY OUR \nVISION STATEMENTS. THROUGH THE EVENTS WE INTERACTED WITH A BROAD RANGE OF \nPEOPLE WITH VARYING LEVELS OF FAMILIARITY WITH THE TOPIC SOME HAD \nNEVER HEARD OF SEA LEVEL RISE. WE TALKED WITH KIDS AND ADULTS WE HAD \nMATERIALS AVAILABLE IN ENGLISH AND SPANISH AND WE FORMED RELATIONSHIPS \nWHICH WE HOPE WILL BE PART OF OUR PROCESS MOVING FORWARD. WE HAVE BEEN \nGATHERING FEEDBACK FROM OUR ONLINE SURVEY WHICH YOU ALL HAVE THE QR CODE \nON YOUR PHONE. AMONG MANY QUESTIONS ON THE SURVEY WE ASKED PEOPLE TO SHARE IN \nTHEIR OWN WORDS THEIR VISION FOR THE FUTURE OF THE SHORELINE. I WON’T READ \nALL OF THEM BUT DRAW ON I A COUPLE OF THEMES THAT STOOD OUT TO ME. \nPEOPLE ARE ENVISIONING A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO ADDRESS PROBLEMS AT ALL \nLEVELS OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES WORKING TOGETHER TOWARDS THE SAME SET OF BOLD \nOBJECTIVES THAT SEA LEVEL RISE CLIMATE CHANGE OFFER OPPORTUNITY TO RETHINK \nOUR CURRENT SYSTEMS AND FOSTER HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS WITH ONE ANOTHER AND THE \nNATURAL WORLD. SO FAR THE SURVEY HAS GENERATED 170 RESPONSES AND WILL CLOSE \nIN OCTOBER THIS INFORMATION ALSO IS BEING USED TO CONFIRM OUR VISION \nSTATEMENTS AND VALIDATE AND GATHER VOICES FROM PEOPLE AROUND THE REGION. \nLASTLY WE’LL HOST OUR FIRST PUBLIC WORKSHOP NEXT THURSDAY OCTOBER 26TH ON \nZOOM PLEASE TENANTS IN THE MORNING THIS MORNING’S E-MAIL YOU RECEIVED A ZOOM \nREGISTRATION LINK FOR THIS WORKSHOP. IT WILL BE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO \nLEARN ABOUT DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT DEBUTING CHALLENGES \nOPPORTUNITIES AND BAY AREA ADAPTATION SHARING MORE RESULTS FROM ALL FEEDBACK \nWE HAVE BEEN GATHERING IN THIS PHASE\, AS WE BEGIN TRANSITIONING INTO THE \nNEXT PHASE WHICH IS DEFINING SUBREGIONAL ADAPTATION PLANS. \nWHAT IS A SUBREGIONAL ADAPTATION PLAN WE HAVE BEEN ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT \nTHIS THROUGH A COUPLE OF MAJOR BUCKETS. 50 FIRST IS WHAT’S IN THE PLAN\, \nWHAT NEEDS TO BE IN THERE AND WHAT ARE GOOD PLANS THAT OTHER JURISDICTIONS \nHAVE BEEN DOING THAT WE CAN LEARN FROM. NEXT THINKING ABOUT WHAT’S THE \nPROCESS FOR HOW THESE PLANS SHOULD BE DEVELOPED. IMPORTANT PART OF THE \nQUESTION IS WHAT’S THE SCALE OF THE PLAN OR SUBREGION\, WHO LEADS AND \nIMPLEMENTS IT: THERE ARE IDEAS FOR HOW WE MIGHT CONSIDER SCALE OF PLANS FOR \nEXAMPLE\, WE’LL BE EXPLORING MULTIPLE SCALES CITIES COUNTIES OPERATIONAL \nLANDSCAPE UNITS EVALUATING TRADE-OFFS DIFFERENT APPROACHES LASTLY THINKING \nABOUT PLANS ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTED WE HAVE A SUBCOMMITTEE THAT WILL BE \nTACKLING THESE QUESTIONS WITH US WE’LL BRING THESE QUESTIONS TO OUR RISING \nSEA LEVEL COMMISSIONER WORKING GROUP MEETINGS AS WELL AS CONSIDERING FOCUS \nGROUPS TO ENSURE THE WAY WE DEFINE THESE PLANS IS RESPONSIVE TO \nCHALLENGES AT HAND. NOW WE’RE HERE TO TALK MORE ABOUT THE LAIRD BILL. OUR \nNEXT STEP IN SUBREGIONAL PLANS IS EXCITING WITH THE PASSAGE OF SB272. \nWHAT DOES IT ACTUALLY DO? IT REQUIRES LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ALONG THE SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY SHORELINE TO DEVELOP SUBREGIONAL SHORELINE RESILIENCY \nPLANS. THESE ARE NOT DEFINED IN THE BILL BUT ARE BEING DEFINED THROUGH OUR \nPROJECT. THIS IS A STATEWIDE BILL FOR THE OUTER COAST\, THE CALIFORNIA \nCOASTAL COMMISSION HAS EQUIVALENT RESPONSIBILITY THROUGH THEIR LOCAL \nCOASTAL PROGRAM AND WE HAVE BEEN WORKING CLOSELY WITH THE COASTAL \nCOMMISSION TO ENSURE ALIGN. THIS BILL REQUIRES BCDC TO DEVELOP \nGUIDELINES BY THE END OF 2024 WHICH WE’RE CURRENTLY DOING AND SPECIFICALLY \nCALLS OUT THAT THE GUIDELINES WILL BE BUILT ON BAY ADAPT’S GUIDING \nPRINCIPLES. IT REQUIRES THAT SUBREGIONAL PLANS ARE \nSUBMITTED TO BCDC FOR APPROVAL BASED ON CONSISTENCY WITH GUIDELINES AND SETS \nUP IMPORTANT PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES CONTAINED WITHIN THE APPROVED PLANS \nWILL BE PRIORITIZED FOR STATE FUNDING. \nSETS A TIMELINE FOR COMPLETION OF SUBREGIONAL PLANS BY JANUARY 2034 \nALTHOUGH WE’RE HOPING TO EXCEED THAT TIMELINE IN THE BAY AREA. \nWHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF SB272 FOR ADVANCING SEA LEVEL RISE ADAPTATION? \nIT HELPS US ACHIEVE OUR GOALS FOR REGIONAL PREPARATION. AS I MENTIONED \nEARLIER A RISING BAY DOESN’T FOLLOW JURISDICTIONAL LINES AND ONE DECISION \nIN ONE LOCATION CAN HAVE CASCADING NEGATIVE IMPACTS ACROSS THE BAY AREA \nBAY ADAPT SB272 WILL HELP SOLVE THOSE THREATS BY ESTABLISHING COMMON \nREGION-WIDE STANDARDS SUPPORTING PLANS THAT TRANSCEND JURISDICTIONS. THE \nSAME IS TRUE ACROSS THE ENTIRE CALIFORNIA COAST THIS BILL COMPELS ALL \nCOMMUNITIES ACROSS CALIFORNIA TO PREPARE ADAPTATION PLANS THAT \nPRIORITIZE DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES\, IS BASED ON SCIENCE AND PROTECTS \nCRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE WITHOUT ENDANGERING THEIR NEIGHBORS OR \nHABITATS AND CREATES A PRIORITY FOR SEA LEVEL RISE ADAPTATION AND FUNDING. A \nRECENT MTC BCDC REPORT ESTIMATES IT WILL COST $110 BILLION IN THE BAY AREA \nALONE TO ADAPT TO MID-CENTURY SEA LEVEL RISE. SB272 WILL HELP US PLAN WHERE \nWE NEED SMART INVESTMENTS TO PRIORITIZE AT RISK LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES NATURAL \nAREAS AND CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE AS WELL AS LINK THOSE PLANS TO STATE \nFUNDS TO IMPLEMENT THEM. WHAT ARE THE ACTUAL REQUIREMENTS LAID OUT IN THE \nBILL\, SETS MINIMUM STANDARDS INCLUDING USE OF BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE LOCAL \nVULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT INCLUDES EFFORTS TO ENSURE EQUITY FOR AT RISK \nCOMMUNITIES THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEA LEVEL RISE ADAPTATION STRATEGIES \nRECOMMENDED PROJECTS IDENTIFICATION OF LEAD PLANNING IMPLEMENTATION AGENCIES \nA TIMELINE FOR UPDATES AS NEEDED AS DETERMINED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN \nAGREEMENT WITH BCDC OR THE COASTAL COMMISSION AND ECONOMIC IMPACT OF \nANALYSIS OF AT LEAST COST FOR CRITICAL PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDED \nAPPROACHES FOR IMPLEMENTING ADAPTATION STRATEGIES PROJECTS THROUGH OUR \nCURRENT WORK WE INTEND TO NOT ONLY MEET THESE REQUIREMENTS BUT ALSO EXCEED \nTHEM. WE’RE INCLUDING A BROADER RANGE OF TOPIC AREAS IN OUR GUIDELINES \nWORKING COLLABORATIVELY WITH STAKEHOLDERS AND ELEVATING EQUITY IN \nNATURE-BASED ADAPTATION SOLUTIONS THE GOOD NEWS\, WE HAVE ALREADY STARTED AND \nARE WELL ON OUR WAY BCDC REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN GUIDELINES \nWILL ADDRESS MINIMUM STANDARDS AND MORE. \nADAPTING REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN SB272 ARE ALIGNED ON TRACK AND \nLINK FUNDING WE’RE ALIGNED WITH THIS BILL BCDC WORKED CLOSELY WITH SENATOR \nLAIRD AND A VARIETY OF STAKEHOLDERS TO DEVELOP SB 272 AND THE COMMISSION AND \nMANY OTHERS ARE AROUND THE REGION TOOK SUPPORT VISION SUPPORT POSITIONS ON \nTHE BILL AND WE THANK YOU FOR THAT. WE ANTICIPATED THE ADOPTION OF SB272 WE \nSTARTED MEETING THESE REQUIREMENTS EVEN BEFORE THE BILL WAS SIGNED AND THE \nREGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN DEVELOPED LAST YEAR AS YOU CAN SEE IN \nTHE BLUEPRINT OF SB272 OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS WE HAVE WORKED \nCOLLABORATIVELY WITH THE VOLUNTARY BAY AREA LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND REGIONAL \nPARTNERS TO DEVELOP BAY ADAPT AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO AS WE IMPLEMENT THE \nREQUIREMENTS OF THE BILL. WE WILL ALSO BE PROVIDING POLICY TECHNICAL \nASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AS THEY APPLY THE GUIDELINES AND \nDEVELOP THESE PLANS WE’RE ON TRACK TO DEVELOP THE GUIDELINES BY THE END OF \n2024 IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE BILL REQUIREMENTS AND IMPORTANTLY THIS BILL \nIS RANKED TO FUNDING AND THIS IS NOT AN UNFUNDED MANDATE FOR LOCAL \nJURISDICTIONS A GRANT FOR FUNDING DEVELOPING BAY SHORELINE ADAPTATION \nPLANS WILL ISSUE AVAILABLE STARTING AT THE END OF 2023 FROM THE OCEAN \nPROTECTION COUNCIL AND OTHER POTS COULD BE APPLIED FOR THIS PURPOSE AS WELL\, O \nTHIS. PC HAS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FUNDING FOR PHASING AND IMPLEMENTING \nPLANNING FOR IMPLEMENTATION WORK WITH OPC ON THE CURRENT GRANT ON THEIR \nCURRENT GRANT CRITERIA ONCE THESE GUIDELINES ARE COMPLETE WE WILL WORK \nWITH OPC TO UPDATE THOSE FUTURE ROUNDS THESE ARE HISTORIC LEVELS OF FUNDING \nFOR ADAPTATION SO IT IS IN JURISDICTIONS BEST INTEREST TO GET \nTHESE PLANS DEVELOPED SOON THE STATE HAS ALLOCATED $690 MILLION IN \nMULTI-YEAR FUNDING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION BETWEEN NOW AND 