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:America/Los_Angeles BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:-0800 TZOFFSETTO:-0700 TZNAME:PDT DTSTART:20230312T100000 END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:-0700 TZOFFSETTO:-0800 TZNAME:PST DTSTART:20231105T090000 END:STANDARD BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:-0800 TZOFFSETTO:-0700 TZNAME:PDT DTSTART:20240310T100000 END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:-0700 TZOFFSETTO:-0800 TZNAME:PST DTSTART:20241103T090000 END:STANDARD BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:-0800 TZOFFSETTO:-0700 TZNAME:PDT DTSTART:20250309T100000 END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:-0700 TZOFFSETTO:-0800 TZNAME:PST DTSTART:20251102T090000 END:STANDARD BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:-0800 TZOFFSETTO:-0700 TZNAME:PDT DTSTART:20260308T100000 END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:-0700 TZOFFSETTO:-0800 TZNAME:PST DTSTART:20261101T090000 END:STANDARD BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:-0800 TZOFFSETTO:-0700 TZNAME:PDT DTSTART:20270314T100000 END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:-0700 TZOFFSETTO:-0800 TZNAME:PST DTSTART:20271107T090000 END:STANDARD END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:UTC BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:+0000 TZOFFSETTO:+0000 TZNAME:UTC DTSTART:20230101T000000 END:STANDARD END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20260826T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20260826T170000 DTSTAMP:20260727T162350Z CREATED:20251126T193143Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260727T162350Z UID:10000345-1787749200-1787763600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:August 26\, 2026 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/july-22-2026-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20260722T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20260722T170000 DTSTAMP:20260731T213302Z CREATED:20251126T192951Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260731T213302Z UID:10000344-1784725200-1784739600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:July 22\, 2026 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Engineering Criteria Review Board meeting will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\, as amended by SB 470 (2025). As may be specified in the meeting notice\, Board members may be located at non-public remote locations. A primary physical location\, at which BCDC staff will\, and Board members may be present\, is specified below and is publicly accessible. The Zoom video conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually are also specified below. \nPrimary physical location:Metro Center375 Beale Street\, Yerba Buena 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/84743588637?pwd=WaCuCk58umu8NuGsouFiNCX4X7zuNG.1 \nSee information on public participation \nMeeting ID: 847 4358 8637Passcode: 971095 \nTeleconference numbers:+1 408-961-3927 US+1 408-961-3928 US+1 408-961-3929 US1 855-758-1310 US Toll Free \nIf you call in by telephone:Press *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 and Meeting Procedure Review (5 minutes)\nPublic Comment for items not on the agenda (within BCDC ECRB Jurisdiction)\nStaff Updates (5 minutes) \nItem of Discussion: Strategy to Advance Flood Protection\, Ecosystems\, and Recreation along San Francisco Bay (SAFER Bay) Project; Pre-Application Review (120 minutes) The Board will hold its first review of the SAFER Bay Project\, which proposes coastal flood protection along approximately seven miles of San Mateo County shoreline between East Palo Alto and Redwood City. The Project is designed to meet FEMA accreditation requirements plus 3.5 feet of additional elevation for sea level rise\, using levees\, floodwalls\, and flood gates. At this meeting\, the Board will review four of the nine Project reaches – the South of Bay Road\, Substation and Marsh Restoration\, Tech Campus\, and Bayfront Expressway reaches\, as their designs have advanced sufficiently for meaningful review. The Project also includes habitat and trail improvements; however\, these do not raise safety of fill issues and are not being brought to the ECRB for review.[Makena Wong; Makena.Wong@bcdc.ca.gov]Staff Report // Coastal Hazard Analysis ESA //EPA 60% Plans SDE // EPA Basis of Design Report SDE // EPA Final Design Criteria Report SDE // EPA Geotechnical Data Report Geosyntec // MLPK 60% Plans S&W (Part 1 of 2) // MLPK 60% Plans S&W (Part 2 of 2) // MLPK Basis of Design Report S&W // MLPK Coastal Hydraulics Study FlowWest // MLPK ECRB Synopsis S&W // SAFER Bay Geotechnical Challenges HDR // EPA Prelim Geotechnical Report HDR // MLPK Geotechnical Data Report // Applicant Presentation\n Adjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Recording & Transcript\n \n  \nTranscript \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-22-2026-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting-2/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20260624T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20260624T170000 DTSTAMP:20260528T221720Z CREATED:20251126T192734Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260528T221720Z UID:10000343-1782306000-1782320400@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:June 24\, 2026 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/june-24-2026-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20260527T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20260527T170000 DTSTAMP:20260602T203131Z CREATED:20251126T192647Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260602T203131Z UID:10000342-1779886800-1779901200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:May 27\, 2026 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Engineering Criteria Review Board (ECRB) meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format. 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. \nPrimary physical location:Metro Center375 Beale Street\, Yerba Buena RoomSan Francisco\, CA 94105415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Webinar ID listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/82125911495?pwd=7x6JWo2rKauZyQf11MNl3alcJiDOTZ.1 \nSee information on public participation \nWebinar ID:821 2591 1495Passcode:118073 \nTeleconference Numbers:+1 408-961-3928 US+1 408-961-3929 US+1 408-961- 3927 US1 855-758-1310 US Toll Free \nIf you call in by telephone:Press *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 and Meeting Procedure Review (5 minutes)\nStaff Updates (20 minutes) \nBerkeley Water Transportation Pier Ferry Project\, City of Berkeley (Anticipated BCDC Major Permit in Pre-Application Phase) (90 minutes) The City of Berkeley proposes to construct a new ferry terminal on the Berkeley Waterfront\, in the general location of an existing pier that was used in the past for ferry service to San Francisco. The pier and ferry terminal are proposed for a 50-year design life\, and the key design aspects of the proposed project are the new pier\, ferry terminal and breakwater\, new and restored shoreline stabilization\, and some of the earth preparation immediately adjacent to the shoreline. Several elements of this project are not related to the Safety of Fills and will not be covered in the ECRB meeting. These include the landside improvements\, other than the shoreline retention; parking; dredging for the ferry service; and demolition of the current pier facilities. The Berkeley Water Transportation Pier Ferry Project was first presented to the ECRB on February 25\, 2026. At the conclusion of that meeting\, the City of Berkeley was asked to return to the ECRB to address specific geotechnical\, coastal and structural concerns. These included\, among other concerns: an examination of the pier stability based on the loadings that are likely to be required under ASCE 61-26 and the new California Building Code; the range of stabilities analyzed for the rock dike-pile interactions; re-examination of the wave heights and runup that are likely to occur at the Pier site based on newer references provided during the ECRB meeting; examination of wave loadings on the pier structure; examination of the project design for the intermediate-high sea level rise scenario through the end of the century; and design conditions and cumulative seismic loading for pile sleeves. These follow-up issues will be the focus of the May 27\, 2026\, ECRB meeting. The Board will advise BCDC staff and the Applicant as to the completeness of materials or additional studies\, analyses\, or actions to be undertaken\, if recommended\, to minimize the risk and consequences to pier and ferry terminal due to a seismic event\, overtopping\, erosion\, or sea level rise. The public may comment on the presentation at its conclusion.Staff Report // COWI Responses // Attachment No. 1a // Attachment No. 1b // Attachment No. 2 // Attachment No. 3 // Attachment No. 4 // Applicant Presentation // Public Comment 1 // Public Comment 2 // Public Comment 3 // Public Comment 4 // Public Comment 5\nTraining by Legal Staff on topics such as Conflict of Interest\, Ex Parte Communications\, and meeting formats (optional\, based on available time)\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \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-27-2026-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20260422T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20260422T170000 DTSTAMP:20260323T224107Z CREATED:20251126T192521Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260323T224107Z UID:10000341-1776862800-1776877200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:April 22\, 2026 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/april-22-2026-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20260325T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20260325T170000 DTSTAMP:20260303T192227Z CREATED:20251126T192400Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260303T192227Z UID:10000340-1774443600-1774458000@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:March 25\, 2026 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/march-25-2026-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20260225T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20260225T170000 DTSTAMP:20260306T230121Z CREATED:20251126T192235Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260306T230121Z UID:10000339-1772024400-1772038800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:February 25\, 2026 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Engineering Criteria Review Board (ECRB) meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format. 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. \nPrimary physical location \nMetro Center375 Beale Street\, Yerba Buena Conference RoomSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Webinar 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/83214693708?pwd=BxGIPqP1dydifugsiSRpa6w4vasba5.1 \nSee information on public participation \nWebinar ID\n\nWebinar ID832 1469 3708 \n\nPasscode\n\n600020\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Agenda\n \nCall to Order and Meeting Procedure Review (5 minutes)\nStaff Updates (10 minutes)\nInformation Item: Update on Status of ECRB Review of California Department of Berkeley Water Transportation Pier Project\, City of Berkeley (BCDC Preapplication Project). (145 minutes)\n\nThe City of Berkeley proposes to construct a new ferry terminal on the Berkeley Waterfront\, in the general location of an existing pier that was used in the past for ferry service to San Francisco.  The pier and ferry terminal are proposed for a 50-year design life\, and the key design aspects of the proposed project are the new pier\, ferry terminal and breakwater\, new shoreline stabilization\, and some of the earth preparation immediately adjacent to the shoreline. Several elements of this project are not related to the Safety of Fills and will not be covered in the ECRB meeting. These include the landside improvements\, other than the shoreline retention\, parking\, dredging for the ferry service and demolition of the current pier facilities. The Board will advise BCDC staff and the Applicant as to additional studies\, analyses\, or actions to be undertaken\, if recommended\, to minimize the risk and consequences to the bridge stability due to a seismic event\, overtopping\, erosion\, or sea level rise. The public may comment on the presentation at its conclusion. [Lesley Ewing; Lesley.Ewing@bcdc.ca.gov] \nApplicant Materials 1 / Applicant Materials 2 / Applicant Materials 3 / Applicant Materials 4 / Applicant Materials 5 / Applicant Materials 6 \nApplicant Presentation \nPublic Comment 1 // Public Comment 2 // Public Comment 3 // Public Comment 4 // Public Comment 5 // Public Comment 6 // Public Comment 7 // Public Comment 8 \n\n Adjournment\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/february-25-2026-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20260128T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20260128T170000 DTSTAMP:20251220T002237Z CREATED:20251126T191744Z LAST-MODIFIED:20251220T002237Z UID:10000338-1769605200-1769619600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:January 28\, 2026 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-28-2026-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20251217T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20251217T170000 DTSTAMP:20251113T174514Z CREATED:20240917T183904Z LAST-MODIFIED:20251113T174514Z UID:10000206-1765976400-1765990800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:December 17\, 2025 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/december-17-2025-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20251119T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20251119T170000 DTSTAMP:20251015T171951Z CREATED:20240917T183630Z LAST-MODIFIED:20251015T171951Z UID:10000205-1763557200-1763571600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:November 19\, 2025 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/november-19-2025-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20251022T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20251022T170000 DTSTAMP:20251002T222354Z CREATED:20240917T183517Z LAST-MODIFIED:20251002T222354Z UID:10000204-1761138000-1761152400@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:October 22\, 2025 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/october-22-2025-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250924T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250924T170000 DTSTAMP:20260518T210334Z CREATED:20240917T183328Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260518T210334Z UID:10000203-1758718800-1758733200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:September 24\, 2025 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Engineering Criteria Review Board (ECRB) meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format. 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. \nPrimary physical location \nMetro Center375 Beale Street\, Yerba Buena 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/81787102673?pwd=vN89JOKiVyJskSGrBrIgssveWc91dm.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (816) 423 4282Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID876 6976 0942 \nPasscode029929 \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 and Meeting Procedure Review (5 minutes)\nStaff Updates (5 minutes)\nItem of Discussion: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Tolay Creek Bridge Replacement Project (BCDC Pre-Application). (150 minutes)The Board will review criteria for the design of the Tolay Creek Bridge Replacement Project (the Project)\, Package 1 of the State Route (SR) 37 Sears Point and Mare Island Improvement Project. The bridge will be widened\, with a lane added to each direction of travel\, and lengthened from about 60 to 375 feet\, with corresponding excavation of material below the new bridge to widen the creek at that location. The Project is part of a larger program to add a lane to each side of SR37 between SR121 at Sear’s Point and the Mare Island Interchange\, approximately 10 miles of what is currently a two-lane highway (one lane in each direction). The Project’s purpose is to provide traffic congestion relief to improve traffic flow at peak travel times and increase vehicle occupancy. In addition\, the Project will replace and lengthen the Tolay Creek Bridge to allow for future restoration of the watershed. The Board will advise BCDC staff and the Applicant as to additional studies\, analyses\, or actions to be undertaken\, if recommended\, to minimize the risk and consequences to the bridge stability due to a seismic event\, overtopping\, erosion\, or sea level rise. The public may comment on the presentation at its conclusion.(Rowan Yelton) [415-352-3613; rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov]2025.06.05 Letter from ECRB // Caltrans Response // Exhibits // 2025.08.21 Second Letter from ECRB2025.08.29 Caltrans Response // Applicant Presentation\nAdjournment\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/september-24-2025-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250827T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250827T170000 DTSTAMP:20250814T005130Z CREATED:20240917T183056Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250814T005130Z UID:10000202-1756299600-1756314000@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:August 27\, 2025 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/august-27-2025-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250723T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250723T170000 DTSTAMP:20250527T214649Z CREATED:20240917T182914Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250527T214649Z UID:10000201-1753275600-1753290000@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:July 23\, 2025 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/july-23-2025-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250625T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250625T170000 DTSTAMP:20250527T214543Z CREATED:20240917T182802Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250527T214543Z UID:10000200-1750856400-1750870800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:June 25\, 2025 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/june-25-2025-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250521T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250521T170000 DTSTAMP:20250527T215446Z CREATED:20240917T182537Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250527T215446Z UID:10000199-1747832400-1747846800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:May 21\, 2025 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Engineering Criteria Review Board (ECRB) meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format. 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. \nPhysical location: \nMetro CenterYerba Buena Room\, First Floor375 Beale StreetSan Francisco415-352-3600 \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/87139837237?pwd=jXMO2QFdvrWEbONYeM6R1drVFiqgz8.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID871 3983 7237 \nPasscode633457 \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 and Meeting Procedure Review (5 minutes)\nStaff Updates (5 minutes)\nItem of Discussion: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Tolay Creek Bridge Replacement Project (BCDC Pre-Application). (150 minutes)The Board will review criteria for the design of the Tolay Creek Bridge Replacement Project (the Project)\, Package 1 of the State Route (SR) 37 Sears Point and Mare Island Improvement Project. The bridge will be widened\, with a lane added to each direction of travel\, and lengthened from about 60 to 375 feet\, with corresponding excavation of material below the new bridge to widen the creek at that location. The Project is part of a larger program to add a lane to each side of SR37 between SR121 at Sear’s Point and the Mare Island Interchange\, approximately 10 miles of what is currently a two-lane highway (one lane in each direction). The Project’s purpose is to provide traffic congestion relief to improve traffic flow at peak travel times and increase vehicle occupancy. In addition\, the Project will replace and lengthen Tolay Creek Bridge to allow for future restoration of the watershed. The Board will advise BCDC staff and the Applicant as to additional studies\, analyses\, or actions to be undertaken\, if recommended\, to minimize the risk and consequences to the bridge stability due to a seismic event\, overtopping\, erosion\, or sea level rise. The public may comment on the presentation at its conclusion. Applicant Presentation(Julie Garren) [415/352-3624; julie.garren@bcdc.ca.gov]\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Recording & Transcript\n \n \n\nTranscript\n\nYerba Buena SX80: So thank you\, everybody for your patience while we set up here in the Engineering Criteria Review Board. \nYerba Buena SX80: How’s everybody doing on the board? \nYerba Buena SX80: One’s all set up. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, it didn’t come down today\, I’m afraid. But there is water like\, right around the corner. \nYerba Buena SX80: alright\, I think we \nYerba Buena SX80: okay\, how’s everyone doing today? \nYerba Buena SX80: I’d like to welcome everybody \nYerba Buena SX80: to this meeting of the Bcdc. Engineering Criteria Review Board. \nYerba Buena SX80: This meeting will be recorded. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, good afternoon. Welcome to this hybrid in-person and online ecrb meeting. My name is Rod Iwashta. I’m chair of the Ecrb\, and I have a few announcements. \nYerba Buena SX80: Our 1st order of business is to call the role \nYerba Buena SX80: board members. Please use the microphones on the table to respond\, unmute yourselves to respond\, and then mute yourselves again after responding. Jen\, can you please call the roll? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yes\, Rod Iwashta\, chair of the board here. \nYerba Buena SX80: Jim French vice chair. I’m here\, Bob Natalia here\, Geema Kasali\, Chris may here. \nYerba Buena SX80: Ramin Goserki. \nYerba Buena SX80: He’s on vacation today. \nYerba Buena SX80: Nick Sittar. \nYerba Buena SX80: He’s also out \nYerba Buena SX80: team baby. If you’re late. I think he has a commencement exercise this morning. Oh\, okay\, that’s right. Gail Johnson. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know he’s on vacation. \nYerba Buena SX80: Patrick Ryan here. \nYerba Buena SX80: Those names here. \nYerba Buena SX80: Talia Travisoro. \nYerba Buena SX80: Here\, chair washta. We have a quorum of at least 5 present. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, thank you\, Jen. Since we have a quorum present\, we are duly constituted to conduct business. I now call the meeting to order \nYerba Buena SX80: I wanna start with some instructions on how we can best participate in this meeting so that it runs as smoothly as possible \nYerba Buena SX80: for board members. If you have a camera. Please make sure that it is on during the meeting. So everyone online can see you \nYerba Buena SX80: also board members. If you would like to speak during the meeting you may raise your actual hand or your virtual zoom hand\, whichever you prefer. Then\, when you speak\, turn on your microphone and please speak into the mic. So you can be heard clearly in the room \nYerba Buena SX80: every now and then we may have audio visual technology issues that require us to pause the meeting. So please be patient with us if it’s needed. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, a little bit about ex parte communications as set forth in Bcdc’s regulations. A member of the Ecrb shall not have any oral or written communication regarding a proposed project or other matter that has been noticed to be considered at an Ecrb meeting with a project proponent permit applicant\, prospective applicant or member of the public\, except on the record during an Ecrb meeting \nYerba Buena SX80: board members in case you have inadvertently forgotten to provide the staff with notice on any written or oral ex parte communications. I invite you to report on any such communications at this point by raising your hand and unmuting yourself. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay for the record. No hands have been raised. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? So now\, agenda\, item number 2\, \nYerba Buena SX80: we’ll have a staff update from senior engineer and board secretary\, Jen Hyman. \nYerba Buena SX80: Jen. Thank you. Chair washta. \nYerba Buena SX80: I just have a few announcements. Today we have one project to review on the agenda\, and I would prefer \nYerba Buena SX80: if we could finish. Try to finish up our meeting by 4 o’clock today. \nYerba Buena SX80: We currently have no future Ecrb meetings scheduled \nYerba Buena SX80: the next meetings would have been june 25th and July 30\, th and I have canceled those meetings. \nYerba Buena SX80: I am sad to report that this will be my last Ecrb meeting\, as I am resigning from Bcdc. It has been a pleasure and an honor to work with such an esteemed smart and fun group of people\, and I will treasure my time here. I plan to downshift a bit\, to spend more time with family over the summer. But I plan to this fall to jump back into an engineering role\, protecting and restoring San Francisco Bay. \nYerba Buena SX80: If needed. Rod knows how to get a hold of me. \nYerba Buena SX80: But you guys are awesome\, and it’s just been really fantastic working with you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Bcdc. Hopes to have a new senior engineer on board in August or September\, and the job posting should be up on our website in a week or 2\, \nYerba Buena SX80: and it’ll be posted for 3 weeks\, not very long. So if you know anybody civil or coastal engineer who could be interested in the senior engineering position\, please encourage them to apply and check the State of California\, Bcdc website for that job posting. \nYerba Buena SX80: Those are all my announcements. Well\, thanks\, Jen\, and I think I speak for the entire board when \nYerba Buena SX80: I say\, we’re gonna miss you working with you has been wonderful\, and thank you for hurting all of the cats and writing these wonderful skip scripts for me and handling all of the the pre work that has to get done to make these meetings run smoothly. I’m gonna miss you. Yeah. Anybody else have a few words. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, Jen\, it’s been a pleasure\, and I’m sorry you’re leaving. It was nice having you around. I was looking forward to you. \nYerba Buena SX80: helping Bcdc progress in their coastal engineering capabilities\, geomorphology\, restoration\, and all those things. \nYerba Buena SX80: So thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, there’s there’s a handful of adjectives that apply on dedicated and conscientious and insightful and \nYerba Buena SX80: motivated. It’s been great to be hard to replace. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, well\, thanks\, everybody. And thank you. Jen again\, you’re gonna miss you \nYerba Buena SX80: before we move on to the presentation. Are there any announcements from board members? \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? Hearing none. \nYerba Buena SX80: Let’s move to agenda. Item 3 Caltrans totally Creek Bridge replacement project \nYerba Buena SX80: Now we will move on to the main agenda. Item related to the anticipated. Permit application for the Caltrans\, Tolly Creek Bridge Replacement Project. \nYerba Buena SX80: which is phase one of the Highway 37 Sears Point to Mare Island Improvement Project during the presentation. It is fine for board members to ask brief\, clarifying questions. I hope you guys don’t mind \nYerba Buena SX80: and I would like to ask board members and presenters to please turn on your cameras for any discussion during or after the presentation. \nYerba Buena SX80: So\, Jen\, our Board secretary has a few words of introduction. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. Rod Caltrans is undertaking a priority project to widen the section of Highway 37 between Sears Point and Sonoma County and Mare Island\, near Vallejo\, in Solano County. If you’ve ever been on this section of highway? 37. You’ve probably experienced the terrible traffic which occurs here since the highway next down from 2 to one lane in each direction. Through this stretch of highway. 37. \nYerba Buena SX80: You’re reviewing the portion of phase\, one of the project that adds a small amount of fill in Bcdc’s Bay jurisdiction\, and that is the replacement of the Tolly Creek Bridge\, and to retaining walls right by it. \nYerba Buena SX80: Number 3 and Number 4. \nYerba Buena SX80: I mistakenly gave you the board materials that\, said 2 other retaining walls by the bridge were under review number 5 and Number 6. However\, these 2 retaining walls do not touch the Bay jurisdiction\, and therefore \nYerba Buena SX80: retaining walls 5 and 6 are not under Ecrb review. \nYerba Buena SX80: as Caltrans will explain\, besides helping make the highway safer and alleviate congestion. The other purpose of this project is to make the bridge longer \nYerba Buena SX80: and widen the creek at the bridge\, so that the creek will no longer be pinched by the small bridge. The wider Creek section here will allow a greater tidal prism upstream which will facilitate tidal marsh restoration projects planned upstream in Sonoma. County. \nYerba Buena SX80: I would like you all to know that Caltrans is required to follow specific design manuals and guidelines in their design of bridges\, so please keep that in mind as you review their design approach today. \nYerba Buena SX80: Lastly\, due to a tight timeline. For this project\, Caltrans is only presenting their design criteria today\, not their modeling results. \nYerba Buena SX80: It is the role of the Ecrb to review the design criteria to make sure the bridge and retaining retaining wall design will be adequately protective of public safety. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, thank you. Jen. \nYerba Buena SX80: Now the Caltrans team will make their technical presentations and pause for some Ecrb discussion after each topic. \nYerba Buena SX80: We will take public comments at the conclusion of the presentations. \nYerba Buena SX80: So\, Caltrans\, take it away. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. Chair one second while I share my screen. \nYerba Buena SX80: Alright. So good afternoon. Ecrb. My name is Javier Mendeville. I’m a regional project manager with Caltrans. \nYerba Buena SX80: and today I’ll be presenting on the Sr. 37 Sears point to Maryland Improvement Project \nYerba Buena SX80: sign. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’ll start off with some introductions. I’ve already introduced myself\, so I’ll continue on with the Caltrans group. Michael. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: Yeah. Hi\, this is Michael Bergman with Caltrans bridge design. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. Michael\, this. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. Hi\, this is Louis Chen\, with Caltrans bridge design. \nYerba Buena SX80: Olivia. \nCT-Design Olivier Mbatchou: Good afternoon\, Olivia. Hardware design. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you\, Olivia John. \nYerba Buena SX80: This is John Moore with Caltrans geotech design West. \nYerba Buena SX80: Peter. Peter Ray\, can I turn it to your technical detail with us. \nYerba Buena SX80: Jinping Lee is with hydraulics. I don’t think he was promoted as a panelist. Skylar wasn’t either skylar’s environmental planning. David also David’s our David Weber is our biologist. \nYerba Buena SX80: We can move on with Mcc. I don’t know if Kevin was at it\, either. Actually. \nYerba Buena SX80: Kevin Chen is my counterpart with Mcc. So we’re on an integrated Project delivery team. So he’s my co. Pm\, if you will. \nYerba Buena SX80: And Jeanette Wiseman is expected to come in in person a little later. But she’s the Sr. 37 corridor manager. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’ll continue on with Aecom. Gary. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Hello! I’m Gary shalin I did the hydraulic analysis for the Tilly Creek bridge. with aecom \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Brad\, Brad has led the drainage. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: I’ll let him introduce himself. \nBrad Mays\, AECOM: Thanks. Gary\, yeah. This is Brad Mays with aecom drainage. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. Brad Dylan. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, I’m Dylan backer. I’m an environmental\, an environmental planner with acom supporting the project on its Ceqa and Nepa documentation and environmental permitting. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you\, Dylan\, and I don’t believe Joy was added as panelists. But she’s a project engineer manager with acom. \nJoy Villafranca\, AECOM: Yeah\, I’m here. Javier. \nJoy Villafranca\, AECOM: Good afternoon\, Jordan Villafranco with. I’m the Consultant project engineering manager. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you\, Joy. \nYerba Buena SX80: Alright! Here’s our agenda\, so we’ll start off with the project overview\, and I’ll cover purpose and need and then we’ll go ahead and focus in on some of the key project elements which include Solar Creek Bridge replacement. Those 2 retaining walls that Jen mentioned earlier \nYerba Buena SX80: before we get started. I want to spend some time on talking about the program at a higher level. \nYerba Buena SX80: So this is a phase implementation slide that we use to describe or to explain our our near term versus long term projects. \nYerba Buena SX80: So just in case you’re not aware\, our long term program is based off of the results of a planning environmental linkages study which recommended raising most of 37 on elevated causeway. \nYerba Buena SX80: So we’re actively\, actively working on that right. Now\, we actually have one project that’s in the design phase over on the western end in Marin County\, where there’s recurring\, flooding currently. \nYerba Buena SX80: But as you can imagine that’s a big task. And it’s gonna take quite a while. We’re hoping to get all of this done by 2050. That’s when we’re expecting to put in the causeway where our \nYerba Buena SX80: the project that we’re talking about today. The interim project is Sears Point to my island. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. A big reason for that is\, is the high price tag and the extensive engineering work that needs to take place for that. \nYerba Buena SX80: At the same time\, we are working on interim projects. Here’s points. Maryland Improvement Project is one of them where we’re \nYerba Buena SX80: where where we will improve travel times and reliability by eliminating that bottleneck \nYerba Buena SX80: hopefully\, we’ll be able to incorporate transit and rideshare public access improvements and bailings. Restoration\, as I’ll describe in the slides. \nYerba Buena SX80: So the reason we’re doing these near term projects now is the public’s been asking for \nYerba Buena SX80: help addressing the congestion. They’re frustrated with it. So there’s a there’s a real need to deliver this project sooner than later\, instead of waiting until 2050 for the long term. \nYerba Buena SX80: All right. So this portion of the project which we call package number one proposes to replace Tully Creek Bridge and provide intersection improvements that will improve the traffic flows\, and address recurring congestion at the intersection. \nYerba Buena SX80: If you if you’ve been through here during peak traffic hours\, you you probably know what it’s like. You end up getting stuck at that intersection\, and you could end up missing multiple signal cycles. So the project will address the the backup in this area \nYerba Buena SX80: the bridge replacement was added to the project as a minimization measure. \nYerba Buena SX80: it’ll add about an acre of new tidal waters and species habitat from existing upland of the project\, and it’ll allow for increased tidal prison volumes that are currently constrained by engineering fill. I’ll show that in one of the slides that follows \nYerba Buena SX80: all right. So this here is a map of Bcd\, certain waterway jurisdiction \nYerba Buena SX80: and and our key project components so as you could see\, the the bridge replacement goes from like around here to here. So that’s \nYerba Buena SX80: partially overlaps Bcdc. Jurisdiction. And then there’s 2 retaining walls on the south side\, on the east and west ends of the bridge\, retaining Wall number 3 and retaining wall number 4 \nYerba Buena SX80: the 2 retaining walls. That aren’t a part of that aren’t in just Ecdc jurisdiction are up on the northern side. So there’s 1 right here\, and then there’s 1 on the other side of this levee here. \nYerba Buena SX80: that whole green strip the bridge. \nYerba Buena SX80: Excuse me\, no the bridge goes from. I don’t know how well you could see that\, but from right there. \nYerba Buena SX80: So where this levy is\, the next slide shows it a little better. The green strip in this image is where Vcg jurisdiction occurs in the project area. \nYerba Buena SX80: But there’s a little oh\, the existing bridge\, the existing bridge! \nYerba Buena SX80: I guess both questions. I mean\, I I got a better slide for that. \nYerba Buena SX80: So these are renderings of existing and proposed conditions \nYerba Buena SX80: the existing bridge is right here. It’s only about 60 feet long. If you’re driving along the highway you’ll barely notice it. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then our proposed structure will. We’re expecting will look something like this. It’s about 6 times longer over\, 6 times longer\, 375 feet. \nYerba Buena SX80: And \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, like\, I said\, we’re lengthening it from 60 feet to 375 feet\, and that’ll help with habitat restoration. \nYerba Buena SX80: Our our current. \nYerba Buena SX80: Oh\, I’m sorry. Can I just ask a quick question is the right photograph Photoshop. So that you’re just showing the new \nYerba Buena SX80: prism. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yes\, okay\, exactly. Thanks. \nYerba Buena SX80: All right. So the geometry on the proposed structure is constrained by these existing smart tracks over to the west of the approach. So our approach pretty much starts right after the smart tracks. If you’re going in the eastbound direction. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’re complying with highway design manual requirements\, and that’s pretty much driving the geometrics of the bridge. Let me let me re ask Rod’s question\, he asked. If you had photoshopped that shot. I think that \nYerba Buena SX80: all the water you’re showing in here is actually photographic water\, right? No. So you actually have filled that in with Photoshop and altered that image. So what we’re seeing here are visual simulations that were generated by the Caltran shop. So on the left. Most of that is an aerial image that’s existing conditions there. I think they added the rail line in there\, because that that train doesn’t run along that line right now. \nYerba Buena SX80: so on the image on the left\, that is essentially existing conditions\, without any alterations made to the image on the right it is showing the existing bridge removed and replaced with the new bridge being proposed\, and the waterway\, the channel\, and the Tule creek there. That is also a simulation. Assuming that watershed restoration that’s going to be done by others would be implemented there. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, got it? Thanks. \nYerba Buena SX80: right? So as you can see\, the creek flows are constrained by all this engineering fill in this area. If you see on the on the left hand side photo\, and the idea is\, once we replace the structure. We’ll be able to remove all of that\, and then eventually it’ll it’ll look something like this. \nYerba Buena SX80: Alright. So back to the geometrics. Our geometry\, our profile\, for the bridge is constrained by the smart tracks \nYerba Buena SX80: in order for the bridge to go higher\, the proposed structure to go higher\, we’d have to start the approach west of the tracks. \nYerba Buena SX80: But the railroad\, the the trains are are limited in the grade that they could climb to 1%. So if we were to raise \nYerba Buena SX80: the approach or the track set about for one foot\, we’d have to do a hundred feet of of track replacement on on either end\, so that would be completely out of the scope of the project. \nYerba Buena SX80: So that’s why the bridge geometry is the way it is\, and there will be a future slide that talks a little bit more about that. You probably will\, or somebody will need to raise smart in 2050\, I guess at the next stage of \nYerba Buena SX80: correct\, and we don’t know what that’s going to look like. They’re very early on their studies for project initiation. \nYerba Buena SX80: So they’re still working that out but once we find out what their proposal is\, we’ll be able to come in and and design our future facility accordingly. \nYerba Buena SX80: Alright\, and then \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m gonna talk a little bit about staging here\, but a future slide will show it in more detail. But since we have the photos here it might be helpful to see \nYerba Buena SX80: The the bridge will be replaced in 2 stages so we’ll require a temporary structure for a temporary bypass. \nYerba Buena SX80: Which will go over on the north hands northern side\, like around this area above the engineer fill\, and it’ll cross the existing solid creek. \nYerba Buena SX80: and this is just a different view of both the existing and the proposed. So\, as you can see\, the existing is very narrow\, 60 feet\, and then the proposed bridge will have 6 spans\, 375 feet\, and then we’ll remove all of this engineered fail \nYerba Buena SX80: in between the ends of the bridge. \nYerba Buena SX80: Alright! At this point I’ll hand it off over to Michael. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: Yeah. So this slide shows the. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: It shows the elevation view of the bridge. The bridge is going to be. As Javier mentioned 370 foot long\, 375 foot long\, and it’s going to be a precast \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: Precast pre-stress voided slab\, and it’s going to be a continuous superstructure. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: So we selected that superstructure type to meet the low profile and to still meet the minimum soffit elevation. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: we’re constrained. We’re constrained on one side of the bridge by the smart tracks as we’ll show in the previous slides. And so that kind of dictated what the profile looks like here. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: The abutments abutment one and 7 \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: are going to be seat type abutments founded on 4 foot diameter. Cidh piles \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: with secant piles in between the main structural piles for the abutments. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: and that allows for top down construction. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: The piers\, 2 through 6 have drop caps on 4 foot diameter. Civh\, pile extensions. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: The pilot extensions go up to the up to the bottom of the drop cap\, and they have a permanent steel casing. That extends with them. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: And then we’ll also be providing additional cap with here to to help with the fault. Rupture. That we have at the site \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: next slide. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: So this slide shows \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: it shows the plan view of the bridge\, and you can see you can see where the retaining walls tie into the bridge\, so the 2 retaining walls at the bottom here number 3 and number 4 that are highlighted. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: Those are the ones that are within the Bcdc. Jurisdiction. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: and then at the top\, there you can see\, retaining all 5\, which is not in the jurisdiction. \nYerba Buena SX80: And next slide can I ask a quick question. \nYerba Buena SX80: where does the fault trace track through? On plan? \nYerba Buena SX80: Approximately. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: That’s a a good question\, I think. Our our geotechnical engineers can help answer that. \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s John Moore. I I can’t tell you exactly\, but it’s it’s it’s under the. It’s under the current bridge right now. \nYerba Buena SX80: We have a report for it. It’s under the \nYerba Buena SX80: the current bridge. It’s under the existing short bridge. Yes. \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s my understanding. We we do have a report for it. \nYerba Buena SX80: We can forward that to you later on\, if if need be\, if you need to review it. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think they I think you have the report correct. Yes. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: Okay\, next slide. Javier. Okay\, so this\, this slide shows our sage construction. Just kind of give you a better idea of how \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: how we expect this\, or how the bridge is going to be built. So stage one A is to construct a detour with a temporary bridge that was mentioned. So the temporary bridge is only gonna span the existing creek\, which is 60 feet long. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: A problem\, you know\, plus or minus. And then the detour in that area is going to use the existing fill on the north end of the bridge \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: stage one B. Then would be to come in and construct the \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: the portion of the bridge you see on the right there and then. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: and also demo part of the existing bridge. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: and then stage 2 would be to shift traffic onto that new bridge\, remove the temporary detour and the temporary bridge\, and construct the left portion portion of the bridge shown there. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: Okay\, next slide. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: And then here’s a typical. \nYerba Buena SX80: Can I? Can I ask a question. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: Sure. Yeah\, thank you. When does the the excavation of the. \nYerba Buena SX80: Engineered fill that you were talking about happened\, is it? Is it? During \nYerba Buena SX80: stage one and 2? You’re also excavating the the the creek bed. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: So that would be\, I believe\, after the final final stage of the bridge. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: So so right now\, the way the bridge is designed is that it can. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: It can be constructed with with that fill in there. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: And that’s 1 of the reasons that casings were brought up on the on the columns to allow for exclamation afterwards. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. Thank you. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: Okay\, so this slide shows what type of retaining walls we’re using here. So retaining wall 3 is a secant pile wall \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: and then retaining Wall 4 and retain. Wall 4 is a type\, one wall on class 140 driven piles\, and then it’s going to use a lightweight fill behind the wall to allow to allow for a reduction in the settlement. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: and the lightweight fill is either going to be\, you know\, Eps blocks or cellular concrete next slide. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: So this one shows the design criteria that we’re using for the project. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: So for the bridge\, we’re going to be using the Ashto Lrft Bridge design specs. This is the 8th edition\, which is from 2\,017\, with the California amendments\, which were last Updated in June of 2024. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: We’re also gonna be using the standard plans and specs from Caltrans\, which are 2024\, with the revised standard Plans\, dated April 2025. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: The seismic design for the bridge is going to be done using seismic design criteria version 2.0\, which is from April 2019. And that’s \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: the cal\, the Caltrans criteria. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: And then\, for the fault rupture. The fault rupture report shows horizontal offset of 1.7 feet and a vertical offset of point 9 feet\, so that will be designed for with the bridge \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: on top of the our standard seismic design. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: We’re including dead load for one inch polyester concrete overlay. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: and then for the live load. We’re designing for our normal Hl. 93 trucks and our permit design loads \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: for the retaining walls. We’re using the same design criteria for \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: we’re using the Ashdo design criteria\, Lrfd. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: 8th edition\, and then the Caltrans standard plans and specs. And then this shows you know what the soil parameters look like. Look like for either the lightweight Eps box or the lightweight fill that we’ve been using \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: next slide. So this this slide shows \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: kind of shows a typical temporary bridge. So this is. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: you know\, the bridge is going to be selected by the contractor. But the bridge that we’ll be using to span Tolly Creek is going to be similar to this. So this one shown here is just an example. But it’s an Acro bridge. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: and it’s just a modular bridge that can be brought in and used for the temporary detour. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: Okay\, I’m gonna go ahead and turn it over to our geotech team. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hi\, this is John Moore again. This is a this slide shows the \nYerba Buena SX80: the layout of the of the new bridge. It’s hard to see\, but you see the abovements\, the vents. \nYerba Buena SX80: and some of the some of the existing borings that we we have \nYerba Buena SX80: as well as some of the some of the Borings and Cpds that we’ve done \nYerba Buena SX80: the next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: Our field investigation\, which ran from 2023 to 2025. \nYerba Buena SX80: We did 4 motor mud rotary wash soil borings up to about 162 feet. \nYerba Buena SX80: During that time we did field tests of standard patient penetration tests\, pocket pens. And then we also did. Additionally\, 8 comb penetration tests up to 119 feet in depth. \nYerba Buena SX80: and during those some of those Cpts we did 3 seismic measurements. \nYerba Buena SX80: and also\, in addition to that\, we did a review of as built logs of test points \nYerba Buena SX80: next slide\, please. \nYerba Buena SX80: Here you can see this is a plan view of the Cpts and the the borings that were performed \nYerba Buena SX80: along the this\, the center line. You can see here in the stationing the bridge\, John\, I have a question. All of these cpts and borings. \nYerba Buena SX80: our cpt-twenty\, 3 or r-twenty\, 3\, 2 slides earlier. Everything was dash 22. Are these a different collection of explorations? This is\, yeah. This would be a different collection of exploit. This is this is during our our actual investigation. \nYerba Buena SX80: the old\, the older slide. Just so. There’s no slides that composite both phases of investigation. We’ve got 2323\, \nYerba Buena SX80: I guess. Twenties. \nYerba Buena SX80: Can I say something? Yeah. Did \nYerba Buena SX80: 22. Is that we plan? We will be planning in 22. But actually during the 23. So cash number numberings\, which year starts or 23 and dash\, dash\, dash 0\, 0\, 1\, 0 0 2\, actually\, during. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: So in our Caltrans drilling Manual. \nYerba Buena SX80: we’re required to come up with a unique identifier for each boring and each Cpt \nYerba Buena SX80: and the discrepancy\, you see\, which I didn’t see is we originally planned to do the investigation in 22. \nYerba Buena SX80: That didn’t happen until 2324. And so those identifiers are updated to the year that that these boardings were performed. \nYerba Buena SX80: So so 23 dash 00\, 2 would be the same as 22 dash 00\, 2\, but 23 dash 00\, 2 is more like an as built location\, and 22 00\, 2 would have been. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, I mean\, I would have to go through each and every one to verify it with you. But yes\, okay. So it’s not actually 2 sets of data. It’s not one set of data that has different stages of it’s just different stages of engineering. Okay? Good enough. \nYerba Buena SX80: Next slide\, please. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, what we’ve you know\, this is kind of an overview. But what we found was that our fill thicknesses ranged from 3 to 10 feet \nYerba Buena SX80: prior below that we hit soft to soft clay soils. Younger bay. Mud \nYerba Buena SX80: from 34 to 60 feet in thickness. \nYerba Buena SX80: in mud\, increases from west to east. \nYerba Buena SX80: We also encounter\, stiff to hard clay soils\, with a few layers of medium dense to very dense sand \nYerba Buena SX80: within a consolidated bay mud \nYerba Buena SX80: below below young Bay mud up to the maximum depth drill\, which were\, what about 162 feet \nYerba Buena SX80: next slide the Fo. The following 9 slides \nYerba Buena SX80: are the actual cpts and lotbs. \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t know how much time you want to spend on these. But this is the \nYerba Buena SX80: this. These are the results of our geotechnical investigation. \nYerba Buena SX80: and that’s the ads built there. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then what this is. This is a representation. I mean\, we’re we’re we’re we’re focused on the Tolly Creek Bridge. So \nYerba Buena SX80: between station\, was it 202 50 \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s the Tole Creek Bridge. The rest of this \nYerba Buena SX80: display is includes our entire geotechnical investigation\, so that whole length is all of 37\, and our current bridge is that dense collection of explorations on the left hand quarter\, inch or so? Yes\, sir\, okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: but it it gives you an idea\, you know\, if you look at the the blue line is the ground surface the brown is the approximate bottom of the young bay mud. \nYerba Buena SX80: and the black line is the approximate termination of each\, each boring or each cpt. \nYerba Buena SX80: So it gives you an idea of the thickness of the bay mud out there. It’s pretty thick. \nYerba Buena SX80: May I ask a question about that? \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m sorry. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I understand the piles are gonna be deriving their capacity from the material below the Yang Bay mud. And ha! I saw that in the geotech report\, and has it been sufficiently characterized that there’s a sufficient depth? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, yes. \nYerba Buena SX80: okay\, just just noticing that there is like in some. For some cases the bottom of the boarding is very close to the bottom of the young demand. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yes\, I guess that’s where my comment goes. Yes. So we have appropriate depth of borings below the young V. MoD to characterize the material based on our calculations. Right? Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: 30 to 60. So\, and our boarding and Cpt went down to about 160 feet. There’s much below the pay mode \nYerba Buena SX80: we are looking. Look at a totally correct bridge. This just add a toll of the hill hillside\, you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: So thai side location I see. So it’s to the to the west\, to the west. Yes\, thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: So it should be sufficient to get to get capacity. \nYerba Buena SX80: So you’ve done preliminary calculations\, at least on your drill shaft capacities \nYerba Buena SX80: and estimated tip depths\, tip elevations for those\, and then you add a couple of pile diameters or 20 feet\, or how much? How far below the pile tips. Are you going for your explorations? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yes\, we did. Yes\, how much deeper than the tip elevations \nYerba Buena SX80: right now\, probably 30 or 40\, \nYerba Buena SX80: 30 or 40 feet below the tape below the tape. So 160 feet. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, total depth is maximum depth is 160 feet 62. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hmm! \nYerba Buena SX80: So it looks like you have one or 2 borings that go that deep\, I guess\, and another several others that go \nYerba Buena SX80: closer to yes\, not every reporting\, not every board didn’t go that deep. No. \nYerba Buena SX80: In addition\, we have the comb penetration tests \nYerba Buena SX80: which is calibrated against the borings \nYerba Buena SX80: because comb penetration test gives you soil behavior type\, where you actually get the actual soil. \nYerba Buena SX80: you can identify the soil from the borings themselves. \nYerba Buena SX80: But it looks like there’s only a couple of borings. I think that went down to 1\, 90 or so. That’s correct. And the Cpt is all stopped \nYerba Buena SX80: closer to the pilot elevations\, I think? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yes\, okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: I guess the question is\, you know\, geologically\, you observe any variations between. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know that deep orange that \nYerba Buena SX80: variations \nYerba Buena SX80: we look at the boarding seems that they are pretty consistent. You know. There’s a very clear cut of a line between Soft Bay MoD and Consolidated Bay MoD. In our judgment. We believe the layers will be similar along the bridges\, layout\, layout\, print or footprint or something. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? So I mean\, what’s the let’s open? \nYerba Buena SX80: Why\, it’s red on. Yeah. So you know\, I’m just. I’m just wondering whether you have a profile showing. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, where they are tipped in alluvium or some sort of bedrock. \nYerba Buena SX80: No\, we don’t have a specific for the Portuguese side. And \nYerba Buena SX80: those Arrow TV show in more detail \nYerba Buena SX80: of the world. What we encountered in the boring. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, let me go back here. \nYerba Buena SX80: Some of the all those uniques. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, you want someone to stop. \nYerba Buena SX80: Well. \nYerba Buena SX80: creating a lot of this stuff. \nYerba Buena SX80: Nice. \nYerba Buena SX80: This one goes down to a hundred 50\, or minus a hundred 50 feet. \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t know if we could zoom in on these or not \nYerba Buena SX80: how they can’t know \nYerba Buena SX80: you can with the Powerpoint. Wow! If you want to stand up at the back of the screen. \nYerba Buena SX80: I was just gonna point out the pocket pens. \nYerba Buena SX80: What? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. 4\, 4 and a half. \nYerba Buena SX80: 4 and a half\, 4 and a quarter 1\,000 square foot. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hmm! \nYerba Buena SX80: Oh\, should be should be sufficient \nYerba Buena SX80: next one. Yes. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, this this shows a a list of the different lab tests that were performed on the on the soils. \nYerba Buena SX80: You know your typical moisture\, content\, mechanical analysis\, or particle gradation. \nYerba Buena SX80: Attaberga limits for your plastic limit or for your plasticity\, index unconfined compression\, consolidation undrained triaxial consolidation and corrosion. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think in this presentation\, though you don’t have any information about the quantity of tests or about the actual values of the test results. \nYerba Buena SX80: We could give you that if you want it would. It would run probably about 50 pages into the into the presentation \nYerba Buena SX80: we’re evaluating\, I mean eventually\, whether it’s this stage or another meeting. The engineering criteria part of the engineering criteria doesn’t say\, Yeah\, we did. \nYerba Buena SX80: Atterberg limits. That means 2 of them. But they didn’t cover the right depths of\, and so on. So we’re we’d like to see. \nYerba Buena SX80: Not just you did atterberry limits\, or that you did \nYerba Buena SX80: triax tests\, or whatever you’ve done. But you’ve done a quantity\, and that they they’re representative. \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean\, we’re not doing a \nYerba Buena SX80: a peer review calculation. Re\, you know\, we’re not re retracing all of your calculations. But we like to be able to see the actual \nYerba Buena SX80: extensive data. \nYerba Buena SX80: We we can provide that values. \nYerba Buena SX80: We\, we were just \nYerba Buena SX80: trying to present an overview for this. It’s a lot of data\, but we’ll provide it for you. \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s fine. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thanks next. Okay. Finally\, the analysis and soil parameters. \nYerba Buena SX80: our site specific dynamic round response analysis for designed ars. That’s that’s for the bridges. \nYerba Buena SX80: the bridge\, younger Bay mud strength. 250 Psf consolidate Bay mud strengths range from a thousand to 4\,000 Psf. For the file pile. Foundation analysis. \nYerba Buena SX80: The respective geotech resistance factors used were 0 point 7 and one. They’ll be applied under static and seismic conditions. \nYerba Buena SX80: And we’re using shaft and a pile programs for the pile foundation analysis. \nYerba Buena SX80: And that’s shaft and apal are are standard in the industry. \nYerba Buena SX80: I believe they’re based on api criteria. \nYerba Buena SX80: Is there? Liquefaction\, assessment or slope stability assessments is is part of the analyses. \nYerba Buena SX80: There’s a basically soil. And below pay mud also mostly is a clay soil. There’s a notification issue. \nYerba Buena SX80: And maybe I’m not. I’m not a Geo. I’ll get. I’m not a geotech\, but I just \nYerba Buena SX80: would think that with young Bay mud there there could be slope stability issues as well\, no\, there are. The side are pretty flat. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: So alright \nYerba Buena SX80: rod jumped in a couple of questions I had planned. This is. This is a good a time as any\, perhaps. \nYerba Buena SX80: I in the Preliminary foundation report\, or whatever it was called. It says it’s all clay. \nYerba Buena SX80: No liquefaction. \nYerba Buena SX80: But I think what would be a little bit more standard that we would like to see is\, since you have a lot of cpts to just drop the cpts into something like clic \nYerba Buena SX80: and have clich. Make that determination. And then it’s just sort of an easy scan. It’s\, you know\, a couple of 100 bucks to buy C. Lick\, and it’s \nYerba Buena SX80: half an hour of effort to drop everything into clic and print out the results. And we have the Clc. We can do that for you. \nYerba Buena SX80: You have run it\, or you have not run it. I don’t know. I don’t think we’ve run it\, but we do have it no available\, we can run it. That’s fine. Yeah. So I think that it’s valuable to drop it in and have it scan. I mean we can get down there and stare at a whole lot of friction ratios and and sell behavior types and stuff. \nYerba Buena SX80: And say\, Well\, that looks. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know there’s a bump in the tip resistance\, and it looks like it’s probably pretty sandy. But I wonder how dirty it is. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s definitely easier\, and it’s just easy to drop it into Sea Lick\, and it does all that. \nYerba Buena SX80: There’s a lot of head scratching for you\, and lets you just jump jump to it and say\, and then\, granted\, there will be places probably that see\, Lick will say\, Yeah\, here’s a 18 inch thick layer that shows up as liquefiable. And Clix let let you put in thin layer corrections\, screenings? Yes. But then you can also \nYerba Buena SX80: jump on top of that and say\, Yeah\, you know\, we we think that it see\, look is showing. Look a file. But we think that it’s a discontinuous lens that’s not gonna have any impact on the design\, or whatever you know you use appropriate engineering judgment. \nYerba Buena SX80: But I think it makes sense to do that screening. Oh\, you’re correct. We’ll do it. \nYerba Buena SX80: Take. We’ll take care of it. Thanks. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: Jim\, did you have more more questions? You you asked also about \nYerba Buena SX80: slip stability. So everything is relatively flat. But it would be useful\, maybe\, to look at some details of you know everything is not completely flat\, because \nYerba Buena SX80: least wise. I think that the abutments you have some embankment slopes\, or you have some\, you know. Maybe you can screen everything out and say the maximum height slope is\, I mean\, there are slopes out there along the creek banks along the embankment sides. \nYerba Buena SX80: you might be able to say\, the maximum height of any slope is 8 feet\, and the \nYerba Buena SX80: the average inclination is on the order of 8 to one. \nYerba Buena SX80: Therefore we’ve not done any further analysis\, because we think that’s but but just saying that it’s flat is not\, quite\, strictly speaking\, true. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, I think we can write if we pull a retaining wall there and see what we will have. That’d be great. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: I have a few more questions on the geotechnicals items. \nYerba Buena SX80: If we’re staying with the jitter. Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: just a couple more questions. \nYerba Buena SX80: I was wondering\, are the pile lengths controlled by axial demands\, primarily or bilateral demands. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then a follow up question on those are you considering for the axial demands? \nYerba Buena SX80: Do you see any possibility for consolidation induced down dragging the young. And are you considering this \nYerba Buena SX80: for the lateral demands? Are you considering potentially cyclic degradation in the young Bay mud. As I see\, we’re in an area of very high seismicity. So maybe there is \nYerba Buena SX80: potential for the young Lima to \nYerba Buena SX80: lose some part of its strength. \nYerba Buena SX80: So 3 questions. Sorry\, all packed together. But and we can go one by one. I can repeat. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think so far. \nYerba Buena SX80: the vertical load. Control. Yes\, because of our pile up to about a 100 feet 110 feet long\, and I think lateral load only is on the top portion is only yeah. So vertical load is a control\, and down we haven’t include yet\, but if they need\, we can include it. \nYerba Buena SX80: because the top portion when we did a calculation. We don’t count too much pay model friction. \nYerba Buena SX80: We don’t count too much\, so that would that portion we can utilize for us. We haven’t finalized our report yet. So still. In the design phase\, we are working with design. So we still final 2 decisions for the foundation \nYerba Buena SX80: and other things for \nYerba Buena SX80: for the\, for the lateral. It’s about mainly the reinforcement\, and yes\, I think they will reduce some the strength will reduce some\, but usually for the soft material. You don’t see too much the strength already low. So we we use a 2 50 Epsf for our calculation. So even you \nYerba Buena SX80: down to half this is still very\, very low. We don’t count that much for pay model when we calculate a foundation to check the lines or something. File a cheap evaluation\, something. We don’t rely too much on the pay mode. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? Sure\, it’s low. But maybe the the lateral. It provides still some resistance\, and it’s increasing with depth. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I guess the comment would be\, maybe\, or at least assess. Or if you see that these effects are negligible. \nYerba Buena SX80: but I think it’s important to at least \nYerba Buena SX80: see if they are quantify\, quantify\, or assess. I think we can. We can give the reduce the strength to project design and let them look at it. I think we can do it \nYerba Buena SX80: to Piggyback. On that I guess the question would be. Were you counting on the day mode when you admin your lateral analysis. \nYerba Buena SX80: believe doesn’t matter how solved they always some lateral resistance. And I think we plan to use the K casing right Louis. \nYerba Buena SX80: are we going to casing? Right? So I still permanent casing? Yes. \nYerba Buena SX80: in the bay\, Matt section in the soft in the soft layers. Yes\, yeah\, we’re we’re planning to case that with a permanent casing. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? Good. \nYerba Buena SX80: That does permanent casing doesn’t affect lateral. It’s \nYerba Buena SX80: so I think the latter question\, yeah\, your lateral question has to do with soul not structural. Yeah. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: So for yeah\, our permanent casing from the design side is for structural. \nYerba Buena SX80: But your question refers to soil \nYerba Buena SX80: capacity. Lateral soil capacity within the within that soft payment layer. Correct? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, that essentially the bending and the pipe has been designed up with the appropriate lateral loads and the appropriate resistances. So if the resistance of the Yang is further reduced because of the earthquake heating\, and the resistance further reduces from the static peak. \nYerba Buena SX80: Has this been quantified\, or are you planning to quantify it and consider it in the \nYerba Buena SX80: in the lateral pile. Analysis. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think\, for the design of the bridge. Our information does come from the geotech\, so whatever soil \nYerba Buena SX80: parameters they dictate\, that’s. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, sufficient for our design requirements. That’s what we follow. So I think that’s probably a question for Peter and John. \nYerba Buena SX80: The behavior on their seismic\, you know. Yes\, okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: so. But I guess the question is\, what’s your \nYerba Buena SX80: incorporation of a steel casing in the subzone dictated by \nYerba Buena SX80: the moments that you were given by geotech. \nYerba Buena SX80: Oh. \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean\, I think that that’s part of our design analysis for for seismic a lot of our control at these\, with these soft soils is the lateral due to size and the seismic conditions. So it’s it’s really dictated by the analysis \nYerba Buena SX80: and design is currently ongoing. We do utilize the the sole profile for \nYerba Buena SX80: I guess\, for in this case will be the Pyz you’re referring to right the Sol Springs lateral soul springs. So we do utilize that information. \nYerba Buena SX80: to design our site for our seismic. And it’s a performance based seismic analysis. Right? So \nYerba Buena SX80: so your preliminary foundation report didn’t say anything about casing. I think it said as as Cidh \nYerba Buena SX80: but it sounds like you have casing going as deep as the bay mud\, but not \nYerba Buena SX80: to the bottom of the shaft. Is that correct? Yeah\, it does not end at the bottom of the shaft\, as I understand it now\, but it will go relatively deep. We’re in the design process now\, so we’ll make that final. So it’s kind of a hybrid E. Ciss Cidh. \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s we call it a CID for permanent casing. The Ci says\, will constitute method of installation\, too\, which is driving\, and we’re not \nYerba Buena SX80: like forcing the contract to drive the permanent casing. So the method of installation could be something other than driving if needed. We just needed to get down to whatever casing tip that is required\, based on our structural analysis. \nYerba Buena SX80: you mentioned in this slide here shaft and a pile. What do you? What software are you using for lateral analysis? \nYerba Buena SX80: Sorry. \nYerba Buena SX80: Can you repeat that question? Sorry. What software are you using for lateral analysis. \nYerba Buena SX80: Mike? You wanna go ahead and answer that sorry. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: Yeah. So so we’re using L pile to develop the py curves. And then for lateral analysis and the seismic design. We’re using Csi Bridge model the\, you know\, we. We model each frame \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: in the transverse and longitudinal direction. \nYerba Buena SX80: Let’s see. So I I think we’re at the end of the geotech presentation. Is that correct? \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s correct? If so\, let me let me back up and ask a couple of questions from earlier as well. \nYerba Buena SX80: or some of them\, I guess\, are right where we’re at now. Any load testing on the piles planned? \nYerba Buena SX80: No\, not this time. No. \nYerba Buena SX80: We let me preface that we might. We might do some restrikes for \nYerba Buena SX80: some of the piles for the retaining walls. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, that’s enough. 40 inch. That’s a that’s a big strike. I mean\, you can do a Stat stat namic load test potentially. Yeah\, you can do an O cell type of of \nYerba Buena SX80: bi-directional load testing. \nYerba Buena SX80: But so far nothing planned on that. \nYerba Buena SX80: Nothing planned\, no caltrans frequently with bigger bridges\, at least in bigger shafts\, likes to have. \nYerba Buena SX80: You know. One exploration per \nYerba Buena SX80: one expiration that goes at least 20 feet below\, or some some depth below tip of pile. \nYerba Buena SX80: at least at every bent\, if not at every major shaft. Do you have things going \nYerba Buena SX80: at the full depth at each bent you’ve got like 7\, 6\, or 7 spans\, I think\, which makes 7 or 8 vents. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’ve we’ve tried our our best to represent the beds\, but unfortunately \nYerba Buena SX80: we were relegated to drilling within the roadway itself. \nYerba Buena SX80: which is always fun. You know that that’s where we were restricted \nYerba Buena SX80: simply to the roadway. We could not go any further out \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s the best we could do\, considering the permit we got. You’re not getting full width of the beds. That’s why you’re getting at each bent. Yes. \nYerba Buena SX80: and at each bent you’re bent. You’re going to the some depth below anticipated tip elevations. It’s based on the on the loads presented presented to us at the time. \nYerba Buena SX80: I have one question\, I guess\, just to toss out. \nYerba Buena SX80: not as a ecrb comment\, probably not even as a geotech comment. But I think you’re classifying this as an ordinary bridge. \nYerba Buena SX80: Which means that on a major event it’s shut down for undetermined \nYerba Buena SX80: period of time. Seems like 37 being lost would be a pretty big event. I’m wondering if it needs to be higher than ordinary. \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s not a that’s not a ecrb review. You don’t really need to respond. It’s just I’m just thinking out loud. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, it’s well\, that’s up to somebody else higher than us to determine that. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, \nYerba Buena SX80: you said. I think in the foundation report that there is \nYerba Buena SX80: You’ve designed offset capacity for fault offset. \nYerba Buena SX80: What does that look like? \nYerba Buena SX80: And you have a 1.7 feet of horizontal offset\, I think. \nYerba Buena SX80: How is that being accommodated in the \nYerba Buena SX80: I I think Michael Bergman would would better answer that question than than myself. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: Yeah. So the fault offset is\, you know\, according to the report\, it’s gonna happen in the transverse direction. So that’s where we’re providing that extra width on top of the bank caps. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: The connection between the superstructure and the vent caps is meant to fuse at the higher offsets that we’re gonna see. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: So under standard you know\, earthquake displacement that we designed for \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: the connection between the superstructure and the drop caps would remain intact. But then\, once we get above\, you know that offset into the fault. Rupture offsets. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: we’re gonna have that fuse\, and the the superstructure is gonna be allowed to slide \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: where the bents you know\, would have that differential offset between them. \nYerba Buena SX80: So \nYerba Buena SX80: The current revision of the Alquis Priolo map shows a a \nYerba Buena SX80: queried or hidden alignment of the actual fault\, and then it gives the \nYerba Buena SX80: the hazard zone in yellow. I guess you’ve got some sort of accommodation that you’ve put in where the \nYerba Buena SX80: fault might be given the uncertainties of. I guess the Ap. Map is probably the best source right now. \nYerba Buena SX80: and you can accommodate that at \nYerba Buena SX80: any of the potential locations along there. I mean. It’s not that it’s just between Bench 3 and 4\, but it might be between 2 and 3\, or between 3 and 4\, between 4 and 5\, or I’m not sure. I mean you alluded earlier that you weren’t sure exactly where it came through here\, which is fine\, but at some point that if you’re trying to account for the offset. You have to know \nYerba Buena SX80: where the offset is occurring. I’m just wanting to ask that that’s been accounted for. The uncertainty and the fault alignment. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: Yes\, so it’s we have that extra. With that each of the peers to allow for that. Allow for that movement. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: From any of the any of the peer locations \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: and and the goal there is to prevent any unseating of the superstructure\, so it would be \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: be able to remain seated on top of those piers. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: For any of those situations that you mentioned. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, I think\, in addition to that\, just want to make a note that we are designing a continuous superstructure. So that it’s it’s not spam by spam\, but it’s it’s continuous from apartment to apartment. \nYerba Buena SX80: And so that’ll help the continuity and and just ensuring that our superstructure is fully supported. So so as a geotech\, my question is really not not trying to solve the structural issues for myself\, but just to say\, the offset could be here could be here could be here\, could be here. Can you\, with your continuous span \nYerba Buena SX80: continuous design\, accommodate that offset at any of those potential locations? Yes\, I I think that’s what. Yeah. And the answer is\, yes\, we are. \nYerba Buena SX80: I have a question then about maybe my final question here. The buoyancy of the can. I just ask a related question about the offset and go ahead. So we’ve talked about horizontal offset. I think you’ve also mentioned that there’s a potential for vertical offset as well\, and understanding. It wasn’t clear to me before \nYerba Buena SX80: that \nYerba Buena SX80: the deck is intended to be continuous span to span. How does the vertical component of that get accommodated as well? Or is there a repair consideration that factors into that? If the \nYerba Buena SX80: one foot of vertical has to occur. One of the intermediate stands. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: Yeah. So we\, I mean\, we always design\, you know\, for. And it’s basically a no collapse criteria\, right? So we allow damage in designated spots of the bridge. Typically for a normal standard. Ordinary bridge. We’re gonna let it we’re gonna assume hinges are gonna form in the columns. But with that vertical offset you know we have to look at it \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: for hinging in the superstructure\, and make sure that the the capacity of the superstructure can handle \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: any of that hinging there without having a significant\, you know\, collapse or anything like that. So the superstructure is being designed to handle that vertical offset which is definitely a challenge with these shorter spans\, however\, just based on the preliminary results that we’re looking at now\, it is possible to design for that. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. I see that it’s classified as a non standard bridge\, which I think triggers on your end. Additional project\, specific seismic design criteria and some peer review is that part of your processes ongoing as well? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. So I think the bridge is really classified as ordinary non-standard. And really the non-standard aspect of it is the fault rupture. That’s the only aspect that’s I think I also saw there was some high ductility demands. Yes\, so we’re yes\, that’s right. So we’re able to get a design exception\, increasing our ductility value from \nYerba Buena SX80: 5 to 8. And that was in consultation with our click engineering group. Okay\, yeah. So we were able to. And and part of the reason is because of the probability of fault rupture occurring \nYerba Buena SX80: in conjunction with seismic. We thought it would be beneficial to allow a higher ductility value. Based on our research. We understand that really our bridges are designed to actually perform much higher than what we’re actually designing for. So so we asked for that additional \nYerba Buena SX80: higher ductility to design our bridges from\, and that that approval was given by our departmental heads. \nYerba Buena SX80: So you’re considering that as as a concurrent load case of the \nYerba Buena SX80: the physical displacement offset plus yes\, the site\, the \nYerba Buena SX80: the the peak induced ground acceleration on the peak correct. So I think the part of the analysis is to do a ground shaking as well as a fault. Rupture combination. \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s part of the analysis that we’re actually running. Thank you. Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: so I have a question related to the fault displacement. The fault rupture report \nYerba Buena SX80: talks about the mapping uncertainty. Yes\, 43.5 meters. \nYerba Buena SX80: How is that accounted for in the design? \nYerba Buena SX80: I didn’t write that report\, so I I can’t give you a firm answer. But \nYerba Buena SX80: I can always ask and try to \nYerba Buena SX80: get get more information for you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, I’d have to talk to our geologist who wrote that. Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, I mean\, I I mean\, I am interpreting it as meaning that. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, if the fault is assumed to be along a certain alignment. It could be 43 point \nYerba Buena SX80: 5 feet off. \nYerba Buena SX80: You may be right. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, or it could be 20 feet off either way\, you know\, like a instead of \nYerba Buena SX80: you could have a width of 43 feet. Yeah\, or you could be 43 feet off this way or this way\, exactly 80 feet. Let’s say\, yeah. But somehow\, how would you? If that’s the case\, how would you incorporate that in your \nYerba Buena SX80: structurally? Yeah\, I think I think that question goes back the other gentleman’s question\, Are we design the fault rupture for each support location? And we are\, so\, I think\, based on the fault rupture report. It’s pretty much saying that the fault is going to be under our new bridge somewhere along\, you know\, within the entire width of sorry\, entire length of our bridge\, and it says that it’s perpendicular. I believe we’re pretty close to being perpendicular\, so we are designing all of our \nYerba Buena SX80: bridge element to withstand at every single support location. Yeah. So if that fall rupture\, let’s say\, happens between Piers 6 and 7\, we’re kind of for or between peers or apartment one and \nYerba Buena SX80: sorry about my 2\, then it’s also being accounted for. So\, anyway\, in between what about the abutment\, though\, I mean\, you know\, it could be \nYerba Buena SX80: beyond the abutness \nYerba Buena SX80: on the other side\, too\, if it’s beyond the bomb\, and then it’s just in the approaches. So it’s not\, you know. That’s that’s something on the roadway side. \nYerba Buena SX80: We don’t usually account for that on the bridge side\, but we. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, if and we do have an approach lab just to let you know. I believe we have a 30 foot approach lab on each side\, and hopefully\, that provides some sort of a ramp. Typically\, if that material. The approach fill does settle. Beyond that. I think it’s kind of a roadway prism. So we don’t handle that from a structural perspective or a bridge perspective. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? \nYerba Buena SX80: But I think I think in that report it does define that the fault rupture is occurring under the limits of the new proposed bridge. I believe. \nYerba Buena SX80: I believe that’s how it’s stated in that report. \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, I mean\, it’s it kind of puts in this thing about uncertainty. So \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s basically it could be 43.5 meters off. Still\, meters or feet meet us. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hmm. \nYerba Buena SX80: should we move on to the hydraulics portion? Yeah. Okay. One pretty minor comment. I think. Somewhere in the text you talk about \nYerba Buena SX80: stiff to hard clay soil\, with a few layers of medium dense to very dense sand \nYerba Buena SX80: parenthesis Consolidated Bay mud\, I think \nYerba Buena SX80: Consolidated Bay mud is probably an unusual terminology for the material that underlies the younger Bay mud. It’s just older alluvium. \nYerba Buena SX80: You’d always use the vernacular. Older Bay mud was older bay mud\, older bay mud\, or older bay clay has a specific designation that’s a very fine grain uniform\, right pretty clean silty\, you know. Very silty clay \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s different than all of the sandy\, yellowish brown material that you’ve been describing here. And it I don’t think that what you’ve described\, or what you’ve encountered\, is consistent with what is normally termed \nYerba Buena SX80: Old Bay Clay or Old Bay mud. Well\, we can always change the descriptions \nYerba Buena SX80: we can also rule that out with using select\, too\, in \nYerba Buena SX80: using the Cpt data\, we can look at that more\, if need be. It’s just that when you have old bay clay is typically a dark\, bluish gray. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: uniform\, pretty uniform clay\, silt\, silty clay. And I think that what you’ve described here is not really that. I think it’s a different formation. \nYerba Buena SX80: So check with the geologist. Maybe. Yeah\, we’ll check and see it. It doesn’t necessarily affect the design. I hate to say this\, but we were doing most of this at night. \nYerba Buena SX80: Little bit dark. Well\, if that’s true\, then you need to re-log it in the daylight and get the colors correct. \nYerba Buena SX80: We couldn’t drill during the day. I understand that\, but you need to reopen your samples during the day. We can always do that. If that’s an issue\, you need to get the colors right? Yeah\, I mean\, it makes a difference\, just because it can make a difference. Yes. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think these are older alluviums\, not \nYerba Buena SX80: old baked clay per se. Okay\, anyway\, I’ll check with our geologists. Yeah. So that that’s a minor question. I’m kind of intrigued\, though\, if you go back\, I think it’s slides 12 and 13. You have some stuff about the Eps. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah. So go. \nYerba Buena SX80: Let’s see\, I think I think slide 12. Maybe \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s gonna have. There go. We have some pictures of the Eps there the blocks\, and I’m trying to understand the dimensions on this. If you’re putting \nYerba Buena SX80: expanded polystyrene Styrofoam in there. It \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s a little bit buoyant. Right it weighs\, it weighs between half and 2 pounds per cubic foot. \nYerba Buena SX80: And it’s got substantial \nYerba Buena SX80: compressibility also. And I’m not. I’m I’m trying to understand in this cross section. Where is groundwater? Where is bay water? You know you’re not. I mean\, it looks kind of like you’re placing this down pretty close to to tidal depths. \nYerba Buena SX80: It it it doesn’t show it in that figure. But what we can do is we can. We can show in a \nYerba Buena SX80: subsequent figure that we can accommodate any \nYerba Buena SX80: any changes in groundwater by using a lightweight aggregate under that. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then we could the rest. We could place either lightweight\, sailor concrete\, or or the Eps block \nYerba Buena SX80: and then on the next stay next slide. I think you have an interesting \nYerba Buena SX80: Eps parameters. Phi equals 27. Gamma equals 35. I know somewhere you have an explanation that says this is a composite weight\, counting the Eps plus the soil above it. \nYerba Buena SX80: A little bit of a interesting non standard. \nYerba Buena SX80: Type of description. Eps doesn’t really have a fee angle\, whatever the strength is\, is kind of a funny\, compressible\, soft phenomenon. I know\, Caltrans\, you guys have used Eps a lot. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s pretty compressible. If you have a big\, thick layer\, maybe if it’s down deep enough. Your pressure bulb spreads everything out enough. But \nYerba Buena SX80: You know I’ve looked at trying to put this under caltrain rail\, and if you have\, you know\, 30 feet embankment. You’ll get a 4 inch compression every time the train goes over it. Sure. So I assume you guys have done this enough. You’re you’ve you’ve figured out the compressibility \nYerba Buena SX80: the compressibility\, for one thing\, but also the constructability is where I was looking for. There. \nYerba Buena SX80: That says\, you know\, if it rains the stuff float. If you fill up your excavation hole\, if the tide comes in\, if you have a king tide \nYerba Buena SX80: every everything floats \nYerba Buena SX80: Just wanted to make sure you guys got all that? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, I I understand what you’re saying. Right now\, we’re still design in design \nYerba Buena SX80: that that’s more of a concept. Right now\, I think we need to \nYerba Buena SX80: go back and and look at. Look at how things are gonna perform. Like I said\, I I think the lightweight aggregates gonna be \nYerba Buena SX80: part of the composite that we’re gonna put behind those retaining walls. In addition to like\, I said\, lightweight aggregate being 70 pounds a cubic foot\, or something like that. Something like that. Yeah\, dry density. Yeah. Which a wet density is \nYerba Buena SX80: 30 pounds higher than that right? So that’s gonna it’s gonna change with with the change in the elevation of the groundwater. Right? \nYerba Buena SX80: And that’s going to accommodate that that rise and fall. Okay\, so this is pretty conceptual at this point\, it’s more conceptual. Anything to add\, Peter. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, we’re still looking at how much power we will have\, and how much sickness will be required. Yes\, we’re still doing that right now. Just say either Eps blocks or lightweight shell or concrete something like that. And this Phi and C is just used for calculating Earth pressures. That’s average you will consider for planning\, but it’s used in calculating Earth pressures. I guess \nYerba Buena SX80: I can use it. Yes\, I already. Why\, you even give a fee angle or a \nYerba Buena SX80: for for this purpose. Yes\, what’s what’s listed here on? This is the pressure for the retaining wall. Yes. \nYerba Buena SX80: and I’ll just remind them to take sea level rise into account in your groundwater levels for the life of the project. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, I’m done. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. Another question. As long as we’re talking about the the abutments there and the foam. Can you describe one more time how the fault displacement is being accommodated. I heard you say that there’s extra width in the pile caps. \nYerba Buena SX80: Is there? Is there a joint at at the abutments \nYerba Buena SX80: between the deck and the abutment. Is that where that’s being accommodated? Or can you describe\, you put the picture of the abutment back up\, or or the elevation of the bridge. \nYerba Buena SX80: maybe the one \nYerba Buena SX80: or or the plan of the bridge. Yeah\, that’s a good one\, either of those 2. How? How? Where? Where is that being accommodated. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: Yeah. So the abutments are seat type abutments. And there’s \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: I I think I also didn’t mention there’s a extra width at the buttons as well for the bridge to be able to slide transversely. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: So at the abutments it sits on top of the bearing pad. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: Just a typical seat\, and then on the bank caps. There’s a joint between the drop cap and the if we go to the previous slide\, Javier. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: You can see it uses a drop cap where the continuous superstructure sits on top\, and then there’s there’s gonna be dowels between the drop cap and the superstructure that will fuse \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: at higher\, higher displacements. \nYerba Buena SX80: So when you say extra width\, the so in the transverse to bridge direction \nYerba Buena SX80: the pile\, the drop caps are are wider than the superstructure by 1.7 feet\, or whatever\, so that the abutment can move relative to the bridge deck. Once those dowels fuse. Is that what you’re saying? \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: Yeah\, that’s correct. So the the drop caps and the abutments\, are one foot 8 inches wider than \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: than the superstructure. So it would allow for that extra seat with for it to slide. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: for the the peers\, you know. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: Say the fault rupture happens right in the middle of the bridge for half the peers to shift that one foot 8 inches without without having any issues. \nYerba Buena SX80: And are there dowels at the abutments\, or only at the intermediate fence? \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: There’s only dowels at the bench\, at the piers. So at the abutments they’re sitting on top of bearing pads\, so it’s free to slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. So if if movement happens in the longitudinal to bridge direction\, what keeps the the bridge deck on the abutment. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: So in the longitudinal direction. The only displacement that we’re looking at is for just a standard earthquake. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: So in that direction the dowels that we’re designing are not? They’re not going to fuse \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: so just it would behave like a standard. Ordinary bridge. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. So the dowels only fuse in the transverse direction. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: Yes\, so the fault rupture report \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: shows that the the rupture is in the would be in the transverse direction. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. And what capacity do those fusing dowels have in the transverse direction after they fuse? Do they literally break? Or do they have a residual shear capacity. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: No\, once they break\, there’s no\, there’s no additional capacity. So you know there could be a repair done where you come in and you know\, dial back into the supports \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: through the deck. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. So once once dowels\, let’s say the the fault happens in the middle of the bridge. \nYerba Buena SX80: half of the bridge becomes disconnected from the abutments\, and those abutments are presumably wide enough that it won’t fall off. \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: Yes\, beyond that one foot 8 inches we have sheer keys in place to \nMichael Bergman\, Caltrans Bridge Design: so hold the superstructure in place like a how we would for our standard bridges. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: and and thank you for answering all our questions. \nYerba Buena SX80: Our pleasure. \nYerba Buena SX80: Alright. So Brad or Gary. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Hello! Gary\, shalin with a com and the hydraulic study aecom. Prepared a 2D heckras model of the \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: To Lake Creek area\, the\, in fact\, the entire marsh upstream north of Sr. 37 \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: and the lagoon downstream of the bridge. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: the bridge not being exactly on San Pablo Bay. It is some distance inland. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: the the modeling that we did included Sonoma Creek as well\, and the Napa River. The 2D modeling did not cover the entire watershed of \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Napa or Sonoma. We developed \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: hydrographs for those watersheds and input those into the 2D models at the marsh limits. Roughly\, the 2D model did cover the entire Toloy Creek watershed\, including the lake in the very upper part of the watershed that reduces some flow down \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: to the marsh. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: We found that there’s a significant peak reduction and totally creek flow at the railroad bridge roughly\, and the peak flows\, dissipate rapidly as it enters the marsh before it gets to the Tolay Creek Bridge. So the bridge design winds up being largely a tidally influenced design. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: I think we could probably. Oh\, cross sections here. It\, figure 29 is taken from our report. That’s the existing bridge section\, roughly 60 foot long bridge structure. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: With the existing ground survey below that the opening\, and then we have the wider 375 foot long bridge structure. In the lower right. This was based on preliminary \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: bridge design \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: When we did\, the modeling \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: and the structural design has evolved a bit since then. But since the superstructure of the bridge is above the high water mark. It doesn’t affect the hydraulic analysis. So we\, this is still useful in determining maximum water surface elevations and free board at the bridge. Okay\, let’s move on \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: sea level rise. Question our our modeling. We. We looked at that 12 different scenarios for existing condition \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: for future condition or post project condition\, and then for future condition that would include sea level rise. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: none of the analysis that we did in the 2D model included future Mars restoration. That might be a question for that. We relied on the previous \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Marsh Restoration report that was prepared by Esa to give us an idea of what some future Marsh Restoration project might look like. But it was not included. As part of our analysis here. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: So for that future condition that we’re designing to \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: we need to consider sea level rise and there was a significant change in California guidance on sea level rise from 2018 to 2024. We’re using the 2024 guidance now\, \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: and the previous lifespan of the bridge was \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: determined to be 2046 20 years after a 2026 completion date. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: That’s how that number was arrived at so we interpolated between the 2040 elevations and 2015 to determine \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: sea level rise. In addition. At at the 2050. I I will say that now it seems that we are moving more towards a 2050. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: But \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: timeframe for the bridge life rather than 2046 as we assumed in the design report. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: But for a 2050 sea level rise we can see from this table\, from the California State guidance. That \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: sea level may be as low as point 5 feet\, or as high as 1.3 feet. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: and depending on different forecasts of what the future might entail. For \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: design you have to select. Do a risk analysis on your structure and determine if it’s low\, intermediate\, low\, intermediate\, intermediate\, high or high. Based on the guidance. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: we’ve selected the intermediate range. So we’re talking about A sea level rise between point 6 in 2040 and point 8 in 2050 the intermediate is considered \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: most likely sea level rise. That terminology is used for that condition. And \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: The determination of risk is largely based on the lifespan\, and that’s where a low level of risk is associated with this project because it is expected to have a short life and be replaced. And therefore that’s where the intermediate selection for a more typical bridge that would have a longer life. You might move up to the intermediate high or even high \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: levels. But when discussions with Caltrans we’ve \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: zeroed in on the intermediate and a 2050 date of 0 point 8 sea level rise. In the \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: information to the left of the table. Here\, we show that we are basically starting with a 9.9 100 year maximum water surface elevation. And that is. \nYerba Buena SX80: Can we go? Sorry. Can we go back a little bit on the sea level rise since? I think some of \nYerba Buena SX80: what you have is potential like misinformation a little bit. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. Group. Yeah. So\, \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah. Point 8 would be the likely value for 2050. \nYerba Buena SX80: But the low and the intermediate low\, are extremely unlikely to occur. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Agreed. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. So it’s it’s either gonna be intermediate or higher\, that value. And you don’t select. \nYerba Buena SX80: You’re kind of talking about a timeframe to select for the lifespan of the project\, and intermixing that with risk across intermediate intermediate\, high and high. So you would think about the importance or criticality of your bridge to select between intermediate intermediate high and high \nYerba Buena SX80: and that’s independent of the lifespan of your bridge. So\, by selecting intermediate and 2050 which I know you selected 2046\, and earlier. Someone said they were hoping \nYerba Buena SX80: to complete the long term project by 2050\, which makes me think that it’s \nYerba Buena SX80: Not likely. And I know it’s gonna be expensive. So it’s hard to say\, like\, these assumptions would point to a a non-critical structure. If you’re selecting the intermediate and at at 2050\, so does that sound. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s a non\, I know from the geotech. It’s also a an ordinary bridge\, so does that allow it to fall into that. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s not a critical structure. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Yes\, \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: My idea is that the the risk assessment level\, which is part of the analysis necessary to determine the the appropriate \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: sea level rise for design based on the State guidance. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Does consider. \nYerba Buena SX80: The State guidance lists\, critical transportation corridors\, recommending using high. \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s what’s in the State guidance. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Yes\, agreed\, for for a typical \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: highway design bridge\, which has a a longer life than 20 years expected\, typically and. \nYerba Buena SX80: Again\, you’re we’re mixing up lifespan and criticality\, which are different things. Just you consider those completely\, separately. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Well\, \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: If I could read a statement from the guidance. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Therefore\, if an adaption action is part of a short lifespan adaptation pathway\, a development type that might otherwise fall into a higher risk. Aversion category could be considered low risk. In this situation low aversion projects could be resilient or resilient to the intermediate scenario. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: for an adaptive short lifespan in the range of 2050 to 2075. That’s from the guidance for the low risk aversion \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: in. \nYerba Buena SX80: And I would assume they are not talking about a highway. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Well\, it does mention \nYerba Buena SX80: There’s not a lot of difference between the values of point 8 and 1.3. So it is kind of semantics. But it’s. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Well\, yes. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: Throughout the throughout the analysis and the report\, it consistently airs on the low end of all numbers\, which is why \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m just bringing this up\, that it’s just the selection of point 8 rounding it down to point 7\, \nYerba Buena SX80: I think just might underestimate the criticality and importance of this structure\, because it is important enough that we are building a temporary bridge to build a temporary bridge to get to a long term solution\, which to me points to the fact that this is really an important project for this corridor. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, could I? Could I jump in? I you know\, Chris\, I thought those were really good comments. And I \nYerba Buena SX80: I agree with you. \nYerba Buena SX80: which leads me to to my question. I have kind of 2 basic questions while we’re on this \nYerba Buena SX80: is it. Could you raise the \nYerba Buena SX80: bridge a foot or 2 or no in your design? Could it be constructed a foot or 2 higher or no\, not without significant railroad work. So that’s really the constraint is matching grade\, vertical grade\, vertical curve with the railway? \nYerba Buena SX80: What about raising? \nYerba Buena SX80: What about raising 6 inches? Which is what Chris is talking about\, that if you use high for 20\, \nYerba Buena SX80: 47\, or whatever you’ve got \nYerba Buena SX80: high at 2050 would be 1.3 instead of point 7. If you round it down to \nYerba Buena SX80: the year 2047\, then maybe 1.3 becomes 1.2 instead of point 7 so 6 inches \nYerba Buena SX80: 6 inches still doesn’t fit with smart \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, or even just making it clear in the the hydraulic report. \nYerba Buena SX80: What the maximum elevation is that can be achieved based on the constraints. \nYerba Buena SX80: So that you’re making it clear. It’s not based on necessarily a sea level rise number or a water level. But for this project you have a significant constraint\, and then making it clear what that maximum \nYerba Buena SX80: kind of elevation is. That’s possible that I think would would be a better way\, I think\, to \nYerba Buena SX80: to document and defend the number. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think these are all really good points\, and I’m I’m thinking Gary is probably gonna get to the second half of the project. Assumptions. \nYerba Buena SX80: what those will kind of spell out is the assumptions that made by the project would actually accommodate the higher sea level\, rise even the high of 1.3 there they started with that maximum water elevation of 9.9 feet\, and our current mean higher high water out there is 6.4 2 right? So if we take that existing. \nYerba Buena SX80: add the Opc guidance of 1.3. \nYerba Buena SX80: Just the projects assumptions alone already accommodate that. And then they’ve taken wave height into that as well. So I think we want to clarify\, because I agree with what you’re saying about the report. And I I completely agree it wasn’t. \nYerba Buena SX80: It should have assumed the higher level\, I think. But I also believe that the project assumptions. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: We should move up to the interim high level? Or are you just saying that we should move up to 2050.8. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m saying that what was assumed to define the project soffit elevation already accommodates high. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, if I could jump in\, I think this is a really important discussion\, and I \nYerba Buena SX80: sorry to interrupt your presentation\, but I think this is \nYerba Buena SX80: important for us to get out before we run out of time. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I think that the point that Chris made was where I was gonna go. Is that really what’s constraining? This is the matching the grade at the railway. \nYerba Buena SX80: and you got the numbers to work. But you made some what I would consider non-conservative assumptions about sea level rise\, design criteria. \nYerba Buena SX80: and that’s what Chris is reacting to. And I agree. I agree with her on that \nYerba Buena SX80: and maybe that being. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Selection of intermediate for the sea level as opposed to the 2046\, 2050 controversy. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: I think it’s yeah. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: The interim high. \nYerba Buena SX80: The selection of the intermediate scenario\, instead of intermediate high or high scenario\, is dubious\, in our in my opinion. \nYerba Buena SX80: For a structure like this\, and I think \nYerba Buena SX80: that it’s not like you don’t believe in sea level rise\, or anything\, or necessarily misinterpreted the guidance. I think you had to match grade at the railway\, and that’s what I’m trying to understand. \nYerba Buena SX80: Fair. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Yeah\, yes. So we do have the constraint to the railroad. And we do have the \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: unusual short life span of the bridge in the factor. And again I go back to the guidance which says additionally\, the lifespan of a project or adaption action is a major factor in its risk profile. So it is a consideration in my mind. And again\, but again\, it’s very subjective whether or not. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: thank you. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Intermediate or intermediate. High should be used but it it is a factor in the analysis. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, that’s significant. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Factor. It seems. \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t think we want to get into an argument. I think we want to have a discussion. And I think we’ve we’ve covered this. I think there are other factors which I think we should get to before we. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Well\, yeah. Beyond this\, again\, we have moved into \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: using the point 8 rather than the 0 point 7 but that\, again\, is based more on the 2050 date as opposed to a shift towards interim high. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Okay? And. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you for that. I. The point one foot makes a difference. If I could ask some questions\, is that okay? \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Okay. Sure. \nYerba Buena SX80: Or do you? I mean\, do you feel like you’ve not answered my question about the \nYerba Buena SX80: the railway being a constraint\, I I don’t want to cut you off\, but it seems like we’ve we’re kind of go going over things more than once. \nYerba Buena SX80: can I can. I just ask real quick just on that point is\, is the bridge as high as it can possibly be given that constraint like\, is there another inch or 2 that you haven’t \nYerba Buena SX80: taken advantage of. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Is that directed at me\, or. \nYerba Buena SX80: Whoever knows the answer. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: I I will defer \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: to other members of our team who set the profile of the bridge and the constraint on the \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: the vertical. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: I just set the water surface. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’ve maximized the vertical elevation without doing any track work. It’s as high as it can go. Okay\, thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for that clear answer. I appreciate it. And and\, by the way\, I think it’s great that Caltrans is looking at State Route 37\, and I think it’s \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s nice to see the bridge being raised and the ecology and habitat being improved. So \nYerba Buena SX80: we’re just trying to get into the criteria and sea level rise criteria\, which is our job. \nYerba Buena SX80: I was a little confused about the term soffit\, and where the free board is measured to and from \nYerba Buena SX80: or 2\, I guess\, to the top \nYerba Buena SX80: the soffit I usually assume is the bottom of the deck\, and that maybe that’s a a pier or wharf kind of thing\, but \nYerba Buena SX80: I think the free board is measured to the \nYerba Buena SX80: top of the pile cap or the the beam. The transverse beam above the piles is but below the girders. Is that is that right? \nYerba Buena SX80: And the reason why I’m asking is because if the free board isn’t sufficient or the water level goes higher than the elevation. \nYerba Buena SX80: then I think the water is against the girders\, which means that there’s an increased load \nYerba Buena SX80: lateral load in the direction of flow. So I was just trying to understand that the \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, there’s a statement that the soffit elevation is 12.6 or higher \nYerba Buena SX80: Navd and I just was wanted to be clear is that the bottom of the deck or the top of the \nYerba Buena SX80: pile cap theme. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: That’s the bottom of the deck at the \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: The lowest point of the deck\, which tends to be not at the profile grade the center line of the road\, but at the face of the bridge\, either upstream or downstream\, depending on the width and the cross slope of the bridge. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: which you know\, tends to lower the grade from the profile grade of the bridge. So yes\, the free boards measured from the low cord of the bridge that extreme low elevation\, and in this case our bridge does slope up from the west end to the east end. So we do have more free board provided at the east end of the bridge\, the critical point being the \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: the bottom of the bridge deck superstructure at the west end of the bridge above\, up one. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, so\, but but the free board is is not measured to the soffit. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: To the software. Well\, the bottom of the deck versus the. \nYerba Buena SX80: Bottom of the girders\, which is. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: I don’t know. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Well\, we have slab girders. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: our slab deck and and that’s what we’re measuring from structures. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: Oh\, you don’t have girders. You have a a like a box girder deck. Okay\, I’m sorry that maybe that’s why I was confused. So it’s really the top of the transverse beam. The pile cap \nYerba Buena SX80: is what we’re talking about when we talk about so soffit or free board. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Right free board is not measured to the bottom of the pile cap the either the girders or the the box girders of the bridge are supported on the pile cap\, and it’s that \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: longitudinal surface on the bottom of the bridge that’s considered the low court of the bridge. That we measure preport to. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, so the soffit and the top of the pile caps are the same thing. Thank you. I I think I got that. Some of the drawings showed curves. \nYerba Buena SX80: so what are the implications of the water level being higher than the criteria that you have. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Well\, let’s run through the the numbers here a bit for a second. We’re starting with \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: a 9.900 year maximum water surface elevation which includes surge the bay. It’s basically the water surface elevation of San Pablo Bay. It’s not the elevation at the bridge which tends to be slightly lower because of the losses that take place as flow goes through the lagoon downstream and the channel. But because of the uncertain \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: restoration project of the future. We opted to just go with the the elevation of the bay as the controlling water surface\, even though our previous hydraulic modeling said it might be lower because of the losses through the lagoon. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: so 9.9 is our starting water surface. And again\, that’s taken from an ae Acom\, 2\,016. Analysis of the entire San Francisco Bay to establish extreme high waters. It includes surge. It does not include wave heights. We add a 1 foot wave crest to that \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: above that still water elevation. That’s not the total wave height. That’s just the elevation from the Stillwater to the crest of the wave\, and then we add \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: point 7.8 \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: 1.0 sea level. Rise to that\, and then we’d like to achieve a 1 foot free board above that to the low court. And that’s how we’re setting the minimum soffit elevation of the bridge. And it in in these numbers here. We’re still using the 0 point 7 2046 number for intermediate risk level. And \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: that set the soffit at 12.6 the current soffit at the west end\, the the low cord \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: of the bridge deck. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: The flat surface on the bottom of the bridge. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: That is at elevation 12.8 \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: so we have actually not one foot of free board. We have 1.2 feet of free board based on the point 7. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: If if we bump it up and say\, okay\, it could be point 8\, then we’ve got 1.1. We still have more than the one desired. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: We could go up to point 9 and still meet the desired free board of one foot \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: and at the east abutment rather than 1.2 feet of freeboard. I’m going back to the 0 point 7 foot sea level rise. We have 2 feet of freeboard. On the \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: east end of the bridge. So \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Considerably more \nYerba Buena SX80: And I think it would be really helpful in the report \nYerba Buena SX80: to present it that way. That \nYerba Buena SX80: your actual soffit top of pile cap elevations are. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, 12.8 at that lowest member \nYerba Buena SX80: and then show that you can meet up to X amount of sea level rise instead of trying to like\, build up with point 7. Since sea level rise \nYerba Buena SX80: or the water levels any of the different water levels you’re looking at are not like the primary design factor. It’s really that constraint of the rail. And you have the design. And it’s kind of showing what you’re able to accommodate\, I think\, would make it \nYerba Buena SX80: It would make it a I think\, a stronger report or a stronger defense for the approach. \nYerba Buena SX80: I also just wanted to comment\, and I’m you might be covering this on later slides. I think that the \nYerba Buena SX80: the one foot wave crest is taken from the fema study\, basically in part. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? So the in some of the Fema transect modeling over the marsh. \nYerba Buena SX80: it will list it instead of an ae 10\, it’ll list it as an ae 11 \nYerba Buena SX80: and so that’s where it’s not clear in the report\, but that’s where I was thinking you were getting\, you could have a 1 foot wave on top of that 1% still water elevation. But that’s actually not the way that ae 11 was calculated. If you look at all of the background information that’s \nYerba Buena SX80: with the fema study\, and I know I saw in the this is a draft of the report\, and it hasn’t been like signed and reviewed by Justin. And I think Justin Vandiver would catch that\, since he and I worked together on this fema study. So we’re very familiar with all of that analysis. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Yes\, the the base flood elevations on the firm show \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: elevations ranging from 10 to 11 and 12 throughout \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: the marsh area. The project area. And at \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Surprisingly odd locations\, I guess one might say on on. Why\, \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: In some cases elevations got up to 12 versus 11. In one area or 10. The base flood upstream of the bridge under existing conditions is 10 \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: and 11 on the downstream side. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: a little farther to the east that bumps up to 12 \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: and a lot of that is consideration of the \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: The potential wave heights the fetch length whether or not levees are overtopped or not. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: how sheltered they are! By levees! \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: The yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: Not. Marsh can help dissipate the wave energy or whether it’s you know\, deep enough that waves can regenerate. Yeah\, that’s why it \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, may look. It’s also \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Well the depth. I’m sorry I didn’t follow that. What was the. \nYerba Buena SX80: Oh\, the the wave analysis over all those transects also considered like marsh vegetation\, and how that could dissipate wave energy\, or if you had deep enough water to like regenerate waves. \nYerba Buena SX80: I would also highlight that it’s \nYerba Buena SX80: based on historical conditions between 1973 and 2\,004. So it’s not really representative of like today’s conditions. We saw much stronger winds\, bigger waves in 2022\, 2023 in a lot of places. So it’s \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s hard to rely on \nYerba Buena SX80: flood insurance rate maps for design\, and especially design criteria. But yeah\, and just wasn’t \nYerba Buena SX80: sure where the one foot wave crest. \nYerba Buena SX80: How that was defined \nYerba Buena SX80: I and my assumption was\, it was taken from like the fema maps between the Ae. 11 and the ae 10. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: We did do some wave fetch analysis. In fact\, we’re it’s still ongoing along the whole project to determine how much \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: rock\, slope\, protection or other erosion control measures are necessary along the roadway\, not just at the Lake Creek bridge. So yes\, we have calculated wave heights along there\, and they are \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: coming up between one and 2 feet typically and for this analysis that seemed to \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: correspond well with Fema’s previous assumption of bumping up a 10 base flood elevation to 11 in the neighborhood of the bridge. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Again\, it’s \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: little different with sea level rise\, considerations when depths increase and waves that might have break broke in shallow water can continue further inland. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: so that that all plays into the analysis. But we we have \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: perform some of that analysis again\, much of it’s subjective. \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s that’s great\, though. I’m glad that that’s being looked at. Yeah\, it just wasn’t documented in this in the report that we had to review. But yeah\, fema did county wide studies\, so they were not\, you know\, extremely detailed. The transects are pretty far apart\, so it’s good to know that you’re doing more more detailed analysis of the corridor and not just simply relying on Fema. So that’s great. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Okay? \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: So shall we continue then\, with the \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: or you want to stay on the sea level\, rise\, discussion or. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, I hadn’t finished my comments. But why don’t you go ahead and make your present complete your presentation\, and we’ll get into it. After that. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Backtrack a bit. Yeah\, down the road. Let’s \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: I think we beat this one to death. Let’s move on to the next slide. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: These are our future condition. Model scenarios. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: again\, this is largely based on caltrans criteria \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: in the highway design manual. There is a figure that shows that the north coast of San Pablo Bay is in a province that should be based on a design\, or should be designed based on the Pinole Point gauge\, which is on the south side of the bay. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: and so in this analysis we were using those number numbers for mean high high water and mean sea level\, and then adding a 2 foot surge to that \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: and then adding point 7 foot sea level\, rise on top of those numbers. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: there’s another figure within the highway design manual that suggests that \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: to determine a 100 year event. You don’t necessarily take 100 year rainfall and make it concurrent with the worst case. Extreme high tide. That’s a greater than 100 year event. So for 100 year. Precipitation we \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: match the peak flow into Lake Creek with mean sea level level. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: and consider that combination of events 100 year event\, and then for \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: a 50 year precipitation. We consider that against a mean high high water elevation\, starting point\, or \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: coincident elevation\, and that is\, even though it’s 50 year precipitation considered a hundred year event. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: and then for no precipitation\, you might have extreme high water\, 7.1 2\, and that is a hundred year events. So there’s 300 year events that we look at based on different combinations of precipitation and tide levels. And then we do a 50 year analysis as well\, the 50 year being the mean sea level\, and \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: the scenarios are similar for existing condition\, but without the sea level rise and then post project conditions. Similar to the existing but change in bridge length in the analysis. And then for scenarios 9 through 12. That’s where we add in sea level\, rise on the new bridge structure. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: So that’s a quick synopsis of the the 12 scenarios that were looked at in the 2D Hec Ras modeling but again pretty much all superseded by our later analysis of just going with \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: the extreme high water in San Pablo Bay\, \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: And making sure that we have enough free board above that elevation\, with sea level\, rise and wave action. \nYerba Buena SX80: Can I just ask a clarifying question\, so \nYerba Buena SX80: event\, frequency? Is that event frequency \nYerba Buena SX80: of the Stillwater elevation? Or is that event frequency of a coupled precipitation and. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: That’s. \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t want a little. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Combination of events. So 9\, 10 and 11 scenario are all considered to be a 100 year. Frequency\, event. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: the precipitation that takes place for those 3 scenarios is not 100 year. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: In every case it is in the 1st one scenario 9\, but only 50 year. Rainfall is assumed for scenario 10\, and then no precipitation for scenario 11. And then those. \nYerba Buena SX80: And what is the where are you getting the precipitation values? Are they from? Like Noah Atlas\, 14 or another data source. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Yes\, we the heckras model \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: within the 2D area\, we are using a rain on grid type of analysis. So we input rainfall based on Noaa Atlas\, 14 \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: frequencies. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: and then for Sonoma and Napa\, that’s a little bit different analysis. But again based on noaa rainfall. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, which is also historical and and quite out of date. I would note. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: So yeah. I. It does not account for a future climate change\, scenario. \nYerba Buena SX80: Correct. Yeah. And it’s \nYerba Buena SX80: It doesn’t account for like existing conditions. It’s still \nYerba Buena SX80: we’re unfortunately not going to get Noaa Atlas 15. Since the funding for that was cut again. But that would provide the update for today’s conditions and future conditions for precipitation. But we do have other information available in the Bay area to look at how to change Noa Atlas 14. But \nYerba Buena SX80: the tied up peak flow. What how did you decide on 2 feet of surge to add on to the \nYerba Buena SX80: The different water levels. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: The 2 feet of surge. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: We looked at \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: title records from other gauges in the area previous studies\, and it seemed like that was a \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: rather round 2 feet but a a reasonable value that got us into the ballpark of the \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: 9.9 elevation. Again\, this is a little bit lower\, because we’re following the Caltrans guidance of using Pinoli Point\, which has a a lower. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: extreme high water surface. But the 2 foot surge assumption is \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: a a kind of an average of other gauges in the neighborhood. And I think we discussed that \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: a little in greater detail in the report\, but \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: it is a very subjective number\, as well. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, that’s what scenario 11 looks like. It should be a hundred year. \nYerba Buena SX80: Considering like the 100 year event in the bay. So then it would be \nYerba Buena SX80: like the 9.9 point 9\, which already considers surge. And yeah\, so it’s. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Yes\, the the 7.1 2 \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: actually 7.1 2\, I believe\, was King tide \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: elevation that we had record for \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: gotta go back. We we looked at a lot of different number numbers. I must admit this is a few months ago. So \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: I would definitely recommend going back and reading the report to make sure. That what I’m saying here is completely accurate. And \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: to fully understand what all it includes. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, I admit that I struggled in reviewing the report because there is a there’s a lot of data presented a lot of fema data\, different tide gauge data. And so it’s hard. It was hard for me to wade through. \nYerba Buena SX80: What information was actually used\, and why so and there were also a lot of references cited\, but then there’s no reference list at the end\, so it was hard for me to kinda check sources\, so it would be great to add \nYerba Buena SX80: and like an upfront section that makes it really clear\, like what the design criteria is and and like where it was derived\, and. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Yes. Again the the report was prepared. Earlier in the design of the bridge and looking at possibilities\, and we recognize that we had \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: less than desirable free board for given scenarios\, and we were constrained with \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: the railroad tracks on the the roadway profile. So this was a report that looked at possibilities on you know what might be the best we could hope for or the worst. So we were looking at a lot of different \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: values and and guidance\, Fhwa and Caltrans and other documents. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: to establish what would be a reasonable number to design to \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: and yeah\, and admittedly\, it does become confusing as far as which numbers where they came from. And if when we update the report\, we’ll try. And \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: now that we have a a better bridge design and know\, and closer where we’re at\, we can \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: make it a little less confusing. Hopefully. \nYerba Buena SX80: That would be. That would be great. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Okay. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Oh\, shall we move on then? Or \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: the bridge profile here we show. I guess the the most important thing is the bottom soffit elevation of the bridge at the left side abutment one is 12.8 that’s our current design and 13.6 \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: and and that the best design that we have \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: today given the constraints of the profile\, the economics of the bridge and the the girdered deck thicknesses and where we think \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: future water surfaces might be\, and the desired free board. So this is where we are today again\, it’s been a moving target here. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: So let’s move on to the next one. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: This is just showing some figures from Fhwa design documents. We’ll start with the middle one in the center. This shows a bridge \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: that’s being loaded by a wave exceeding in this case the top of the bridge deck. And the big Black Arrow there are wave forces that tend to be induced under the structure\, the superstructure\, and in the lower right we see a graph of the how that load varies with the wave\, and we see that when the wave rises and hits the bottom of the deck. It tends to \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: slap the bottom of the deck a bit\, and you create this very high impact loading short duration. And \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: those are the things that we recognize are possible at the bridge. It\, and it is possible to design a bridge to be submerged. Under these conditions. But the \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: preferred method is to provide free board above the top of the \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: wave crest\, which is the lower left example and in this case\, Fhwa is providing guidance that the best method is to provide one foot of free board above\, below the girders to the wave crest that doesn’t include the pile cap. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: If you’re looking at the wave crest relative to the pile cap\, it looks like there’s no free board at all. But the free board is actually being measured to the low cord elevation\, the bottom of the girders\, and in this particular example it is girders as opposed to a box\, girder\, slab bridge. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Which is what we’re proposing. So you don’t have the individual girders projecting down from the deck. It’s more of a smooth\, flat concrete surface on the bottom of it. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Bridge deck between file caps. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: and again\, yeah\, the the lower left is how we’re trying to avoid the wave forces and the impact forces and again. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: the loading of the bridge would take. If it did occur\, it would happen 1st at the west end of the bridge. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: without being loaded at the east end of the bridge. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: unless wave heights got up another foot or so. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Okay\, let’s I I think that was the last one for me. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Next slide. Oh\, no\, we do. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: present some water surface elevations here. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: These were the results of our scenario 9\, 10\, and 11 and \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: the maximum discharge through the Tulay Creek bridge. We have negative discharges and positive discharges positive being in the downstream direction and negative in the upstream direction\, the tidal \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: flood\, as opposed to the the ebb. Then these either have precipitation included in the runoff. For the analysis or not the in the case. 11. It’s predominantly tidal. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: and the velocities through the bridge that resulted from our modeling were very low on the order of one foot per second. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Recognizing that that may change with Marsh Restoration project where the invert is lowered down to \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: potentially minus 8 and a half elevation\, and \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: more of a defined channel created. And we’ve looked at the velocities from the Esa analysis for that marsh restoration. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: But again\, that’s still I \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: bit of a moving target. We think in that that design has not really been finalized yet. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hey\, Gary\, can I? Can I ask you a question about this. \nYerba Buena SX80: So. \nYerba Buena SX80: this is probably this might not be a very intelligent question. But am I gathering that? Really it’s the coastal \nYerba Buena SX80: flood source that’s governing the maximum water level and the minimum clearance\, and not the fluvial flows \nYerba Buena SX80: in Tulay Creek. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Yes\, we have set it based on San Pablo Bay. Extreme tide elevations and sea level rise rather than the maximum water surface that resulted from our this analysis\, in which case the maximum water surface was 9.4 5 \nYerba Buena SX80: Oh\, okay\, yeah\, I think it would. That’s \nYerba Buena SX80: thanks for clarifying that\, I think. \nYerba Buena SX80: And the end. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Yeah\, the the 9.4 5 is based on the \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: 7.1 2 king tide plus the 2 foot of surge assumption plus the 0 point 7 foot sea level rise. So you know that number is also a number that. \nYerba Buena SX80: Is a little. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Fuzzy plus or minus couple of tenths. \nYerba Buena SX80: But but your your maximum fluvial flood level the tule Creek \nYerba Buena SX80: flood profile at the bridge. Elevation is less than the coastal flood source. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: I think. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think\, cause you use. You used a mean sea level. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Yeah\, the the 100 year precipitation against mean sea level. The maximum water surfaces at the bridge occurred \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: that occurred was the 8.9 5 \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: less than the situation where we had extreme tides in scenario 11 \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: but again scenario 11 also included losses through the to Lake Creek lagoon from the bay to the bridge. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: and those we decided to eliminate and say\, Let’s just go with the elevation and the bay. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, no\, I appreciate that. I know I appreciate that. And it’s just it’s a little funny to me that to hear that the water levels might be lower\, farther in. Normally on a stream\, channel. \nYerba Buena SX80: or title tidally influenced creek. \nYerba Buena SX80: The water level at the bay is the lowest\, and if there’s any flow. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yes. \nYerba Buena SX80: increasing flood profile water surface profile\, because they’re slow in the channel. So usually the water surface profile goes up as you go up the channel\, and not down\, and. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: That. \nYerba Buena SX80: There must be a constant\, a constant head for the bay that they set like away from the bridge. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, I don’t know but I it so it’s a little counterintuitive to me. Some of the things I read\, and I I’m not sure I \nYerba Buena SX80: well\, I follow it sufficiently to support the some of the statements. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Clarification. We don’t have a constant elevation in the bay. In this analysis we have a a tidal \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: profile. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: So we we have high tide. We have mean sea level. We have a low tide. We have a diurnal tide with different tide elevations within the model. So we are modeling the tide going up and down within the 24 h period. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: That the storm occurs at. The question is\, what’s the tide level at the time of the peak flow. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: and that’s where. \nYerba Buena SX80: And no\, I get that. But what I was talking about is\, what’s the tide level at the bridge? \nYerba Buena SX80: And I’m not. That’s what I’m not sure we know\, because the bridge is upstream \nYerba Buena SX80: from the bay\, and normally the water level goes up. When you go upstream. If there’s any flow it doesn’t go down. \nYerba Buena SX80: So that’s 1 thing I’m a little confused about. I’m not sure how significant those statements are in the report or to your design\, but that confuses me. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Well at the when. When the tide in the the bay goes up it it reaches the maximum tide elevation \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: and and that’s instantaneous\, and then it immediately starts to go down towards low tide. So when \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: the maximum water surface in the bay reaches that elevation\, what is the water surface in the marsh? Is it higher or lower? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, you should see. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Our analysis says that it’s slower\, that it hasn’t had time to equalize with the bay. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: No\, I\, still \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: flowing into the bay\, and you have a lower water surface. In the marsh\, I should not in the bay. \nYerba Buena SX80: Gary\, I understand what you’re saying\, and that’s. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: We see the lower water surface elevation at the bridge rather than what’s \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: The absolute high tide in the \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, hey? So\, Gary\, I understand what you’re saying\, and that that reinforces what I thought I read in the report. And what I’m telling you is\, I don’t think that makes sense to me. It doesn’t. It’s not something that I’ve observed. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: It is \nYerba Buena SX80: Water levels higher as you move up\, and I think part of it may be your starting conditions\, or perhaps running a continuous simulation where you do have runoff \nYerba Buena SX80: and you you usually end up getting a higher water level farther in. So let’s just leave it as that. At that that I have a. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: I would say. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: The typical hydraulic analysis. You would see water surface rise as you go upstream in in the channel when it gets impacted by a tidal situation. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Now\, you know\, you not only see water moving downstream at the bridge\, you see water moving upstream\, so it’s a different \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: situation. And in this particular instance we have a a very large \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: storage area in the marsh upstream of the bridge\, and that’s what’s really dissipating all of the flow \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: not only from to Lake Creek. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: but Sonoma and Napa\, which are all interconnected by \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: channels and slews and the impact of all of those flows. That’s what we wanted to \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: get a feel for by modeling Sonoma and Napa. I was concerned that Napa might have a significant influence. By the time it got over to to Lake Creek\, Esa’s modeling said\, No\, we we won’t even model Napa. We don’t. Our our experience is that Napa doesn’t have an effect. So we did try to \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: make sure we had all the bases covered and and understood what was going on\, but there is\, a lot of different combinations on timing. And but then you \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: got to. Also considered the the frequency of that event. And are you creating? \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: You know\, a a worst case nightmare. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Her gear can. \nYerba Buena SX80: Gary\, can we move on? Can we move on\, please? Yeah\, can we move on? I mean\, I’m I am somewhat familiar with that area. I was involved in the modeling and the restoration of the Napa Salt Ponds\, where we did model the entire Napa Sonoma Marsh complex. So I I do have some understanding of the situation. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: the velocity. \nYerba Buena SX80: Would you agree that Napa does not have a great influence? \nYerba Buena SX80: on Tolly Creek? Probably not\, but I do think the Sonoma Basin does\, and they are linked \nYerba Buena SX80: Sonoma Creek \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Agreed\, yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, can we move on? \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Yeah. Yes. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. So the table with the maximum velocity you have here of\, you know\, somewhere around a foot per second or less doesn’t appear to be an equilibrium velocity in a marsh in my experience through a creek channel\, and so I would expect that you would get sedimentation over time\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: so I’m not sure I believe these velocities\, and I think that \nYerba Buena SX80: perhaps Esa can help with the evolution of the system \nYerba Buena SX80: over time\, and and get a better feel for the\, for the velocities. There’s there’s still enough sediment floating around in the bay that if you have low velocities like this\, especially on extreme events that implies that the sediment from the bay \nYerba Buena SX80: we’ll get we’ll deposit and and the grades\, and you’ll get aggregation of the bed\, and then higher velocities until it reaches equilibrium. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: So I’m not sure I I believe these velocities as design. \nYerba Buena SX80: Conditions. \nYerba Buena SX80: So with that\, I’d like to go back to my question\, what what are the implications \nYerba Buena SX80: of water levels a foot or so or 2 higher\, then your design water level. \nYerba Buena SX80: What? What are the implications I can the bridge handle that structurally. \nYerba Buena SX80: Would the bridge be closed? \nYerba Buena SX80: Could it be repaired. What have you looked at that. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Oh. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: I guess I should defer to structures. I I do not believe we’ve looked at hydraulic loading on the bridge. Because of the \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: consideration that we’ve provided freeboard on the expected water surface elevations. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, well\, I\, the risk of water levels being higher than what you’ve computed or or used for design criteria\, I think\, is that risk is less than \nYerba Buena SX80: where it’s. It’s it’s a higher risk than I than I think is acceptable\, based on what I’ve seen. So it’s probably worth looking at that. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then how does what? What is the adaptation plan for? For the bridge at the end of it’s I think it’s like a 20 year life. \nYerba Buena SX80: And and you know\, with sea levels getting higher\, what? What is the adaptation plan for that? Is that \nYerba Buena SX80: determined yet? Or is there one. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Oh\, my God! \nYerba Buena SX80: Have you raised the bridge\, or. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Is it the the future bridge design. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. So your design bridge. Now for for what looks to be a sea level rise amount that’s less than tip would typically be used for this type of project. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Yeah\, we \nYerba Buena SX80: So what happened our report today? \nYerba Buena SX80: See? You. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Have not answered. \nYerba Buena SX80: Why is that? \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: That future project\, yet. \nYerba Buena SX80: You know\, often for permitting a a project like this. There’s a request for an adaptation plan. When \nYerba Buena SX80: the sea level rise criteria are likely to be exceeded. \nYerba Buena SX80: And the question is\, what happens next after they are exceeded. So that’s something that might be worth looking at as well as\, and I think within that you would look at what the implications of higher water levels are \nYerba Buena SX80: to the bridge structure\, to the facility operation. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: It’s it’s my understanding that the the future bridge is a much higher\, wider bridge \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: and and would probably involve modification of the railroad tracks at that point. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, thanks for that answer. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: And I I \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: I’m not committing to any design of that future project. That’s not what we’ve looked at at this point. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: at least not what I’ve looked at at this point. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I have some general comments in discussion that we can get to and \nYerba Buena SX80: So I I don’t think\, let me just check. I thought I had more questions. But \nYerba Buena SX80: this is taking too long. So \nYerba Buena SX80: I think\, what I’ll I’ll do is \nYerba Buena SX80: just check my questions real quickly. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, yeah. So those are all my questions. And hopefully\, we’ll have a discussion. The board will have a discussion. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Can we want to scroll down? Then one more\, are we? That’s it. Thank you. I guess I wrap it up. \nGary Sjelin\, Caltrans: Anyone else want to wrap \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, there’s there’s a a few things we we have to do. \nYerba Buena SX80: so thank you very much for your presentations. And thank you for answering our questions. Sounds like there is \nYerba Buena SX80: a bit of documentation or clarification that’s gonna have to happen. \nYerba Buena SX80: moving forward. So now we’ll go to public comment before concluding \nYerba Buena SX80: the Ecrb discussion. So for members of the public\, if you would like to speak today\, we request that you only provide comments or questions specific to the presentations given today. \nYerba Buena SX80: And if you would like to speak\, you will need to do so in one of 3 ways. \nYerba Buena SX80: If you are here in person\, please raise your hand so we can call on you\, at which time you may come forward to when we don’t have a lectern like we do have a lectern to speak. \nYerba Buena SX80: If you are attending on the Zoom Platform on your computer\, please raise your virtual hand in zoom. You may do this by clicking the hand at the bottom of your screen. \nYerba Buena SX80: and if you are attending via phone\, you must press Star 9 on your keypad\, to raise your hand to make a comment\, and star 6 to unmute or mute yourself. We will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order they are raised \nYerba Buena SX80: during the public comment period. \nYerba Buena SX80: Starting with anyone present in person. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: seeing none\, we’ll move on to the Zoom portion \nYerba Buena SX80: when called upon you will be unmuted\, so that you can share your comments. \nYerba Buena SX80: Please state your name and affiliation. At the beginning of your remarks you will have a limit of 3 min to speak \nYerba Buena SX80: as in any public meeting. Please keep your comments respectful. \nYerba Buena SX80: We are here to listen to everyone who wishes to address this meeting. \nYerba Buena SX80: but as always\, we ask that everyone act in a civil manner. \nYerba Buena SX80: Anyone who fails to show or to follow these guidelines\, or who exceeds the established 3 min limit without permission will be muted. Muted. Sorry. Rowan and Jen. Are there any hands raised? \nYerba Buena SX80: No\, okay\, no\, we don’t see any hands raised. Okay\, thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, so I think that’s the end of public comment. And now let’s \nYerba Buena SX80: return to board. Discussion. \nYerba Buena SX80: Where to start. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think we either start with hydraulics or geotechnical \nYerba Buena SX80: topics. Yeah. And well\, your microphone is on Bob. Let’s let’s\, is that okay\, yeah\, okay\, appreciate it. \nYerba Buena SX80: so it seems like the analysis relied on fema flood studies to to some extent. \nYerba Buena SX80: and that those flood studies were not \nYerba Buena SX80: completed for this purpose\, bridge design. \nYerba Buena SX80: Having said that\, I know there are codes that use the base flood\, elevation and the like\, but \nYerba Buena SX80: it seems to me that a project. Specific study really needs to be made. \nYerba Buena SX80: which you’re partly the Caltrans is partly into. \nYerba Buena SX80: And there was a a nice review of all the available information\, which \nYerba Buena SX80: was a little hard to follow\, and led me to believe that there’s a lot of uncertainty \nYerba Buena SX80: and what the water levels are. \nYerba Buena SX80: At the bridge location and what they will be. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I think a site specific analysis \nYerba Buena SX80: is needed\, and and I think maybe more than what’s been done is I would recommend more than what’s been done. \nYerba Buena SX80: One of the things I didn’t see was actual water level measurements. One of the 1st things I would do on any project \nYerba Buena SX80: would be to install a water level recorder\, get good vertical control \nYerba Buena SX80: with a land-based data and tied the local tied \nYerba Buena SX80: datums to that land datum control\, so that you know where \nYerba Buena SX80: your structure is relative to the tidal waters. Now\, that sounds like it’s something you can do by going online. But I can tell you. You can’t \nYerba Buena SX80: do it as well as I think you might want to \nYerba Buena SX80: for bridge design\, or even a March design\, which is more my experience. \nYerba Buena SX80: Further\, the tide information in the North Bay is not real strong. \nYerba Buena SX80: Sonoma Creek tide gauge was in for a while\, but it’s no longer operating \nYerba Buena SX80: the tide gauges don’t pick up some of the surges. \nYerba Buena SX80: and it’s not clear to me that the 2 foot surge estimate or selection. \nYerba Buena SX80: which I think\, was based on the tide. Gauges \nYerba Buena SX80: is adequate. One of the things we’ve seen in the North Bay and in other locations\, but in particular in the North Bay \nYerba Buena SX80: is that the wind and waves can set up the water level pretty high. \nYerba Buena SX80: and the tide gauges don’t often pick that up\, depending on where they’re located. \nYerba Buena SX80: depending on\, you know which way the wind’s blowing and where the gauge is\, and whether or not it’s \nYerba Buena SX80: in a deep channel or whatever. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I’m a little concerned that this extra surge\, due to high winds and wave. \nYerba Buena SX80: induce mass transport of the water \nYerba Buena SX80: maybe higher than the 2 feet that that’s been allowed. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I I would recommend that Caltrans. You know this project. Maybe it’s a little too late\, but I think for the Highway 37. Project Caltrans really needs to install some water level recorders. Get them tied in to a land-based vertical datum that you’re going to use for your your roadway \nYerba Buena SX80: and consider things like vertical and motion which has happened \nYerba Buena SX80: and may still be happening \nYerba Buena SX80: and then actually measure the water levels where you are because we have here not a separate \nYerba Buena SX80: fluvial runoff and a separate coastal \nYerba Buena SX80: flood. We have a compound or combined flooding situation. \nYerba Buena SX80: And it’s it’s a joint probability problem. The analysis done is what we call event selection\, which is something engineers do with their engineering judgment\, and those in responsible charge \nYerba Buena SX80: can do that. \nYerba Buena SX80: However\, nowadays\, with the ease of collecting data \nYerba Buena SX80: and the longer timeframes\, we have to kind of Bootstrap collected data to observe data elsewhere. \nYerba Buena SX80: We can get 30 years of time series relatively easily both real and synthetic \nYerba Buena SX80: And then with you have that\, you can actually start to compute 30 years or more\, you can compute the joint probability or actually the probability of the water level at a particular location. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I think a joint probability analysis building upon water level data \nYerba Buena SX80: is really needed for this highway corridor\, and the sooner Caltrans starts the better. So \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m I’m gonna recommend that it. It’s not that hard to do\, put in a tide\, gauge. \nYerba Buena SX80: tie it in to good control\, and measure these things\, and start to and and do that\, not just \nYerba Buena SX80: at Chile that do it at Sonoma. \nYerba Buena SX80: and maybe some of the intermediate slew. So you can really get a handle on how well your modeling is working\, and what the actual statistics are rather than rely on events\, event\, selection. \nYerba Buena SX80: Usually for event selection. I would use a hundred year fluvial and a 10 year bay water level and add\, surge the event. Selection parameters that were done for this project are a little lower than what I would have used\, and then I would also do a hundred year water level with a 1 to 10 year \nYerba Buena SX80: rainfall event. It’s so a little more conservative than what I saw here\, and I I wonder what the Sonoma \nYerba Buena SX80: County Water Agency Flood Manual says\, and maybe there’s some guidance that can be provided there. \nYerba Buena SX80: Further\, as Chris pointed out\, there is a future precipitation change with climate change. I know that you only have 20 year life. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m not an expert on this. I don’t know how much precipitation\, intensity\, and flow. Rates will increase. \nYerba Buena SX80: river flow\, rates will increase in this watershed in that timeframe. But again\, I think the Sonoma County \nYerba Buena SX80: Water Agency Manual might be helpful or other state resources. \nYerba Buena SX80: So\, in my opinion\, the analysis done is not really adequate for \nYerba Buena SX80: defining criteria and the criteria are kind of \nYerba Buena SX80: not real clear in this case. \nYerba Buena SX80: but I recognize that you have a project that you need to build. And I you know I support. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think it’s a good project\, and you have to match grade. \nYerba Buena SX80: But I think there is a risk \nYerba Buena SX80: that the water levels are high will be higher than your design at the design recurrence interval. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I think that’s that’s that’s my concern. And I don’t know if if Chris would like to \nYerba Buena SX80: correct me on anything or add to that because I really would appreciate her input \nYerba Buena SX80: okay\, I just wanted to. Yeah\, I \nYerba Buena SX80: thanks\, Bob\, for for your comments. \nYerba Buena SX80: what are the implications of having a water level \nYerba Buena SX80: higher than and like you were saying like\, What is\, what is that? Are you shutting down the roadway? Are you potentially damaging \nYerba Buena SX80: the bridge\, so that it’s unusable. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, for a significant amount of time after this event\, or is it? Oh\, we’ve we’re shutting it down while the tide is high. \nYerba Buena SX80: 4 h later tides out. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’re okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: And is that something that gets addressed in your your risk mitigation plan? \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, I could speak to the 1st part of your question. We’re currently facing that on the western side. I mean\, you’ve probably seen. So yeah\, we we end up closing the highway and and using a detour. Lately our field maintenance folks have gotten really good at preventing it using pumps. So we do have \nYerba Buena SX80: mitigation measures for that as far as the integrity of the bridge. I don’t know\, Louis. Could you speak to that? Or Michael? \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, I mean not really\, because we’re not designing for \nYerba Buena SX80: a title of wave action as \nYerba Buena SX80: recommended to us now\, based on hydraulic recommendation. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. Thank you\, Bob. I think you’ve covered some really great comments. I \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m glad to hear that you’re doing additional analysis than what was documented in the report. \nYerba Buena SX80: it sounds like this report is probably a a draft\, and out of date based on where you are today. So it would have been really helpful to review the analysis that’s actually been \nYerba Buena SX80: done today. I agree that the the combination of scenarios \nYerba Buena SX80: we’re all I think\, lower than what I would typically assess I didn’t see how the Bay water level elevation\, 100 year event of like 9.9 feet plus 0 point 7 feet\, like how that was used \nYerba Buena SX80: as like the Bay boundary condition in the Hecras or Hec. Hms. Modeling \nYerba Buena SX80: the highest one that I saw was 9.4 5 feet\, which was is significantly lower\, you know\, over a foot lower. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, there’s a lot of references in the report to the Fema data\, both for coastal and for riverine. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s not clear how all of that information was used. \nYerba Buena SX80: particularly for the riverine. There were often 3 different kind of Cfs values that could be \nYerba Buena SX80: in the different creeks\, including the fema value\, but no reference to what year that fema study was actually done\, because a lot of the riverine analysis is much more out of date than the coastal analysis. \nYerba Buena SX80: So yeah\, I kind of struggled when reviewing the report\, and it would be great to see it clarified\, and to frame it more in terms of that constraint at the rail\, and and looking at a broader range of scenarios to look at the risk on. If that water level is higher to frame it more based on a risk framing approach of like \nYerba Buena SX80: what’s that? \nYerba Buena SX80: What is the maximum sea level rise? You can accommodate under an actual 100 year event. And what is the risk? If we get things higher? \nYerba Buena SX80: I would definitely recommend trying to use existing precipitation conditions\, and kind of bumping up Noaa Atlas 14 for 2050\, so that you are kind of doing an apples to apples with sea level rise and precipitation. \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean\, it seems like your risk is primarily at that Western abutment. That’s your your low side and not along the whole bridge. So hopefully\, it’s not \nYerba Buena SX80: like too much work to consider \nYerba Buena SX80: And then I would also encourage to maybe also try and collect some wave data \nYerba Buena SX80: in addition to the water level information that Bob recommended. \nYerba Buena SX80: Particularly along this whole corridor. I think you’re going to have some wave issues and wave information is so limited in the bay. \nYerba Buena SX80: So a lot of all of these transit space models are \nYerba Buena SX80: probably wrong. They’re kind of best sketches. But\, like so far. Ocean\, San Francisco. Big business makes pretty small little wave buoys that you can deploy to collect wave measurements. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know a lot of places around the bay are starting to do that. So I think \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t think this information would be available to inform this project\, but it would definitely be\, I think\, really helpful to inform that that longer term project. So it is based on more real \nYerba Buena SX80: data. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, thank you\, Chris. Thank you. Bob. \nYerba Buena SX80: Do we have some more geotech comments or \nYerba Buena SX80: the logic comments we already kind of covered that\, or do you want to? Feels like we’re kind of summarizing our our comments here. Patrick has his hand up awesome. \nYerba Buena SX80: Oh\, Patrick\, yes. Sorry. Yeah. Okay. Well\, then\, let’s if there’s no geotechnical\, let’s let’s move. So I think there’s something to talk about\, geotechnical about. What are we going to ask them to do? Going forward in summary\, but nothing new that I have to add. Okay\, okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: we’ll we’ll get to. Yeah. We’ll we’ll summarize and get our comments in soon. Patrick. \nYerba Buena SX80: I I don’t think that we have sufficient information right now to evaluate the design criteria around the joints and fuses specifically and how those \nYerba Buena SX80: interact with the loading on on the lateral system of the bridge. You know the piles or the the vents themselves\, so I guess I would like to ask for additional information around that there are. There is at least the the fault\, displacement\, fault\, rupture\, displacement that you guys have discussed. I also see mention of fault creep that may or may not\, because of a slip rate of 9 a year \nYerba Buena SX80: that may or may not be adding creep to the site \nYerba Buena SX80: over the 20 year design life. There’s also the inertial loads that will happen during the earthquake. Possibly after the the rupture\, displacement has happened. So all of those things. How are you combining those? How are you \nYerba Buena SX80: addressing those at the joints and the fuses? And I don’t think that this board needs to\, you know\, review in detail necessarily\, the structural details of the joint or the fuse\, but I think it would be helpful. \nYerba Buena SX80: as we evaluate that criteria if you gave us at least a sample of you know a possible detail that you might use\, so that we can understand what happens to the fuse when it fuses in one direction. It doesn’t fuse in the other direction. \nYerba Buena SX80: Where exactly are the additional widths that you’ve given to the pile caps or the ledges. So I’d like to ask for sort of a clear description of of the design of the joints and the fuses\, and how that then impacts the loads on the piles. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, thank you. I see. Bill\, you have your hand up. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. And I think related to Patrick’s request. I had a \nYerba Buena SX80: a couple of follow up notes that I think would be helpful to see \nYerba Buena SX80: in any updated design criteria that we have to look at\, and I think. \nYerba Buena SX80: along the lines of what Patrick was requesting. I think it would be helpful. There’s some pretty significant components that I understand are driving the design\, the seismic design of the peers\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: the sizing of events to accommodate the seismic demands whether that’s \nYerba Buena SX80: the dynamic ground motion component that drives the inertial loads and also just the physical displacement of the fault rupture. \nYerba Buena SX80: And to that end I think it would be helpful to understand. I think the acceleration response spectra is a probabilistic \nYerba Buena SX80: hazard. But just to get any comment on that. It would be helpful to understand whether there’s a from a if that’s deaggregated\, what component of that hazard is driven by \nYerba Buena SX80: the Rogers Creek fault\, which is where the fault rupture is going to occur versus the other hazards contribute to that. And then\, in terms of the structural component demands when you’re looking at some of those big\, bigger \nYerba Buena SX80: ductility demands that you have requested an exception\, for that’s pushing from the typical\, I think\, of 5 to requesting 8. Because you’re looking at combined actions. It would be helpful to understand in the criteria\, roughly\, what proportion of that ductility demand on \nYerba Buena SX80: the \nYerba Buena SX80: The peers is coming from the seismic head or the the ground motion \nYerba Buena SX80: from the acceleration response. Spectrum versus the physical offset from the fault. Rupture. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think would be would be helpful. For for our understanding on the structural side of things. \nYerba Buena SX80: And I did have one other. \nYerba Buena SX80: And and I realize this is\, it sounds like this is outside of this\, the the scope of perhaps of what we ought to consider and what you on the design team side have considered. But I \nYerba Buena SX80: it was a question that came occurred to me as I started looking at the documentation presented\, and this was around the classification or the selection of ordinary. \nYerba Buena SX80: I am interested to understand. Along the length of \nYerba Buena SX80: route 37\, there are a number of bridges on the route. Are they all considered ordinary? Or are there other bridges along that route that are in the that are classified as recovery? Or \nYerba Buena SX80: there’s there’s very few\, I think\, in the Bay Area that are considered important. \nYerba Buena SX80: But it would just be helpful\, for certainly\, for my understanding of the context of the selection of ordinary for for the bridge \nYerba Buena SX80: for this workshop. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Just the comments it possible. Get all that information in writing is\, would that be possible? All the questions that you have put it down in writing\, so we can respond to it \nYerba Buena SX80: exactly per. \nYerba Buena SX80: The questions being asked. Yeah\, I’ll follow up with a written letter. And also this meeting’s being recorded. And it will\, the recording will be posted on our website. Yeah\, I just\, there’s a lot of technical information there. And we want to make sure we address it. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, okay\, thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. Well\, so\, Jim\, I think \nYerba Buena SX80: maybe now is the time for your your comments. Sure I can start. Yeah\, \nYerba Buena SX80: So just having again nothing that we haven’t talked about already\, I think \nYerba Buena SX80: I’ve been interested in seeing an update of your Eps or other lightweight fill \nYerba Buena SX80: parameters and design assumptions\, design approaches. How you’re handling that. \nYerba Buena SX80: And I think you also talked about providing \nYerba Buena SX80: some information about dimensions and construction sequences with respect to tides\, and so on\, making sure you’re not putting Eps below high tide level\, for instance\, whatever\, anyway. So just some construction approaches. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think it would be \nYerba Buena SX80: appropriate to provide a summary of a clic evaluation. \nYerba Buena SX80: Pretty straightforward. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m not anticipating there’s going to be any big problems that are going to show up there. \nYerba Buena SX80: I will be surprised if they’re not some liquefiable zones that C lick will say this is liquefiable\, and I think you need to respond to that. \nYerba Buena SX80: Not necessarily change your whole design\, but but but take a take a \nYerba Buena SX80: a serious look at it. \nYerba Buena SX80: Minor! It’s not gonna affect the design\, but I think you should relook at the the \nYerba Buena SX80: term Consolidated Bay mud. I think it’s an old. I think it’s an older alluvium \nYerba Buena SX80: And then I \nYerba Buena SX80: give us a little bit of approach. How you’re dealing with lateral analysis\, lateral pile analysis. I think we’ve talked about some lateral loads\, but just give us some L pile parameters\, or whatever you’re going to be doing on that. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then we talked about stability also. And again\, kind of like liquefaction\, not sure that stability or or lateral deformation is going to be an issue\, but I think it needs to be looked at a little more than just saying\, it’s flat. \nYerba Buena SX80: Does that make sense? Jutex? Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, that’s that’s that was my summary. Yeah. I mean\, I just wanted to talk about a couple of things. I mean\, there are reports. \nYerba Buena SX80: The foundation report is \nYerba Buena SX80: describe as a preliminary foundational report. So I’m anticipating that there would be a more detailed design level type report. Right? \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s correct. Okay? So you know\, hopefully. \nYerba Buena SX80: we’ll be able to see that in the foundation reports \nYerba Buena SX80: regarding ground motion it talks about. \nYerba Buena SX80: There’s going to be a ground response analysis. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think the spectrum that we have here is based on map. Spectrum. \nYerba Buena SX80: Right? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yes\, it’s based on our Caltrans ars. Okay? So you’ll be doing a ground response analysis type. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yes\, ground motion. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I think that would be \nYerba Buena SX80: good to see. I don’t know what the time is on all of these things. \nYerba Buena SX80: When are you supposed to issue a more detail geotechnical report? \nYerba Buena SX80: I think we have the size specific response. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think we did. Yeah\, okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: alright. So that would be good to see and then the final comment I have relates to the fault rupture reports. \nYerba Buena SX80: There’s a talk about this uncertainty with respect to the fall trees. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think maybe an explanation of what that means\, and the implication for the design. \nYerba Buena SX80: I will contact the geologists and get get a good explanation for you. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. There was a reference here to. \nYerba Buena SX80: You know how the medical offset is estimated. It seems to be based on \nYerba Buena SX80: displacement for 49\, 75 return period. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yes. So I mean that displacement is not mentioned the it mentioned the vertical offset. \nYerba Buena SX80: but I was thinking that the horizontal displacement was based on \nYerba Buena SX80: the 49\, 75\, or 10 period. \nYerba Buena SX80: Think that I’ll I’ll get clarification from the from the geologist that wrote the report \nYerba Buena SX80: address all the questions. Yeah. So if \nYerba Buena SX80: whether it’s related or not\, because I was taking 10% of the horizontal displacement\, and this \nYerba Buena SX80: less than what is stated here. So it will be good to know what the displacement for the 49 75 \nYerba Buena SX80: for the time period is\, we’ll take care of it. Alright. Thank you\, Zalia. Did you have? \nYerba Buena SX80: Let’s see one follow up question on the fault\, hazard and displacement\, and so building upon Patrick’s question on the longitudinal direction. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I was wondering you mentioned that the fault is essentially perpendicular to the alignment. Is it exactly perpendicular? And can can you provide information if there is any longitudinal component? Is it accommodate? Basically I think that’s given the uncertainty. That’s that’s my follow up comment on the fault. \nYerba Buena SX80: I can’t say myself like I said. I’ll have to get clarification from the geologist that wrote the report. So we’ll address your questions. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, I think in the report it did say is essentially transverse to the bridge\, to the new proposed bridge. Correct in the file in the fall rupture report. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, I think that’s what it says. That’s what it says. But given the uncertainty. So my comment essentially is that\, is there any uncertainty on the orientation with respect to the alignment? And is this taking consideration\, the design we can confirm? Well\, I will have to confirm that with the geologist that wrote the report. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I I think\, the bigger question is regardless of whether we think it’s exactly perpendicular to the bridge\, it’s not. \nYerba Buena SX80: And so is there some detailing in the bridge that accommodates a little bit of displacement in the longitudinal direction? And if so\, you know\, how much are you accommodating there? I think that’s what we’d be interested in. Yeah\, I think the important thing is that noting that our superstruct is continuous\, and we are increasing our band cap with. And really our guiding mechanism is a no collapse mechanism. \nYerba Buena SX80: So really\, even if that super does move\, due to fault\, rupture not exactly perpendicular\, we should still be able to support that right well. But you have a fuse that you said does not fuse in longitudinal direction it so if 2 2 adjacent abutments move closer together by some number of inches. \nYerba Buena SX80: and the deck will not\, and the deck\, and the non fusing fuses will not allow the tops of those abutments to move together\, you know. Has the has the abutment been designed with enough robustness that it can accommodate that. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, the abut. So so the so the important factor in the abutment is the overall seat with correct in order to for it to unseat. Is that what you’re referencing? I couldn’t hear what you said there. The overall\, what the overall seat with \nYerba Buena SX80: is the is the controlling factor\, not in the longitudinal direction. If the fuse does not yield in the longitudinal direction\, the extra width is not going to matter\, because the deck won’t move with respect to the pile Cap\, if I’m understanding this right? Yeah. So the fuse is is supposedly for the purpose of fall lecture. So when does when fall lecture does occur it will fuse right in the perpendicular to bridge direction. \nYerba Buena SX80: Correct\, we’re designing in the longitudinal direction\, you said. It does not fuse\, it does not. But the longitudinal well\, well\, we could probably explain that. But the longitudinal component it could be a partial to the transfers. We need to determine. We need to take a look at what the maximum \nYerba Buena SX80: controlling factors are for size\, because it’d be longitudinal or transfer. Yeah. And I think that’s what Kelly’s asking for. Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: I had one follow on to Jim’s Jim’s question about I think the pile Embedment criteria. I think you kind of covered it. But just I’d like some clarity on how you are selecting \nYerba Buena SX80: pile tip elevations\, you know. Given lateral \nYerba Buena SX80: loading plus the vertical I just \nYerba Buena SX80: I I guess I didn’t read that part of the report\, but if there’s some \nYerba Buena SX80: clarification that I can get\, I would I would appreciate that. \nYerba Buena SX80: What’s the exact question you’re asking\, how how are you \nYerba Buena SX80: selecting or figuring out what your pile tip elevation is. \nYerba Buena SX80: and describe the criteria. \nYerba Buena SX80: the pirate tip based on the load that we have. Yeah\, basically. So we use skin fraction and ignore the end bearing. So mostly\, we use a program shaft that we mentioned that. So we use a shaft program to calculate. \nYerba Buena SX80: Do you also check against the lateral the applied lateral? We provide the soil parameter to a bridge design\, they will run the lateral analysis using as high. Okay? And that confirms that \nYerba Buena SX80: the the vertical load tip elevation for specified elevation for construction. Okay\, yeah\, thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, so it sounds like there is a there are some clarifications and some extra information \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s required. And I guess the question to the\, to the board here is\, it is\, is it \nYerba Buena SX80: necessary to have another meeting to go through the clarifications and additional information? Or do you think that \nYerba Buena SX80: you know email or whatever you know\, the information provided and review by individuals is\, is adequate. \nYerba Buena SX80: Basically\, do we need another meeting to to to consider this \nYerba Buena SX80: 1. 1 thing I would say is\, it sounded like the comments came from all 3 disciplines\, and it’s \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s cumbersome to handle that in a subcommittee format. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, Jim\, you were. Gonna say\, I think that I think there’s enough \nYerba Buena SX80: still open questions related to design criteria that it makes sense for us to look at it again. \nYerba Buena SX80: Anybody anybody on the board disagree? Yeah. Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: okay\, so\, Jen\, I’m sorry to do that to you. But do we need to make a motion for that recommendation? Yeah\, yeah\, I think that I would move that we request that Caltrans return to provide responses to the questions that we’ve raised. Second\, can I\, before you vote? Can I just check in with Caltrans to see if that’s \nYerba Buena SX80: if that can work with their schedule. Do you know that can work with your schedule to come back with \nYerba Buena SX80: with to present some of the questions they’re asking for information on? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. Okay\, when we anticipate the next meeting to be scheduled. \nYerba Buena SX80: just canceled June\, July. So we have August. \nYerba Buena SX80: You could potentially uncancell those. I think right. I could potentially uncancell them. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, we typically have a standing space held each month\, excepting December and \nYerba Buena SX80: sometimes August for Christmas summer holidays. Okay? So when and when would we anticipate getting a summary of the comments that were presented \nYerba Buena SX80: by the by the board today? \nYerba Buena SX80: In a week? Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: I guess I would turn to the team here and ask like\, how fast can we respond? Knowing what we kind of have a preview of what those comments are gonna be. \nYerba Buena SX80: would we be able