2050. \nWHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR US? SB272 PRESENTS CHALLENGES AND \nOPPORTUNITIES FOR BCDC IN THE BAY AREA WE’LL CONTINUE TO DEVELOP GUIDELINES \nAND NOW HAVE SB272 BEHIND IT WHILE THE BILL CALLS FOR SUBREGIONAL PLANS TO BE \nCOMPLETED BY 2034 WE THINK THE REGION CANNOT WAIT THAT LONG TO PLAN FOR IT. \nWE CAN COLLECTIVELY WORK TOGETHER TO ADOPT PLANS SOONER ONE WAY IS BCDC \nWILL ESTABLISH AS I MENTIONED A SUPPORTIVE FLEXIBLE POLICY AND \nTECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM TO MEET CITIES AND COUNTIES WHERE THEY ARE \nCONNECT THEM TO FUNDING AND REDUCE BURDEN OF ADDITIONAL PLANNING COSTS WE \nWILL CONTINUE TO DEFINE THE SUBREGIONAL PLAN AND ENSURE LOCAL PLAN APPROVAL \nPROCESS CLEAR AND CODIFIED SO THAT GOVERNMENTS KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT. \nFINALLY BCDC STRATEGIC PLAN FORESEES A UNIFIED CONSISTENT REGIONAL APPROACH \nACROSS BCDC PLANNING AND REGULATORY FUNCTIONS IN LIGHT OF RISING SEA LEVEL \nAND DIRECTS THE COMMISSION TO DETERMINE WHETHER BCDC REGULATORY AND PLANNING \nAUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION SHOULD BE EXPANDED TO FOSTER LARGER SCALE \nADAPTATION EFFORTS. AS BCDC IMPLEMENTING SB272 WE’LL HOLD \nPUBLIC DISCUSSIONS WHETHER AND HOW TO CHANGE OUR LAWS AND POLICIES TO BEST \nIMPLEMENT THIS NEW BILL. THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME THIS AFTERNOON. I’M \nSURE YOU HAVE LOTS MUCH QUESTIONS. I’M HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM AND WILL GO AHEAD \nAND TURN IT BACK OVER TO COMMISSIONER WASSERMAN. THANK YOU \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: QUESTIONS? \nQUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? VICE CHAIR EISEN? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU\, JESSE. THAT WAS FANTASTIC. \nTHE 272 REFERS TO LOCAL JURISDICTIONS AND YOU SAID IN ONE OF YOUR EARLIER \nSLIDES THAT A SUBREGIONAL PLAN COULD BE BASED ON THE CITY\, THE COUNTY\, OR AN \nOLU\, I THINK IS THE TERM WE’RE NOW USING. WHO DECIDES THAT QUESTION? \nOAKLAND AND ALAMEDA COULD EACH HAVE THEIR OWN PLAN? OR THEY COULD DO IT \nON A COUNTY-WIDE BASIS OR AS PART OF AN LOU? WHO MAKES THAT DECISION? \n>>SPEAKER: RIGHT NOW OUR CURRENT PROCESS IS THROUGH AS I MENTIONED OUR \nADVISORY GROUP MEMBERS WORKING WITH OUR RISING SEA LEVEL COMMISSIONER WORKING \nGROUP AND FOCUS GROUPS ACTUALLY TO COME UP WITH THAT DECISION IN THE PROCESS \nTO DEFINE WHAT A SUBREGIONAL PLAN IS AND THAT INCLUDES ANY KIND OF \nMULTI-JURISDICTIONAL ASPECTS SO OUR INTENTION AT THIS POINT IS NOT THAT \nEVERYBODY POSSIBLY GETS TO DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES ALTHOUGH WE WANT TO EXPLORE \nAND ENSURE WHEN PEOPLE ARE PLANNING THEY’RE DOING SO IN WAYS THAT REALLY \nSUPPORT THE IMPLEMENTATION\, AT THIS POINT WE DON’T INTEND EVERYBODY GETS \nTO CHOOSE ON THEIR OWN BUT AS WE GO THROUGH THE PHASES OF THE PROJECT \nWE’LL BE EVALUATING THESE DIFFERENT OPTIONS BEFORE WE ACTUALLY GET INTO \nTHE DEVELOPING OF GUIDELINES WE’LL HAVE RECOMMENDED APPROACH THAT WE’LL BE \nUSING. >>SPEAKER: ADDING TO THAT\, WE’LL \nINCLUDE IN THE GUIDELINES WHAT THE DEFINITION OF SUBREGION IS. WE WON’T \nLEAVE IT OPEN AND WE’LL BRING THAT BACK TO YOU AS COMMISSIONERS TO WEIGH IN ON \nAS WELL. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: COMMISSIONER SHOWALTER? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: THANK YOU. WELL\, FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO ADD\, I \nWOULD LIKE TO THANK JACKIE AND TODD HALLENBECK FOR COMING TO MOUNTAIN \nVIEW’S BIRTHDAY PARTY FOR SHORELINE PARK. IT WAS OUR 40th ANNIVERSARY AND \nFOR THOSE OF YOU THAT DON’T KNOW\, SHORELINE PARK WAS BUILT UPON A — \nABOUT A 30-YEAR LANDFILL THAT WAS BUILT WITH SAN FRANCISCO GARBAGE. AND IT’S \nREALLY QUITE AN INTERESTING PUBLIC WORKS SUCCESS STORY. \nIT’S A BEAUTIFUL 700 FIRST ACRE REGIONAL PARK NOW. BUT WE DO HAVE \nFOREVER TO TAKE CARE OF THIS LANDFILL THAT’S UNDERNEATH IT\, BUT ON THE GOOD \nSIDE\, IT RAISED THE SURFACE ELEVATION OF THE AREA OF MOUNTAIN VIEW ADJACENT \nTO THE BAY BY NINE FEET. SO WHAT WE HAVE TO DO TO PROTECT THE REST OF THE \nWAY IS A LITTLE LESS THAN SOME PEOPLE IN OTHER AREAS MAY HAVE TO DO. \nANYWAY\, I WANTED TO FIRST OF ALL THANK THEM FOR COMING. PEOPLE WERE HAVING A \nGREAT TIME. TODD TOOK SOME FOLKS OUT ON TOUR OF RESTORATIONS THAT ARE GOING \nON AND JACKIE WAS VERY BUSY ASKING QUESTIONS SO WE REALLY APPRECIATED THE \nINVOLVEMENT IN OUR COMMUNITY CELEBRATION. THEN I WANT TO ASK ABOUT \nTHIS WHAT IS SUBREGIONAL. THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW DEVELOPED A PLAN\, AND \nABOUT 2013\, AND WE REVISED IT A FEW TIMES. IT HAS 14 PROJECTS THAT WE \nNEED TO DO. AND WE COORDINATE WITH PALO ALTO AND \nSUNNYVALE AND THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT\, AND THE COASTAL \nCONSERVANCY AND ALL SORTS OF ORGANIZATIONS. \n[LAUGHTER] FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. BUT WE — \nYOU KNOW\, I THINK IT’S VERY IMPORTANT TO BUILD ON THAT PLAN. SO\, I’M REALLY \nINTERESTED IN SEEING HOW THIS SUBREGION GETS DEFINED AND TO MAKE SURE THAT WE \nBUILD ON WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE\, EVEN THOUGH IT’S — I KNOW THE \nPLANNING IS QUITE UNEVEN THROUGHOUT THE AREA. SO\, MY QUESTION\, REALLY\, IS \nJUST\, GENERALLY\, HOW ARE WE PLANNING TO DO THAT? \n>>DANA BRECHWALD: THIS IS DANA BRECHWALD\, ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR \nFOR CLIMATE ADAPTATION WE’RE IN THE BEGINNING PHASES OF DEFINING THAT \nRIGHT NOW\, I WANT TO REASSURE PEOPLE WE DON’T HAVE A FINAL OUTCOME IN MIND \nRIGHT NOW IT WILL BE A COLLABORATIVE PROCESS WE’LL HAVE A WORKING GROUP AND \nBACK TO THE SEA LEVEL RISE WORKING GROUP AND BRING IT BACK TO THE \nCOMMISSION WE’LL HAVE SOME FOCUS GROUPS TO HELP DEFINE THAT\, LOOKING AT THE \nPROCESS AND BUILDINGS ON THE PLANNING THAT PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY DONE. SO WE \nDON’T HAVE ANY FINAL ANSWER. [LAUGHTER] \nFOR YOU AT THIS TIME. BUT YOU DO RAISE GOOD POINTS AND THAT’S WHAT WE’RE \nGOING TO CONSIDER AS WE COME UP WITH A DEFINITION OF WHAT A SUBREGIONAL PLAN \nS >>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: GREAT. \nTHAT’S GREAT. THE OTHER THING I WANT TO MENTION IS\, AROUND THE BAY\, WHO \nHAS\, SORT OF\, JURISDICTION FOR FLOOD PROTECTION\, WHICH IS WHAT SEA LEVEL \nRISE PROTECTION S REALLY IT’S COASTAL FLOOD PROTECTION FROM COASTAL FLOODING \nAND IT VARIES ALL OVER THE MAP IT’S LIKE A PATCHWORK QUILT I WANT TO MAKE \nSURE YOU’RE INCLUDING THE FLOOD PROTECTION AGENCIES AS WELL IN THIS \nGROUP. RIGHT? THAT YOU’RE TALKING TO. ARE THEY — \nYOU DIDN’T MENTION THEM IN THE SPECIFICALLY IN THE PRESENTATION\, BUT \nI AM SURE THEY’RE PART OF THE MIX. IS THAT CORRECT? \n>>DANA BRECHWALD: WE HAVE AN ADVISORY GROUP OF 40 INDIVIDUALS THAT PANT \nGAMUT OF PRACTITIONERS WE HAVE FLOOD CONTROL AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES ON THAT \nWE’RE LOOKING FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO HAVE MORE FOCUS GROUPS AND MAKE SURE THAT \nAT DIFFERENT PARTS TO ENSURE THAT WE’RE CAPTURING THOSE EXPERT VOICES\, THAT WE \nCREATE SPACES IN THIS PROCESS TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS. SO. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: OH YES THANK YOU FOR REMINDING ME OF THAT. I KNOW \nSEVERAL PEOPLE WHO ARE SERVING ON THAT EXPERT ADVISORY GROUP. THAT FILLS \nTHAT BILL. THANKS VERY MUCH. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: THANKS. I WANT TO THANK STAFF FOR THE BRIEFING AND \nCONGRATULATE STAFF\, ESPECIALLY LARRY AND SPECIFICALLY STEVE AS WELL\, SB272 \nIS A REAL STEP FORWARD FOR THE COMMISSION\, JUST A MILESTONE I THINK \nWE SHOULD RECOGNIZE. WE HAVE HAD A COUPLE OF CONVERSATIONS OVER THE LAST \nSEVERAL YEARS ABOUT THE SORT OF LEGISLATION THAT WOULD HELP US WITH \nADAPTATION EFFORTS AND 272 REALLY TICKS A LOT OF THOSE BOXES SO IT’S IMPORTANT \nAS A STEP FORWARD AS REGIONAL ADAPTATION PLANS COME TOGETHER AND WE \nTHINK ABOUT GOING BACK TO THE LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR \nESPECIALLY FOR THE LEGISLATURE WHETHER IT’S FOR POLICY LEGISLATION REGARDING \nIMPLEMENTATION OR ESPECIALLY NEXT STEPS ON FINANCING AND FUNDING ADAPTING A \nEFFORTS\, THE FACT THAT WE’RE DOING ALL OF THIS WORK IN RESPONSE TO A MANDATE \nFROM THE STATE LEGISLATURE\, AS OPPOSED TO DOING IT JUST BECAUSE THE \nCOMMISSION THINKS IT’S A GOOD IDEA\, IS REALLY IMPORTANT. SO\, I JUST WANTED \nTO ACKNOWLEDGE THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS STEP. AND\, REALLY\, THANK STAFF AND \nCONGRATULATE STAFF FOR MAKING SURE THAT THIS BILL IS SO CLOSELY ALIGNED WITH \nOUR THINKING AND OUR EXISTING EFFORTS. AND I THINK IT WILL REALLY GIVE US A \nBOOST. THANK YOU. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER JOHN-BAPTISTE? \n>>ALICIA JOHN BAPTISTE: THANKS CHAIR WASSERMAN. THANK YOU TO STAFF FOR \nTHIS EXCELLENT COMPREHENSIVE PRESENTATION. \nOBVIOUSLY THIS IS A REALLY EXCITING MOMENT TO BE N AS I’M THINKING ABOUT \nTHIS QUESTION OF SUBREGIONAL\, HOW TO DEFINE SUBREGIONAL. THERE IS ALREADY \nI THINK IT YOU HAVE HEARD PEOPLE ALREADY IDENTIFYING DIFFERENT STARTING \nPOINTS DIFFERENT RESOURCES DIFFERENT PRIORITIES AMONG ALL THE DIFFERENT \nACTORS AND I THINK FRANKLY IN SOME CASES DIFFERING LEVELS OF TRUST \nBETWEEN DIFFERENT COMPONENTS OF WHOM I CONSTITUTE WHAT A SUBREGIONAL \nJURISDICTION LOOKS LIKE SO WHAT OCCURS TO ME THAT YOU MIGHT ALSO BE THINKING \nABOUT AS YOU’RE CONSIDERING HOW TO DEFINE SUBKNEE REGIONAL IS ALSO HOW TO \nTHINK ABOUT ENSURING INTEGRITY ACROSS SUBREGIONAL PLANS SO WE HAVE A KIND OF \nSECONDARY WAY TO BACKSTOP ANY GAPS IN THE SYSTEM. WHICH THIS LEGISLATION \nWAS SO IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT GIVES BCDC THE AUTHORITY TO ACTUALLY HOLD THE \nWHOLE PICTURE SO CONSIDERING YOU CAN DO THAT IN A WAY THAT MATCHES UP WITH \nDEFINING AREAS I THINK WILL BE IMPORTANT. THANK YOU. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU FOR THOSE COMMENTS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: COMMISSIONER NELSON. YOU STILL HAVE \nYOUR HAND UP. DO YOU WANT ANOTHER SHOT? OR YOU JUST HAVEN’T PULLED IT \nDOWN? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR COMMISSIONER ECKERLE RELATED TO THIS. \nAND THAT IS IF YOU CAN GIVE US ANY SENSE OF THE TIMING OF THE ROLE ROLL \nOUT ON THE FUNDING FROM OPC FOR THESE PLANNING EFFORTS. \n>>JENN ECKERLE: THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY JUST TO GIVE AN \nOVERARCHING REVIEW OF THE PROGRAM. THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION\, THE \nOCEAN PROTECTION COUNCIL’S SB1 GRANT PROGRAM WHICH IS WHERE THIS 95 MILLION \nWILL LIVE IS GOING TO OFFER TWO DIFFERENT TRACKS FOR FUNDING ONE FOR \nPLANNING ONE FOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION SO EXAMPLES OF PLANNING PROJECTS \nINCLUDE COMMUNITY VISIONING VULNERABLE ASSESSMENTS DATA COLLECTION ADAPTATION \nPLANS AND ELIGIBLE IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS INCLUDE NATURE-BASED GREEN \nGRAY HYBRID ADAPTATION PROJECTS FEASIBILITY STUDIES PROJECT DESIGN SO \nYOU HAVE HEARD THAT THIS PROGRAM INCLUDES A SET OF ADAPTATION CRITERIA \nWHICH ARE THE STANDARDIZED SET OF MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS THAT WE WANT TO \nSEE\, THE CRITERIA DRAFT STANDS NOW AIMING TO ESTABLISH BEST PRACTICES AND \nCONSISTENCY ACROSS OUR ADAPTATION EFFORTS WE DEVELOPED IN THAT CLOSE \nCOORDINATION WITH STAFF FROM BCDC AND THE COASTAL COMMISSION AND OTHER \nMEMBER AGENCIES OF OUR STATE. SEA LEVEL RISE COLLABORATIVE SO THAT FINAL \nCRITERIA FOR THAT WILL BE INCLUDED IN OUR GRANT PROGRAM SOLICITATION WHICH \nWE ANTICIPATE RELEASING BY THE END OF THIS YEAR. SO ONCE THE SOLICITATION \nIS RELEASED WE INTEND TO ACCEPT AND APPROVE THE PLANNING PROJECTS THROUGH \nROLLING QUARTERLY NON-COMPETITIVE PROCESS PROVIDING THEY SATISFY THE \nREQUIREMENTS IN THE FINAL SEA LEVEL RISE CRITERIA AND WE WILL BEGIN \nACCEPTING IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS IN THE COMET PETATIVE PROCESS MID-TO LATE \n2024 THEN ONE OTHER NOTE THAT’S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR OUR EQUITY WORK WE ARE \nENSURING THAT WE HAVE ACCESS TO THIS FUNDING OPC IS SIMULTANEOUSLY \nLAUNCHING A TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM THAT WILL PROVIDE DIRECT GRANT \nAPPLICATION SERVICES TO LOCAL REGIONAL AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS REPRESENTATIVE \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES SO TO QUALIFY FOR THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE \nAPPLICANTS MUST MEET SPECIFIC CRITERIA THAT CRITERIA IS CURRENTLY UNDER \nDEVELOPED BUT THE GOAL IS TO PRIORITIZE FUNDING TO COMMUNITIES THAT ARE \nUNDERRESOURCED AND ARE LACKING NECESSARY CAPACITY TO COMPETE FOR THIS \nFUNDING. SO INTERESTED LOCAL AND REGIONAL AND TRIBAL JURISDICTIONS TO \nMEET THAT TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CRITERIA CAN APPLY FOR AND RECEIVE THAT \nTECHNICAL ASSISTANCE SUPPORT SO I’M COMMITTED TO KEEPING THE COMMISSION \nAPPRISED ON THE NEXT STEPS AND ENCOURAGE ANYONE WHO IS INTERESTED IN \nLEARNING MORE ABOUT BEING NOTIFIED ABOUT WHEN OUR FUNDING BECOMES \nAVAILABLE TO VISIT OPC’S WEB SITE AT WWW.OPC.CA.GOV. AND I’M HAPPY TO \nANSWER ANY FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BURKE? >>SPEAKER: I WANT TO ECHO \nCOMMISSIONER SHOWALTER’S POINT ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT WE’RE ENGAGING WITH \nFLOOD CONTROL AGENCIES SO FOR EXAMPLE\, THE SAN FRANCISCO SIS QUIT OWE CREEK \nFLOOD CONTROL AGENCY REPRESENTS BOTH SAN MATEO\, SANTA CLARA COUNTY AND THE \nCITIES EAST OF PALO ALTO\, BECAUSE SOUTH OF THE CREEK IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY \nPALO ALTO\, ALLEY WATER AND MOUNTAIN VIEW ARE IN COLLABORATION TOGETHER \nNORTH OF THE CREEK SAN MATEO COUNTY EAST PALO ALTO DID NOT HAVE THE \nRESOURCES AND SAN MATEO COUNTY DOES NOT HAVE ESSENTIALLY FLOOD CONTROL \nDISTRICT AND FUNDING SO THE FLOOD CONTROL JOINT POWER AUTHORITY HAS \nASSUMED THE LEADS ROLE ON THE BAY SHORELINE ADAPTATION INITIATIVE FOR \nEAST PALO ALTO. SO\, THE COMPLEXITY OF THE DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS THAT HAVE \n— ARE WORKING TOGETHER\, HAS BEEN MORPHING BASED UPON KIND OF ORGANIC \nCIRCUMSTANCES. AND IT WON’T BE EASY SORTING ALL THAT OUT. BUT THE FLOOD \nCONTROL AGENCIES\, CERTAINLY\, ARE\, I THINK\, MAYBE MORE IMPORTANT PLAYERS \nTHAN WE HAVE APPRECIATED. THANKS. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY OTHER \nQUESTIONS? I HAVE GOT A COUPLE BEFORE WE GO TO THE PUBLIC. \nONE\, I CERTAINLY ECHO THOSE REMARKS\, AND I HAVE BEEN TALKING ON AND OFF \nWITH STAFF ABOUT INVOLVING THE FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICTS. NOT AN EASY TASK\, \nJUST TO NOTE. BUT A CRITICAL ONE\, INCLUDING THE FACT \nTHAT\, OVER THE LONG RANGE\, THEY MAY BE AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE FUNDING GAP. \nBECAUSE AS SOME OF YOU MAY REMEMBER\, \nTHERE HAS BEEN AN EFFORT IN THE PAST TO PUT A MEASURE ON THE STATEWIDE BALLOT \nTO CHANGE THE WAY THEY COLLECT FEES TO MAKE THEM MORE LIKE THE UTILITIES \nREQUIRING ONLY A MAJORITY VOTE INSTEAD OF A TWO THIRD’S VOTE. SO\, FOR A \nRANGE EVER REASONS\, THEY ARE VERY IMPORTANT. \nI WANT TO EMPHASIZE COMMISSIONER ECKERLY’S REMARKS AS WELL AS THE STAFF \nPRESENTATION. THE FUND THAT’S OUT THERE IS NOT COMING ALL AT ONCE IT’S \nGOING TO BE A ROLLING PROCESS IT’S BEING PUT IN PLACE FORMULATED AND SOME \nOF THE EFFORTS REGARDING THAT GO BACK TO WHAT I SAID IN MY OPENING REMARKS \nABOUT WORKING TO BETTER COORDINATE THE PROCESS OF THE VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS \nGOING AFTER THAT FUNDING SO THAT WE ARE HELPING EACH OTHER AND NOT HURTING \nEACH OTHER. DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC? \nREYLINA? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO PUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: YOU’RE NOT FROM THE PUBLIC. YES YOU \nMAY. >>LARRY GOLDZBAND: THANK YOU CHAIR \nWASSERMAN\, AND THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS AND ALTERNATES. \nYOU SHOULD KNOW THAT WHEN THE GOVERNOR SIGNED 272 STEVE SOMEHOW FOUND THAT \nOUT ALMOST IMMEDIATELY\, AND E-MAILED ME\, AND I THINK THE REST OF SENIOR \nSTAFF AT THE SAME TIME. AND I WANT TO SAY\, FIRST OF ALL\, THAT THIS BILL \nWOULD NOT BE WHAT IT IS WITHOUT STEVE. HE DID AN ABSOLUTELY SUPERB JOB \nLEADING THE EFFORT AND WORKING WITH SENATOR LAIRD’S STAFF\, WORKING WITH \nCOMMITTEE STAFF\, MAKING SURE THAT THE COASTAL COMMISSION KNEW WHAT WE WERE \nDOING\, MAKING SURE THAT WE KNEW WHAT THE COASTAL COMMISSION WAS DOING. \nHE HAD A LOT OF HELP FROM JESSICA AND DANA AND JACKIE AND SOME FROM ME AND \nCERTAINLY FROM MICHAEL AND GREG. BUT STEVE DESERVES TREMENDOUS PRAISE FOR \nHIS WORK ON THIS. WE WOULDN’T BE HERE WITHOUT WHAT HE DID. \nTO ANSWER COMMISSIONER SHOWALTER’S QUESTION\, WHICH IS HOW\, AND ALSO \nCOMMISSIONER BURKE’S AND EVERYBODY’S\, HOW WE’RE GOING TO DO THIS WITH \nREGIONAL SHORELINE PLANNING. MY ANSWER IS\, WITH GREAT LACRITY. \nTHERE IS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF COMPLEXITY ALONG THE SHORELINE WE \nUNDERSTAND THAT. THERE WILL BE SURPRISES DURING THE NEXT YEAR\, YEAR \nAND A QUARTER AS WE DO THIS BUT WE ARE GETTING OUR DUCKS IN A ROW INTERNALLY \nTO MAKE SURE THAT WE KNOW HOW WE CAN FORECAST AS MANY OF THEM AS POSSIBLE \nSO THERE ARE AS FEW SURPRISES AS POSSIBLE. \nWITH REGARD TO THE OPC’S FUNDING\, I THINK COMMISSIONER ECKERLE WOULD \nEXPECT ME TO SAY THIS BUT I HAVEN’T CLEARED IT WITH HER. LET ME — THANK \nGOD SHE’S SMILING. LET IT BE STATED HERE THAT AS SOON AS WE HEAR ANYTHING \nABOUT FUNDING BEING AVAILABLE\, YOU WILL HEAR ABOUT FUNDING BEING AVAILABLE\, \nBECAUSE WE WILL NO DOUBT DISTRIBUTE IT JUST AS THE OPC WILL. AND WE WILL\, \nALSO — I HAVE AUTHORITY\, THE DISTRICT WRITTEN MYSELF A NOTE PUT THE OPC WEB \nSITE ON MY COMMISSION MEETING SUMMARY TODAY SO THAT YOU ALL CAN JUST CLICK \nAND FIND OUT JUST AS MUCH AS YOU MAY WANT TO KNOW ABOUT SUCH FUNDING. \nFINALLY\, I WANT TO SAY WITH A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORICAL CONTEXT THAT THE \nCOMMISSION APPROVED THE CLIMATE CHANGE AMENDMENTS BACK IN 2011. SO\, THAT WAS \nA DOZEN YEARS AGO. IT HAS TAKEN US A DOZEN YEARS TO GET TO 272. BUT I \nDON’T THINK THAT CANDIDLY IS NECESSARY TOO LONG. I THINK THAT SO MUCH HAS \nHAPPENED OVER THE PAST FOUR OR FIVE YEARS THAT HAS CHANGED THE CONTEXT TO \nWHICH PEOPLE VIEW CLIMATE CHANGE AND RISING SEA LEVEL THAT WE PROBABLY \nCOULDN’T EVEN HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT HAVING A 272 BACK IN 2017 OR 2018. AND I \nWANT TO THANK ALL OF THE FOLKS WHO BEEN WITH US OVER THE PAST DOZEN YEARS. \nAND I WAS REMINDED OF THIS YESTERDAY AS I WAS DRIVING AND LISTENING TO OF ALL \nTHINGS\, BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN AND THOUSAND DOLLARS THUNDER ROAD. THERE IS A LINE \nIN THERE AS HE LOOKS AT MARY AND SAYS — THEY WANT TO ESCAPE THAT TOWN\, BUT \nTHE DOOR IS OPEN BUT THE RIDE AIN’T FREE SO WE HAVE EARNED THIS DOOR BEING \nOPENED\, THE RIDE IS GOING TO BE COMPLEX. BUT WE’RE GOING TO GET IT \nDONE WITH YOUR HELP INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY AND WE WANT TO THANK YOU \nFOR ALWAYS COMING TO BCDC AND PUTTING ON YOUR REGIONAL HAT DISTINGUISH — \nBECAUSE THAT’S WHAT THIS IS GOING TO TAKE. \nWITH THAT CHAIR WASSERMAN\, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE AND YOUR \nLEADERSHIP FOR HELPING US GET TO 2272 AT THIS POINT. THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: AS IMPATIENT AS I NORMALLY AM\, I’M ALMOST \nINCLINED TO AGREE WITH YOU ON THE TIMING OF 272. \nI DO WANT TO REPEAT MY THANKS TO ALL OF YOU AND ALL OF THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT \nSUPPORTED GETTING 272 SIGNED THIS ROUND\, INCLUDING THE TWO ORGANIZATIONS \nWHO\, IN MANY WAYS\, REPRESENT THE LARGEST MOST ORGANIZED PART OF WHAT I \nVIEW AS OUR CONSTITUENCIES\, SAFETY BAY AND THE BAY PLANNING COALITION. IT \nWAS A UNITED AND COMMUNITY EFFORT THAT GOT THAT DONE. SO\, I THANK YOU ALL. \nWITH THAT\, WE WILL TURN TO ITEM 11. THANK YOU VERY MUCH\, JACKIE\, FOR AN \nEXCELLENT PRESENTATION. THANKS\, STAFF\, FOR THE WORK. \nAND\, YEAH\, THE RIDE AIN’T FREE\, AND IT AIN’T OVER YET. \nALMOST 11 IS A BRIEFING ON THE PROGRESS OF THE WORK TO IMPLEMENT THE \nCOMMISSION’S 2023 STRATEGIC PLAN. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR GOLDZBAND WILL \nSTART THE BRIEFING. >>LARRY GOLDZBAND: SO THIS FLOWS \nRIGHT FROM 272. BELIEVE IT OR NOT T REALLY DOES. AND IT FLOWS FROM BAY \nADAPT. I DON’T KNOW WHO HAS THE PRESENTATION\, BUT IF SOMEBODY COULD \nSTART BRINGING IT UP\, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. WE PROMISED YOU WHEN YOU ALL \nADOPTED THE STRATEGIC PLAN IN THE SPRING\, THAT WE WOULD COME AT YOU IN \nTHE NEXT FEW MONTHS AND GIVE YOU AN UPDATE. \nWELL\, AUGUST DIDN’T HAPPEN BECAUSE WE COULDN’T MEET IN AUGUST AND WE ONLY \nHAD ONE MEETING IN SEPTEMBER. SO WE’RE HERE IN OCTOBER AND WILL BE BACK TO \nYOU IN EITHER DECEMBER OR JANUARY WITH AN UPDATE AS WELL. \nBUT THIS IS\, I THINK\, BASICALLY\, DUE TO\, IN GREAT PART\, CHAIR WASSERMAN’S \nINSISTENCE\, A REAL WAY FOR US TO PROVIDE YOU AN UPDATE ON JUST PARTS OF \nTHE STRATEGIC PLAN THAT WE THINK YOU MIGHT WELL BE MOST INTERESTED IN\, AND \nTHAT WE\, CERTAINLY\, ARE INTERESTED IN\, AS WELL AS GIVING YOU A LARGER SCALE \nUPDATE. SO\, JESSICA\, ARE YOU GOING TO DO THIS OR AM I GOING TO DO THIS? \nI’M GOING TO DO THIS? THANK YOU. YOU CAN TELL WE PRACTICED THIS. BUT I \nWANT TO THANK JESSICA FAIN A LOT BECAUSE SHE HAS BEEN TREMENDOUS IN \nPUTTING THIS TOGETHER. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. \n>>JESSICA FAIN: WE’RE ALL GOING TO DO THIS LARRY. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: WE’LL ALL BE DOING THIS BUT I’LL START IT OFF. YOU \nREMEMBER THAT WE CREATED YOU ALL WITH OUR HELP CREATED A NEW VISION WE HAVE \nFIVE GOALS EACH WITH ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES THIS IS NOT NEWS TO YOU \nNOTHING HAS CHANGED WITH REGARD TO THE GOALS OR ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES. NEXT \nSLIDE PLEASE. THE CORE VALUES REMAIN\, EQUITABLE AND \nINCLUSIVE SCIENCE BASED AND DATA-DRIVEN\, AGILE AND PROACTIVE\, \nALACRITY IS IN THERE\, INCLUSIVE SERVICE ORIENTED TRUSTED ACCOUNTABLE AND WE \nWANT TO LIVE UP TO THAT ON A DAILY BASIS. NEXT SLIDE. \nWE HAVE A LOT OF PROGRESS ON THE STRATEGIC PLAN AND YOU WILL REMEMBER \nTHAT WE HAVE FIVE GOALS SOME OF SOMETHING LIKE 24 OR 25 DIFFERENT \nOBJECTIVES WITHIN THEM. YOU WILL SEE A HISTORY OF WHAT WE SINGLE ON TRACK\, \nTHERE HAVE BEEN A FEW DELAYS OR BASICALLY ISSUES\, A COUP EL \nTHATHAVEN’T BEEN COMPLETED AND A BUNCH THAT HAVEN’T EVEN BEEN STARTED YET. \nTHESE ARE BASED UPON THE DIFFERENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES THAT WHICH THEN \nHAVE UNDERNEATH THEM A SERIES OF ACTIONS THAT WE WANT TO TAKE. \nSO THIS HISTOGRAM ISN’T THE GOALS\, IT’S NOT THE OBJECTIVE\, IT’S THE ACTUAL \nACTIONS THAT WILL COMPLETE THOSE OBJECTIVES AND GET US TO THAT GOAL. \nSO THAT’S WHY YOU SEE SOMETHING LIKE 70 OR SO\, 65\, OR 70 DIFFERENT ACTIONS \nWE’RE NOT GOING TO TAKE YOU THROUGH 65 OR 70 ACTIONS\, GOD FORBID\, BECAUSE WE \nWANT YOU TO STAY AWAKE. BUT WHAT WE WILL DO IS LEAD YOU THROUGH A COUPLE \nOF THOSE DIFFERENT OBJECTIVES EACH OF THOSE FIVE GOALS SO YOU CAN SEE HOW WE \nARE PROGRESSING. LET’S GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. WHICH IS STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE \n1.1. SO THAT’S WHERE I THROW IT OVER TO JESSICA. \n>>JESSICA FAIN: THANKS LARRY. SO\, STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1.1 IS HOW WE \nSUCCESSFULLY LEAD OUR BAY ADAPT PROGRAM. ACCOMPLISHMENTS OVER THIS \nPAST QUART INCLUDE ACTUALLY COMPLETING ONE OF THE TASKS IN THE BAY ADAPT \nJOINT PLATFORM. WE PUBLISHED WITH MTC A REPORT CALLED THE SEA LEVEL RISE \nADAPTATION FUNDING AND INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK THAT WE BRIEFED YOU ON\, WE \nHAVE KICKED OFF LEADERSHIP GROUPS TO GUIDE BAY ADAPT IMPLEMENTATION \nINCLUDING OUR ELECTED OFFICIAL TASK FORCE AND IMPLEMENTATION COORDINATING \nGROUP WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE FUNDING TO ENCOURAGE DIVERSE \nPARTICIPATION IN THE VARIOUS BAY ADAPT GROUPS AND FOCUSED ON COMMUNICATIONS \nUPDATED OUR WEB SITE\, WE STARTED A BLOG THANKS TO SOME SUPPORT THAT WE HAVE \nFROM SOME CONSULTANTS TO REALLY UP OUR COMMUNICATIONS GAME. \nONE OF THE NEXT CHALLENGES THAT — SOME OF THE NEXT CHALLENGES THAT WE’LL BE \nFACING ARE COMING OUT OF THAT FUNDING AND INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK\, HOW DO WE \nACTUALLY PULL TOGETHER AN INTERAGENCY PROCESS AND AGREEMENT TO HELP FILL \nTHAT GAP. SO WE’RE WORKING WITH OUR PARTNERS AT \nTHE BAY AREA REGIONAL COLLABORATION\, MISSISSIPPI ABAG REGIONAL \nCOLLABORATIVE TO UNDERSTAND ACROSS OUR AGENCIES TO TRY TO SOLVE THIS. WE’RE \nALSO — WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO MEASURE HOW WE’RE DOING ON BAY ADAPT SO OUR \nTEAM IS DEVELOPING METRICS ON HOW TO MEASURE PROGRESS. \nFINALLY ONE THING WE’RE LOOKING FORWARD TO NEXT SUMMER IS TO HOST AN ANNUAL \nFORUM ON REGIONAL SEA LEVEL RISE ADAPTATION. THIS WILL BE A NEW EVENT \nWE’RE JUST STARTING TO SCOPE IT OUT. IF YOU HAVE IDEAS LET US KNOW BUT \nTHAT’S SOMETHING WE’RE LOOKING FORWARD TO. NEXT SLIDE. \nANOTHER STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE OF GOAL ONE IS AROUND OUR REGIONAL SHORELINE \nADAPTATION PLAN. I’M NOT GOING TO GO INTO MUCH DETAIL HERE YOU HEARD A LOT \nFROM JACKIE ON THIS. NEEDLESS TO SAY WE HAVE DONE A LOT OF ENGAGEMENT\, \nWE’RE HOSTING A PUBLIC WORKSHOP NEXT WEEK AND HAVE MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS \nAROUND THIS PHASE WHICH IS BACKGROUND VISION AND MEASURING OUR SUCCESS. \nMOVING FORWARD AS WE ENTER INTO OUR NEXT PHASE AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED \nDEFINING WHAT THESE SUBREGIONAL ADAPTATION PLANS ARE DEVELOPING THOSE \nGUIDELINES AND INTEGRATING SB272 INTO THIS. I THINK I TURN IT OVER TO \nHARRIET. >>HARRIET ROSS: I’M NEXT. \nSTRATEGIC OBJECTIVES\, 2.1. THAT’S MINE. THAT REALLY SPEAKS TO \nDETERMINING — >>LARRY GOLDZBAND: THAT’S THE NEXT \nSLIDE. >>HARRIET ROSS: SORRY. NEXT SLIDE. \nREALLY SPEAKS TO DETERMINING IF AND HOW BCDC AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION SHOULD \nBE EXPANDED TO FOSTER THESE LARGER SCALE ADAPTATION EFFORTS WHICH ARE WE \nHAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT TODAY. LUCKY ME\, I’M NEW\, SO I GET TO SHARE \nTHE GREAT WORK AND THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS THAT MY REGULATORY TEAM HAS BEEN \nWORKING ON. SO\, SOME OF OUR ACCOMPLISHMENTS WORKING TOWARDS THIS \nSTRATEGY REALLY INCLUDES UNDERTAKING A COACH OF COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF OUR \nPERMITTING PROGRAM. WE REVIEWED 15 MAJOR STUDIES LOOKING AT REGULATORY \nCHALLENGES POSED BY ADAPTATION AND WE HAVE IDENTIFIED OVER 30 MAJOR \nRECOMMENDATIONS FOR BCDC AND OUR REGULATORY PARTNERS TO CONSIDER. \nWE’LL BE TAKING LESSONS LEARNED FROM THESE STUDIES AND USING THEM TO INFORM \nSPECIFIC PROJECTS THE REGULATORY TEAM CAN PURSUE IN THE COMING YEARS. AND \nWE HAVE ALSO DEVOTED A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME ON THE DEPARTMENT \nFINANCE LED EMISSION BASED REVIEW FOR OUR PERMITTING PROGRAM\, WHICH YOU \nHEARD ABOUT IN THE LAST MEETING. WE\, AND ALMOST EVERY MEMBER OF OUR \nREGULATORY TEAM IS PROVIDING INPUT AND EXPERTISE ON THAT REVIEW. THE PROJECT \nWILL RESULT IN A LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF \nFINANCE STAFF ON HOW BCDC CAN BECOME MORE EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE IN \nPERMITTING AGENCY REALLY READY TO TACKLE MAJOR ADAPTATION PROJECTS \nCOMING AHEAD OF US. SOME OF OUR UPCOMING WORK INCLUDES \nSCOPING OUT A PROPOSAL FOR REIMAGINED BCDC JURISDICTION THAT WILL ALLOW THE \nCOMMISSION TO IMPLEMENT THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN AS WE HAVE \nTALKED ABOUT OBVIOUSLY THE PLAN IS STILL IN DEVELOPMENT BUT THAT WORK IS \nTO DEVELOP THE INCLUDING REGULATORY STAFF AS WELL AS THE GOAL FOR OUR \nULTIMATE RECOMMENDATIONS THE COMMISSION’S FUTURE REGULATORY PROGRAM \nTO REFLECT THE PRIORITIES DESIRED OUTCOMES OF THAT PLAN AND LASTLY WE’LL \nBE WORKING WITH A REGULATORY PARTNER TO SCOPE OUT THE PROPOSAL FOR THE \nIMPROVED MULTI-YEAR AGENCY ADAPTATION OVER THE COMING YEAR. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: NEXT SLIDE. \n>>SPEAKER: WE HAVE A NEW GROUP COMPLIANCE. AND COMPLIANCE SITS \nBETWEEN PERMITTING AND ENFORCEMENT. AND THE GOAL OF THIS IS TO INTEGRATE \nTHE COMPLIANCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO AND INTO THE REGULATORY PROGRAM. \nAND I GOT TO SAY\, THE GOOD NEWS IS COMPLIANCE IS UP AND RUNNING\, DOING A \nGREAT JOB. WE HAVE SUCCESSFULLY INTEGRATED THEM BETWEEN ENFORCEMENT \nAND PERMITTING\, POSITIVE RESULTS HAVE BEEN SEEN IN COMPLIANCE AND BY \nPERMITTEES\, AND IN OTHER — AND IN DIVERSIONS FROM FORMAL \nENFORCEMENT. LESS ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY AND MORE IN COMPLIANCE WHICH IS THE \nGOAL HERE. IT’S INTERESTING IN DISCUSSIONS AT TIME WHEN WE SEND \nSOMETHING TO COMPLIANCE\, COMPLIANCE HAS BEEN LOOKING AT OUR PERMITS WHICH HAVE \nA WHOLE RANGE OF THINGS OVER TIME AND IT’S THE TIME THAT MAKES COMPALESTINES \nHAVE TO LOOK AT IT AND WHEN THINGS START TO FALL OFF COMPLIANCE CAN OFTEN \nGET THINGS BACK ON TRACK. I WOULD SAY THAT’S GOING REALLY WELL. \nCOORDINATION MEETINGS BETWEEN ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE WHICH IS \nGREAT REALLY OPERATING THERE AND FIVE MONTHLY MEETINGS BETWEEN COMPLIANCE \nAND REGULATORY TO WORK OUT SOME OF THE PERMITTING ISSUES MAKING THEM \nENFORCEABLE AND MAKING THINGS MORE COMPLIANT ALSO HOW TO TAKE SOME OF THE \nLOAD OFF OF PERMITTING. OUR NEXT CHALLENGE AND GRAY AREAS\, DOCUMENTING \nAND PROCESS AND RESOLVING THOSE AREAS. LAST PART IS HOW TO MEASURE THOSE \nEFFICIENCY GAINS SEEING WE’RE ACTUALLY GETTING BENEFITS FROM HAVING OUR \nCOMPLIANCE TEAM AND BEING ABLE TO SHOW MEASURABLE BENEFITS THOSE ARE OUR \nSTRATEGIC OBJECTIVES IN 2.4. >>SPEAKER: NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. \nSTRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 3.2 HIGHLIGHTS THE WORK ON BCDC RACIAL EQUITY PLAN SINCE \nLAST WE CAME TO YOU WE HAVE HAD REVIEW FROM SENIOR STAFF AND HAVE BEEN \nWORKING TO INTEGRATE COMMENTS WE HAVE ALSO BEEN REVIEWING ACTIONS WITH \nSUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS EVEN THOUGH THE PLAN HAS NOT BEEN FINALIZED WE MADE A \nLOT OF PROGRESS ON SEVERAL ACTIONS INCLUDING INCREASING FUNDING TO THE \nADVISERS BEGINNING BIANNUAL ASSESSMENT OF THEIR PROGRAM CURRENTLY WORKING ON \nFINAL DRAFT AND WILL BRING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT IN DECEMBER OF THIS YEAR AND \nTO THE COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL IN WINTER OF 2024. \nNEXT SLIDE. 3.3 FOCUSES ON STRENGTHENING COMMISSIONER EQUITY \nAWARENESS BRINGING TRAININGS TO ALL COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AGENCY STAFF. \nSENIOR STAFF AT OUR AGENCIES HAVE REGISTERED ARE PLANNING TO GO TO \nTRAINING BEYOND LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT\, AFTER TRAINING WE’RE GOING TO INVITE \nTHE RESOURCES GROUP TO GIVE TRAINING TO ALL STAFF. WE ALSO CONTINUE TO HAVE \nEJ OFFICE HOURS FOR STAFF EVERY TWO WEEKS AND A MONTHLY RACIAL EQUITY \nMEDIA CLUB WE’RE READING THIS BOOK EVOLUTION OF A MOVEMENT ABOUT THE \nHISTORIED OF CALIFORNIA EJ MOVEMENT WE’RE PLANNING A SERIES OF EJ AND \nTRAVEL ENGAGEMENT TRAININGS IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS AND TRAINING WORK PLAN WITH \nCOASTAL COMMISSION AND STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY FOR CDMA STAFF. \n>>SPEAKER: NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. >>LARRY GOLDZBAND: AS YOU CAN TELL \nMOST SENIOR STAFF MEMBERS HAVE A PARTICULAR GOAL FOR WHICH THEY ARE \nRESPONSIBLE PLUS PHOENIX ON THE EJ. MINE IS GOAL FOUR. AND YOU WILL \nREMEMBER THAT STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 4.1 BASICALLY SAYS WE HAVE TO DO A BETTER \nJOB WITH OUR STAKEHOLDERS IN TERMS OF COMMUNICATION AND WE NEED TO BE MORE \nACCESSIBLE. WE NEED TO INCREASE AWARENESS AND WE HAVE TO FOSTER \nSUCCESSFUL COMMUNITY DIALOGUES. WE HAVE HAD A NUMBER OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS \nAS PART OF BAY ADAPT WE HAVE HELD TWO ELECTED OFFICIAL TASK FORCE MEETINGS \nAND WE HAVE HAD A SERIES OF POP-UP COMMUNITY EVENTS AND YOU SAW THE \nRESULTS OF THAT EARLIER TODAY WHEN JACKIE SHOWED YOU THE COMMENTS ON \nVISIONING AND THE LIKE. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING HARD WITH A GREAT \nGROUP OF STAFF ON DEVELOPING A NEW WEB SITE THAT WILL BE FAR MORE USER \nFOCUSED. WE JUST FOUND OUT THIS WEEK THAT THE \nMIGRATION HAS ACTUALLY OCCURRED\, WHICH DOESN’T MEAN YOU’RE GOING TO SEE A NEW \nWEB SITE TOMORROW\, BUT IT DOES MEAN THAT AT LEAST THE WEB SITE WILL BE UP \nAND RUNNING WE CERTAINLY THINK BY THE END — CERTAINLY WITHIN NOVEMBER. \nAND WE HAVE DEVELOPED THE FIRST EVER TRANSLATION SERVICES CONTRACT\, WHICH \nYOU HAVE APPROVED TO PROVIDE MORE LANGUAGE SPECIFIC ACCESS TO COMMISSION \nDOCUMENTS. SO OUR NEXT CHALLENGE IS\, ESSENTIALLY TO FINISH THE FIRST PART \nOF THE NEW WEB SITE\, PUT IT UP\, AND THEN CORRECT T BECAUSE WE KNOW IT’S \nNOT GOING TO BE PERFECT. WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO BRIEFINGS AT \nTHE COUNTY AND CITY LEVELS ABOUT BCDC AND THE BAY\, WHETHER THEY BE IN MARIN \nOR IN THE CITY OF RICHMOND OR WHEREVER THEY ARE\, AND WE ACCEPT ALL \nINVITATIONS AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO ASK MORE OF YOU IN ASSISTING WITH \nOUTREACH. BECAUSE YOU ARE GREAT PROSITIZERS\, AND GREAT VEHICLES FOR US \nTO GET PLACES. NEXT SLIDE. \nSTRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 4.2 WAS REALLY SIMPLE. HIRE A PIO. \nWELL\, WE HAVEN’T. BUT WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS WE HAVE REQUESTED THAT CNRA\, \nTHAT THE RESOURCES AGENCIES APPROVE THE DRAFT SENIOR LEVEL POSITION CALLED \nBCDC DIRECTOR OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND THAT DUTY STATEMENT BASICALLY SAYS \nTHAT THAT PERSON WILL BE A PART-TIME PAI\, PART-TIME LEGISLATIVE LIAISON \nPART-TIME CMA EXPERT AND BASICALLY ENSURING THAT AS WE LOOK OUTSIDE BCDC \nWE HAVE A PERSON WHO UNDERSTANDS HOW TO CONNECT THOSE DOTS AND WE ARE LOOKING \nFORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE CNRA TO GET THAT FUNDED. WE HAVE STARTED \nDISCUSSIONING WITH THEM AND WE ASSUME WE WILL CONTINUE THOSE DISCUSSIONS. \nNEXT SLIDE AND HEADING OFF TO GOAL FIVE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: THANK YOU. >>SPEAKER: ONE OF OUR OBJECTIVES OF \nGOAL FIVE WAS TO HAVE OUR STAFF REFLECT THE DIVERSITY OF THE BAY AREA WE HAVE \nBEEN ABLE TO MOVE TOWARDS BY CONTINUING TO RECRUIT GREAT TALENT FOR POSITIONS \nAND WE’RE SUCCESSFUL IN OBTAINING SPECIAL SALARY INCREASES FOR SEVERAL \nCLASSIFICATIONS USED AT BCDC. NEXT QUARTER WE’RE CONDUCTING AN \nORGANIZATIONAL HEALTH SURVEY AND INCLUDING A SEPARATE SURVEY ON RACIAL \nEQUITY. NEXT SLIDE. ANOTHER OBJECTIVE OF GOAL FIVE IS TO \nIMPLEMENT TECHNOLOGICAL UPGRADES TO IMPROVE PROCESSES. \nOUR CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER ANDREW CHEN DID AN EXCELLENT JOB OF WORKING \nWITH NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY TO ON BOARD THEIR SECURITY OPERATIONS CENTER \nWHICH ENHANCES OUR OVERALL CYBER SECURITY BY PROACTIVELY IDENTIFYING \nSECURITY THREATS AND VULNERABILITIES ANDREW WORKED WITH THE CALIFORNIA \nMILITARY DEPARTMENT TO COMPLETE OUR BIANNUAL IT SECURITY ASSESSMENT WHICH \nIS A TECHNICAL ANALYSIS TO MEASURE CYBER SECURITY INCLUDING \nVULNERABILITY\, FIRE WALL ANALYSIS PHISHING SUSCEPTIBILITY AND MORE. \nLASTLY WE INITIATED THE WATCHED HOSTING SERVICES WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF \nTECHNOLOGY WHICH PROVIDES A STANDARDIZED STATE WEB SITE TEMP PLATT \nAND ENHANCES SECURITY AND IMPROVES CONTENT MAINTENANCE. \nTHIS QUARTER WE REVIEWING FINDINGS FROM IT ASSESSMENT ENSURING WE ADDRESS ANY \nCONCERNS THEN WE’LL BE WORKING ON FINALIZING THE NEW WEB SITE WHICH WILL \nALSO INCLUDE A PAYMENT PORTAL TO ALLOW FOR ONLINE PAYMENT OF FINES AND PERMIT \nFEES. >>LARRY GOLDZBAND: NEXT SLIDE. \nSO THAT\, IS AN OVERVIEW. WE WILL BE HAPPY TO PROVIDE YOU WITH THE\, IF YOU \nWOULD LIKE IT\, THE FULL ACTION PLAN\, WITH ALL — I DON’T KNOW HOW MANY — \n75\, 85 DIFFERENT ACTIONS\, EACH OF WHICH HAS BEEN COLOR-CODED\, GREEN\, YELLOW\, \nRED OR BLUE. IF YOU ARE CERTAINLY INTERESTED. \nBUT WE’RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS? \nI SEE NONE. OH OF COURSE. WHEN I SAY QUESTIONS I \nMEAN COMMENTS\, AS WELL. >>SPEAKER: OKAY. I SHOULD KNOW THAT \nBY NOW. LARRY\, I WANT TO THANK YOU AND YOUR STAFF. YOU ARE MAKING TANGIBLE \nPROGRESS ON ALL THESE GOALS AND IT WAS GREAT TO SEE HOW YOU ALL BROKE IT DOWN \nTODAY. THANK YOU. GOOD TO SEE THE PROGRESS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC? \nBECAUSE THEY MAY NOT KNOW WHAT I MEAN. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO PUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THANK YOU. I SHARE IN THE \nCONGRATULATIONS TO EVERYBODY FOR THE PRESENTATION\, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY \nTHAN THE PRESENTATION\, THE WORK ON THE STRATEGIC PLAN AND EVALUATING IT AND \nMONITORING IT. I THINK WE ARE MAKING GREAT STRIDES. WE MAY HAVE TO THINK \nABOUT A LETTER WRITING CAMPAIGN SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID FOR 272 FOR OUR PIO \nFUNDING. I SAY THAT ONLY SEMI FACETIOUSLY BECAUSE IN FACT IT IS A \n  \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs 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. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant 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. \nIf 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. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf 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. \nCampaign Contributions\nState 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. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings 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.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/october-19-2023-commission-meeting-2/
LOCATION:Webinar
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231005T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231005T170000
DTSTAMP:20231121T025555Z
CREATED:20231006T035810Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231121T025555Z
UID:10000046-1696510800-1696525200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:October 5\, 2023 Commission Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				This report lists the administrative permit applications that are pending with the Commission. Due to the cancellation of the meeting of October 5\, 2023\, and pursuant to Commission Regulation Section 10620(a)\, the Executive Director will take final action on these matters unless a Commissioner requests full Commission consideration by communicating with the staff prior to October 5\, 2023. In the absence of such a request\, the listed matters will be executed administratively after October 5\, 2023. \nAdministrative Permits Applications \nApplicant \nCalifornia State Lands Commission100 Howe Avenue\, Suite 100 SouthSacramento\, CA 95825 \nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.018.00 \nFiled on 09/22/2023 \n90th Day on 12/21/2023 \nLocationWithin the Commission’s Bay jurisdiction\, approximately seven hundred and fifty feet west of the Eckley Pier\, near Crockett\, in Contra Costa County (parcel number 354-030-009-6). \nDescriptionTo remove and dispose of approximately 432 derelict timber piles and deck debris in an area from near the shoreline to approximately two hundred feet offshore\, and approximately seven hundred and fifty feet long\, parallel to the shoreline. The removal and disposal of the piles will be completed by barge in the Carquinez Strait\, with no land-based removal operations. The piles will be taken to CS Marine’s Mare Island facility and then disposed of at an approved facility. The project will be conditioned to ensure appropriate minimization measures are implemented to protect subtidal habitats and aquatic species\, including using a vibratory hammer where feasible\, the use of a floating debris boom during work activity\, and conducting pre- and post-construction eelgrass surveys and subsequent monitoring. The proposed project will have no impacts to existing public access at the Eckley Pier. \nTentative Staff Position:Recommend Approval with Conditions. (Sam Fielding; 415/352-3665 or sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov) \nApplicant \nJohn Muir Land TrustP.O. Box 31Martinez\, CA 94533 \nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.004.00 \nFiled on 09/20/2023 \n90th Day on 12/19/2023 \nLocationWithin the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot shoreline band jurisdictions\, at the Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Site (lat./long. 38.030758\, -122.087820) along Waterfront Road in Martinez\, Contra Costa County. \nDescriptionThe proposed Pacheco Marsh Public Access project would involve constructing a range of public access amenities at the Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Site in Martinez\, CA\, which was breached and restored in 2021. The Commission issued a separate permit in December\, 2020\, (BCDC Permit No. 2019.005.00) for the original restoration project to the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (“District”). The public access special conditions associated with that permit required that the District either transfer ownership of the site to another entity that would construct public access amenities at the site within three years of transfer or construct public access improvements at the site consistent with a plan improved by the Commission. Pursuant to this condition\, the District transferred the lands to the John Muir Land Trust\, who are proposing to construct the public access improvements at the site. The improvements would include a system of trails\, bridges connecting the trails over tidal channels\, a small watercraft launch\, an interpretive center\, picnic areas\, parking\, and restrooms. \nSpecial Conditions would be included to ensure that the project is constructed in a manner that is protective of Bay resources and water quality\, and that appropriate wayfinding\, interpretive\, and sensitive habitat signage is installed at the site. \nTentative Staff Position:Recommend Approval with Conditions. (Schuyler Olsson; 415-352-3668 or schuyler.olsson@bcdc.ca.gov) \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Commission Mailing September 21\, 2023 \n\n Commission Request to Hire Ujjayan Siuddarth\n\nCommission Mailing September 29\, 2023 \n\nCommission Request to Hire Maya McInerney as an Environmental Scientist in the Planning Division (PDF)\nSan Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan update\, Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-19 (PDF)Draft Seaport Plan (PDF)//  Environmental Assessment (PDF)  // Public Comments (PDF)  // Addendum to the Cargo Forecast (PDF)\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nA hidden climate danger threatens U.S. coastal communities\nOpinion: Governor should help California cities protect against flooding\nMaking Roads Work for Transit\nSB 272 Sea Level Rise: Planning and Adaptation – SUPPORT\nThey’re Ultrarich Techies\, and They Want to Build a City From Scratch. What Could Go Wrong?\nCalifornia tops FEMA’s new list of areas vulnerable to weather disasters. What does it mean for the Bay Area?\nFish and Wildlife to Award Millions to Improve California Boat Access? \nThe Port of Oakland took on massive debt for an expansion that some say went bust. Is the same mistake possible?
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/october-5-2023-commission-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230921T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230921T170000
DTSTAMP:20240213T175630Z
CREATED:20230922T035148Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240213T175630Z
UID:10000045-1695301200-1695315600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:September 21\, 2023 Commission Meetings (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				This report lists the administrative permit applications that are pending with the Commission. Due to the cancellation of the meeting of September 21\, 2023\, and pursuant to Commission Regulation Section 10620(a)\, the Executive Director will take final action on these matters unless a Commissioner requests full Commission consideration by communicating with the staff prior to September 29\, 2023. In the absence of such a request\, the listed matters will be executed administratively on or after September 29\, 2023. \nAdministrative Permits Applications \nApplicants \nPacific Gas and Electric Company245 Market StreetSan Francisco\, CA 94105 \nBCDC Permit Application No. M2022.020.00 \nFiled on 09/14/23 \n90th Day on 12/13/23 \nLocationWithin the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot shoreline band jurisdictions\, at four locations in Marin and Sonoma Counties: \n\nAt Tower 3/29\, north of the Petaluma River (Sonoma County; 38.112097 °N\, -122.491998 °W)\nAt Tower 3/28\, south of the Petaluma River (Marin County; 38.110117 °N\, -122.494483 °W)\nAt Tower 2/21\, north of Novato Creek (Marin County; 38.092283 °N\, -122.497717 °W)\nAt Tower 2/20\, south of Novato Creek (Marin County\, 38.873806 °N\, -122.498064 °W)\n\nDescriptionThe project would replace four existing electrical towers. Two towers will be removed from tidal marsh habitat in Bay Jurisdiction\, two towers will be removed from 100-foot shoreline band jurisdiction. One new tower would be constructed in the Bay\, and two towers would be constructed partially in the 100-foot Shoreline Band. To access the sites for tower removal and installation\, 1.84 acres of construction matting will be temporarily placed in the 100-foot Shoreline Band\, 3.13 acres of construction matting will be temporarily placed in tidal marsh habitat in the Bay\, and two barge landings\, supported by a total of 91 steel piles and covering 1\,200 square feet will be temporarily constructed in the Bay. After construction of the new towers and removal of the existing towers and the temporary construction matting and barge landings is complete\, the applicant shall restore all tidal marsh areas\, and monitor them for success over at least five years. The project will result in a net removal of towers from BCDC jurisdiction to outside of BCDC jurisdiction\, and from the Bay to 100-foot Shoreline Band. \nTentative Staff Position:Recommend Approval with Conditions. (Rowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov) \nApplicantsRich Island Duck ClubP.O. Box 5064Walnut Creek\, CA 94596 \nAND \nPort of Stockton2201 West Washington StreetStockton CA 95203 \nBCDC Permit Application No. M2022.024.00md \nFiled on 06/27/23 \n90th Day on 09/25/23 \nLocationIn the Primary Management Area of the Suisun Marsh\, at the Southern Portion of Simmons Island\, unincorporated Solano County \nDescriptionRestore approximately 30 acres of managed wetland\, open water and upland areas on a managed wetland island in the Suisun Marsh. The project site is hydrologically connected to the other existing managed wetlands on Simmons Island\, and the project would restore this site through regrading and vegetation management and planting. The project will result in a net gain in open water and wetland habitat\, and a reduction in upland habitat. This project is the culmination of a long-standing enforcement violation of BCDC Consistency Determination No. C1985.006\, which required the Port of Stockton to beneficially reuse dredged sediment that was placed on Simmons Island between 1986 and 1996. This project will resolve the enforcement case ER1990.026.00 by reusing the dredged sediment for habitat restoration. \nTentative Staff Position:Recommend Approval with Conditions. (Rowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov) \nApplicantsBandwidth IG\, LLC530 Lakeside Drive\, Suite 190Sunnyvale CA\, 94085 \nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.001.00 \nFiled: This application has not been filed\, as the City of San Leandro discretionary approval for a lease of land required for the project will be voted on at a City Council meeting September 18\, 2023. If the lease is not approved\, this administrative listing will be rescinded. \n90th Day – N/A \nLocationWithin the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot shoreline band jurisdictions\, in the City of Brisbane at the southern corner of Lagoon Rd and Sierra Point Parkway\, and the City of San Leandro\, at the Bay Trail\, west of the Tony Lema Golf Course and South of the Marina Dog Park\, and along the Bay floor between those two sites. \nDescriptionThe project would install approximately 86\,800 linear feet of two 2-inch-diameter fiber optic cables in the Bay\, between underground landing vaults in the 100-foot Shoreline Bands in San Leandro and Brisbane. The project would result in approximately 5\,000 cubic yards and 30\,400 square feet of fill in the Bay. The project would not result in any public access impacts. \nTentative Staff Position:Recommend Approval with Conditions. (Rowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov) \nApplicantsThe Island Club\, Inc6227 Virgo RdOakland CA 93611 \nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.011.00md \nFiled on 07/17/23 \n90th Day on 10/16/23 \nLocationWithin the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot shoreline band jurisdictions\, at Duck Club No. 501 in the Primary Management Area of the Suisun Marsh. \nDescriptionInstall two 24-inch-diameter HDPE water management drains with stainless steel flap gates through an exterior levee at the managed wetland. The project will result in approximately 100 square feet of solid fill. The purpose of the project is to improve the ability of the Club to manage their wetland. \nTentative Staff Position:Recommend Approval with Conditions. (Rowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov) \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Commission Mailing September 8\, 2023 \n\nApplications for permits\, federal consistency actions\, and amendments\n\nCommission Mailing September 15\, 2023 \n\nListing of Pending Administrative Matters\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nOakland pirates becoming more brazen as several ships stolen in span of a week\nPoverty Rate Soared in 2022 as Aid Ended and Prices Rose\nFisherman’s Wharf is in trouble. But it’s still more than a tourist trap
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/september-21-2023-commission-meetings-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230907T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230907T170000
DTSTAMP:20250310T155937Z
CREATED:20230908T032917Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250310T155937Z
UID:10000044-1694091600-1694106000@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:September 7\, 2023 Commission Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 189 (2022). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed above. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nOffice of Contra Costa CountySupervisor John Gioa11780 San Pablo Avenue\, Suite DEl Cerrito\, 510-942-2220 \nCounty Administration Building575 Administration Drive\, Room 100ASanta Rosa\, 707-565-2241 \n100 Howe AvenueSuite 100 SouthSacramento\, 916-574-1992 \nCounty Government Building70 W Hedding StreetEast Wing 10th FloorSan Jose\, 408-299-5030 \nNorth Star15 Commercial Street ExtensionLouisbourg\, NS B1C 2J4\, 902-733-2080 \n176 BlithedaleMill Valley\, 415-531-2770 \n675 Texas Street\, 6th Floor\, Suite 6004Fairfield\, 707-784-6129 \nCaltrans Building111 Grand Avenue\, Room 15-230 (Mountain View Room)Oakland\, 925-250-5593 \nNapa County Administration Building\, CEO Office1195 Third Street\, Suite 310Napa\, 707-253-4421 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/83169214197?pwd=cW52bXpZbWVHSi92NjFDOHJFVG8rUT09 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID831 6921 4197 \nPasscode673599 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic 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]\nApproval of Minutes of July 20\, 2023 Meeting (PDF)(Reylina Ruiz) [415/352-3638; reylina.ruiz@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nCommission Consideration of Legislation (PDF)The Commission may consider and take positions on legislation\, including SB 544 (Laird) Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act: teleconferencing.(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nSummer Interns BriefingBCDC’s five summer undergraduate interns will present to the Commission a summary of their internship accomplishments\, along with recommendations for BCDC’s internship program.(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3653; larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing on Mission-Based Review of BCDC’s Permitting ProgramStaff from the Department of Finance will brief the Commission on their work to conduct a Mission-Based Review of BCDC’s permitting program. The Mission-Based Review will focus on streamlining and updating the Commission’s permitting process\, as well as BCDC’s coordination with other permitting agencies\, and clarity and enforceability of permits.(Ethan Lavine) [415/352-3618; ethan.lavine@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing on Oyster Point ComplianceThe Commission will receive a briefing on BCDC’s liveaboard policies. The Commission will also receive an update regarding the Oyster Cove Marina liveaboard compliance issue. (John Creech) [415/352-3619; john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov]Liveaboard Boats PresentationCity of South San Francisco PresentationPublic Comment\nBriefing on the BCDC Enforcement ProgramThe Commission will receive a briefing on the Enforcement Program\, including an overview of the enforcement process as well as a quarterly update on the ongoing program improvements and developments since the last briefing in April 2023.(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Commission Mailing August 25\, 2023 \n\nNotice of Revised Date of Public Hearing for Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-19 (PDF)Rescheduled Hearing to November 2\, 2023\, Concerning Proposed San Francisco Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-19 to Review and Possibly Revise Bay Plan and Seaport Plan Port Findings\, Policies and Designations\nStaff Report and Recommendation on Pending Legislation (PDF)\n\nCommission Mailing September 1\, 2023 \n\nDraft Minutes of July 20\, 2023 Hybrid Commission Meeting (PDF)\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nPirate crime spree\, vigilantes throw Oakland estuary into lawlessness\nFostering Fairness in Flood Risk Management\nWho’s on First at the SF Seawall?\nAttention California Boaters – expired marine flare collection events at multiple counties in August and September 2023\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording\n				 \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs 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. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant 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. \nIf 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. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf 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. \nCampaign Contributions\nState 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. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings 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.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/september-7-2023-commission-meeting-2/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230817T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230817T170000
DTSTAMP:20250320T174601Z
CREATED:20230818T032346Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250320T174601Z
UID:10000043-1692277200-1692291600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:August 17\, 2023 Commission Meetings (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				This report lists the administrative matters that are pending with the Commission. Due to the cancellation of the meeting of August 17\, 2023\, and pursuant to Commission Regulation Section 10620(a)\, the Executive Director will take final action on these matters unless a Commissioner requests full Commission consideration by communicating with the staff prior to August 17\, 2023. In the absence of such a request\, the listed matters will be executed administratively after August 17\, 2023. \nAdministrative Permits Applications \nApplicants \nSteve ChappelleLower Joice Island Suisun Resource Conservation District2544 Grizzly Island RoadSuisun City\, CA 94585 \nClaude GrilloGolden Gate – Pacific Flyway CenterP.O. Box 907Concord\, CA 94522 \nAndrew BoganThe Teal Club25840 Vinedo LaneLos Altos Hills\, CA 94022 \nMike LenziArnold Ranch4886 Northwood DriveFairfield\, CA 94534 \nLarry NewhallJoice Island Mallard Farms1993 Rockville RoadFairfield\, CA 94534 \nChris BessetteThe Island Club201 Ewing TerraceSan Francisco\, CA 94118 \nMike DeSimoni\, Mallard Inn Duck Club100 West Cutting Blvd.Richmond\, CA 94804 \nEdward Jonat\, SprigatealP.O. Box 2602Suisun City\, CA 94585 \nArmand Butticci\, RBM Land Co.2804 Velvet WayWalnut Creek\, CA 94596 \nKyle Peacock Mallard Haven3421 Golden Gate WayLafayette\, CA 94549 \nLeen MadsenVolanti Duck Club4600 E. Hidden Valley Dr.Reno\, NV 89502 \nCarl Koehler\, Arnold Ranch2222 Bryce LaneDavis\, CA 95616 \nMike TempsMontezuma Gun Club12885 Alcosta Blvd.\, Ste ASan Ramon\, CA 95483 \nLeonard GiannoThe Honker Club380 Via Palo LindaFairfield\, CA 94534 \nJohn EudyWheeler Island Land Company300 Victorian LaneDanville\, CA 94526 \nPaul ZhengSan Francisco Club1255 26th Ave.San Francisco\, CA 94122 \nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.005.00md \nFiled on 7/18/23 \n90th Day on 10/16/23 \nLocationWithin the Commission’s Bay\, 100-foot shoreline band and managed wetland jurisdiction and within the Suisun Marsh Primary Management Area. \nDescriptionIn the Bay and Primary Management Area of the Suisun Marsh \nConduct in-kind repair and maintenance along 36\,109 linear feet of exterior levees through placement of dredged sediment along the levee backslope and crown in multiple locations at fifteen managed wetlands known as Mallard Inn Duck Club\, The Teal Club\, Arnold Ranch\, Joice Island Mallard Farms\, Pacific Flyway – Golden Gate Duck Club\, Sprigateal\, RBM Land Company\, Lower Joice Island\, The Island Club\, Montezuma Gun Club\, Honker Farms\, The San Francisco Club\, Volanti Duck Club\, Mallard Haven and Wheeler Island. The sediment used for the levee maintenance shall be mechanically dredged and consists of: (1) 21\,165 cubic yards (cy) of sediment from multiple locations within the Suisun Marsh Habitat Management\, Preservation and Restoration Plan’s Regions 1 and 2 “minor sloughs;” (2) 8\,342 cy of sediment from multiple locations within Regions 1\, 2 and 4 “Dredger’s Cut;” (3) 656 cy of sediment from one location within Montezuma Slough’s “Dredger Cut;” and (4) 1\,883 cy from one location in Region 2 “major slough\,” altogether totaling 32\,046 cy of sediment dredged from approximately 12.63 acres of tidal sloughs adjacent to the managed wetlands. \nTentative Staff PositionRecommend Approval with Conditions Pascale Soumoy; 415/352-3669 or pascale.soumoy@bcdc.ca.gov \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Commission Mailing August 11\, 2023 \n\nApplications for permits\, federal consistency actions\, and amendments\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nFostering Fairness in Flood Risk Management\nWho’s on First at the SF Seawall?\nAttention California Boaters – expired marine flare collection events at multiple counties in August and September 2023\nAt a summit she helped start\, an absent Sen. Dianne Feinstein is honored in Lake Tahoe
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/august-17-2023-commission-meetings-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230803T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230803T170000
DTSTAMP:20250320T174912Z
CREATED:20230804T020542Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250320T174912Z
UID:10000042-1691067600-1691082000@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:August 3\, 2023 Commission Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				This report lists the administrative matters that are pending with the Commission. Due to the cancellation of the meeting of August 3\, 2023\, and pursuant to Commission Regulation Section 10620(a)\, the Executive Director will take final action on these matters unless a Commissioner requests full Commission consideration by communicating with the staff prior to August 3\, 2023. In the absence of such a request\, the listed matters will be executed administratively after August 3\, 2023. \nAdministrative Permits Applications \nApplicant \nGary Spicer801 First Street\, Suite EBenicia\, CA 94501 \nBCDC Permit Application No. M2022.001.00 \nFiled on 07/05/23 \n90th Day on 10/03/23 \nLocationWithin the Commission’s 100-foot shoreline band jurisdiction\, at 360 West I Street\, in the City of Benicia\, Solano County. \nDescriptionConstruct\, use\, and maintain in-kind the portion of a new single-family residence within the shoreline band\, including: \n\nA 668-square-foot portion of a new 2\,287-square-foot one-story single-family house;\nA 383-square-foot portion of a new 593-square-foot rear deck; and\nA 50-foot segment of a new 3-foot-wide and 68-foot-long retaining wall.\n\nTentative Staff PositionRecommend Approval with Conditions (Katharine Pan; 415/352-3650 or katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov) \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Commission Mailing July 21\, 2023 \n\nIssued Regionwide Permits\nApplications for permits\, federal consistency actions\, and amendments\n\nCommission Mailing July 28\, 2023 \nCommission Request to Hire Julie Garren as a Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisory) in the Regulatory Division (PDF) \nPublic Comment Letters \n\nAdministrative Listing for Applications Pending with the Commission; 360 West I Single-Family House\, in the City of Benicia\, Solano County (PDF)\nPublic meetings on Zoom (PDF)\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nThis Bay Area city could become a pickleball mecca with a planned waterside sports club\nEfforts to combat Bay Area sea level rise prove costly
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/august-3-2023-commission-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230720T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230720T170000
DTSTAMP:20250320T210300Z
CREATED:20230721T014255Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250320T210300Z
UID:10000041-1689858000-1689872400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:July 20\, 2023 Commission Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 189 (2022). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed above. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nOffice of Contra Costa CountySupervisor John Gioa11780 San Pablo Avenue\, Suite DEl Cerrito\, 510-942-2220 \n100 Howe AvenueSuite 100 SouthSacramento\, 916-574-1992 \n675 Texas Street\, 6th Floor\, Suite 6500Conference Room 6002Fairfield\, 707-784-6129 \nNapa County Administration Building\, CEO Office1195 Third Street\, Suite 310Napa\, 707-253-4421 \nMissouri House14150 Highway 128Boonville\, 650-644- 5084 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID833 9488 6410 \nPasscode760263 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic 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]\nApproval of Minutes of June 15\, 2023 Meeting (PDF)(Reylina Ruiz) [415/352-3638; reylina.ruiz@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing and Possible Vote for 777 Airport Boulevard Office Development\, in the City of Burlingame\, San Mateo County; BCDC Permit Application No. 2022.004.00 (PDF)The Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote on an application for BCDC Permit No. 2022.004.00 on a proposal by Lincoln Property West to develop a 3.08-acre former hotel site into a life sciences campus with improvements to the existing Bay Trail and shoreline public access area at 777 Airport Boulevard in the City of Burlingame\, San Mateo County.(Shruti Sinha) [415/352-3654; shruti.sinha@bcdc.ca.gov]Exhibit (PDF) //  Letter (PDF) // Staff Recommendation  //  Exhibits A and B (PDF) // Applicant’s Presentation (PDF)  // Staff’s Presentation (PDF) // Revised Exhibits A and B (PDF) //  Revised Staff Recommendation (PDF) // Staff Recommendation Corrections (PDF)\nCommission Consideration of a Sediment Grant Facilitator Contract (PDF)The Commission will consider authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a contract for facilitation services to assist BCDC staff in its Sediment for Wetland and Adaptation Project funded by grants from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Ocean Protection Council. With BCDC staff and the project core team\, the facilitator will co-design a collaborative stakeholder process\, develop a stakeholder workshop\, assist in development and review of workshop materials\, facilitate the workshop\, and help develop a Sediment for Wetlands Roadmap document following the workshop.(Maya McInerney) [415/352-3646; maya.mcinerney@bcdc.ca.govPresentation (PDF)\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				This report lists the administrative matters that have been filed and are pending with the Commission. The Executive Director will take the action indicated on the matters unless the Commission determines that it is necessary to hold a public hearing. The staff members to whom the matters have been assigned are indicated at the end of the project descriptions. Inquiries should be directed to the assigned staff member prior to the Commission meeting. \nEmergency Permits \nThe Executive Director has issued the following emergency permit since the last listing. \nApplicant \nCity of Santa Rosa69 Stony CircleSanta Rosa\, CA 95401 \nEmergency Permit No. E2023.004.00 \nLocation \nWithin the Commission’s Certain Waterway Jurisdiction\, in the Petaluma River\, in unincorporated Sonoma County. \nDescription \nBCDC staff\, with the approval of the Executive Director and the Chair of the Commission\, issued an emergency permit to the City of Santa Rosa to conduct emergency repairs to levees that were damaged in storms in December 2022. The City determined that the levees were in imminent danger of failure\, which would result in flooding of agricultural land\, and private businesses. To prevent this\, the City proposed the temporary placement of approximately 240 cubic yards of riprap on the existing levees. BCDC staff issued the emergency authorization for the repairs on July 7\, 2023\, with the requirements that (1) the City submit a post-construction report\, (2) the City submit a written permit application for a permanent levee reconstruction project by March 31\, 2024\, (3) the riprap be removed by November 30\, 2024\, and (4) the City comply with standard environmental minimization measures and best practices during construction. The construction commenced July 7\, 2023\, and is expected to be completed by August 31\, 2023. \nRowan Yelton [415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov] \nAdministrative Permits Applications \nApplicantDirk Ivory90 Century DriveMill Valley\, CA 94941 \nBCDC Permit Application No. M2021.034.00 \nFiled on March 10\, 2023 \n90th Day on June 6\, 2023 extended to August 3\, 2023 \nLocation \nIn the Bay and within the Commission’s 100-foot shoreline band jurisdiction\, at 90 Century Drive\, in the City of Mill Valley\, Marin County. \nDescription \nAfter-the-fact authorization to construct\, use\, and maintain landscaping and a rear yard stairway at a single-family residence and in a dedicated public access area. \nTentative Staff Position \nRecommend Approval with Conditions to construct\, use\, and maintain landscaping and a rear yard stairway\, not including the portion of the stairway located within the dedicated public access area. (Adrienne Klein; Principal Enforcement Analyst; 415/352-3609 or adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov) \nApplicant \nSan Rafael Yacht Harbor557 East Francisco BlvdSan Rafael\, CA 94901 \nBCDC Permit Application No. M2022.023.00 \nFiled on June 26\, 2023 \n90th Day on September 26\, 2023 \nLocation \nIn the Commission’s Bay jurisdiction\, at the state and federally approved San Pablo Bay (SF-10) and Alcatraz (SF-11) disposal sites. \nDescription \nDispose of up to 100\,000 cubic yards (cy) of dredged sediment from the San Rafael Harbor\, over a ten-year period\, at the state and federally approved San Pablo Bay (SF-10) disposal site. In the event that the San Pablo Bay site reaches near capacity\, Alcatraz (SF-11) will act as an alternative disposal option. Episode one is expected to remove and dispose of up to 5\,000 cy of sediment from the creek-side docks of the Yacht Harbor. \nTentative Staff Position \nRecommend Approval with Conditions. (Jaime Lopez\, Environmental Scientist; 415/352-3648 or jaime.lopez@bcdc.ca.gov) \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Commission Mailing July 7\, 2023\n\nJuly 20\, 2023 Commission Meeting\nAmended Application Summary 777 Airport Boulevard Life Sciences Redevelopment Project\nExhibit (PDF)  // Letter (PDF)\nListing of Pending Administrative Matters\nNotice of Revised Date of Public Hearing for Bay Plan Amendment No. 3-17 – San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan (PDF)\n\nCommission Mailing July 14\, 2023\n\nDraft Minutes of June 15\, 2023 Hybrid Commission Meeting (PDF)\nStaff Report and Recommendation on Sediment Grant Facilitator Contract (PDF)\nSupplemental Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\nStaff Report and Recommendation on Sediment Grant Facilitator Contract (PDF)\nExhibits A and B (PDF)\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC\n\nIt will cost $110 billion to protect San Francisco Bay from rising sea levels\, new study shows\nThe Plan to Save New York From the Next Sandy Will Ruin the Waterfront. It Doesn’t Have To\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording\n				\nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/07/07-20-audio.mp3 \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs 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. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant 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. \nIf 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. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf 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. \nCampaign Contributions\nState 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. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings 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.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/july-20-2023-commission-meeting-2/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230706T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230706T170000
DTSTAMP:20231121T041652Z
CREATED:20230707T013156Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231121T041652Z
UID:10000040-1688648400-1688662800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:July 6\, 2023 Commission Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:Supplemental Materials\n				Commission Mailing June 23\, 2023 \n\nLetter to Commissioner Pat Burt regarding BCDC Guidance on Plant Selection (PDF)\nPublic Comment Letter (PDF)\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nShe lost her home. She doesn’t want to lose her city council seat\nThe Bay Area faces an imminent threat from sea level rise – but it’s different from what you think\nBiden\, in Palo Alto\, announces funding to fight climate change\nPenguins in Your Fridge? These 7-Year-Olds Have Climate Solutions\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				This report lists the administrative permit applications and minor amendments to the Suisun Marsh Local Protection Program that are pending with the Commission. Due to the cancellation of the meeting of July 6\, 2023\, and pursuant to Commission Regulation Section 10620(a)\, the Executive Director will take final action on these matters unless a Commissioner requests full Commission consideration by communicating with the staff prior to July 6\, 2023. In the absence of such a request\, the listed matters will be executed administratively on or after July 6\, 2023. \nAdministrative Permits Applications \nApplicant \nCalifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife2825 Cordelia Road #100Fairfield CA\, 94534 \nBCDC Marsh Development Permit Application No. M2023.006.00md \nFiled on 06/19/23 \n90th Day on 09/17/23 \nLocation \nIn the Commission’s Bay and Managed Wetlands jurisdictions and the Primary Management Area of the Suisun Marsh\, at Duck Clubs 515\, 516\, 518 and 535\, in Suisun City\, Solano County. \nDescription \nTo facilitate the management of managed wetlands habitats\, the California Waterfowl Association proposes the installation of three new water control structures on exterior levees and five water control structures on interior levees. The structures all consist of HDPE pipes\, flap gates and support structures. The project will result in approximately 23 cubic yards of fill over 319 square feet in the Bay and the Primary Management Area of the Suisun Marsh. The project will minimize adverse environmental effects to the Suisun Marsh and other Bay resources by working in the dry season (between March and September) during spring low tides or when the wetlands are fully drained to avoid any in-water work. \nTentative Staff Position \nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Rowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov \n\nMinor Amendments to Suisun Marsh Local Protection Program \nThe Commission has received the following minor amendment to the Suisun Marsh Local Protection Program for certification since the last listing. \nApplicant \nSuisun Resource Conservation District2516 Grizzly Island RoadSuisun City\, CA 94585 \nMinor Amendment to the Suisun Marsh Local Protection Program (BPA 1-23) \nDescription \nOn March 11\, 2022\, the Commission certified a major amendment to the Suisun Resource Conservation District (SRCD) Component of the Suisun Marsh Local Protection Program (LPP). The amendment included 121 updated Individual Ownership Adaptive Habitat Management Plans (IOAHMPs) for each privately-owned managed wetland within the Primary Management Area of the Suisun Marsh. To ensure these plans remain current\, SRCD tracks modifications to operations and updates plans on an ongoing basis. Annually\, SRCD will submit these minor amendments to the LPP for Commission certification. This listing is to notify the Commission that the Executive Director intends to certify the first such minor amendment to the SRCD component to the LPP\, submitted on May 19\, 2023. The amendment submitted by SRCD includes updates to facilities and operations on 34 privately-owned managed wetlands. Examples of activities described in the minor amendment include\, but are not limited to\, repairs\, replacements\, or upgrades to water control structures\, such as flaps and pipes. The activities described in the minor amendment consist of minor repairs and improvements to privately-owned managed wetland facilities and meet the requirements of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Sections 11210-11215. \nTentative Staff Position \nRecommend Certification Erik Buehmann; erik.buehmann@bcdc.ca.gov or 415/352-3645
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/july-6-2023-commission-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR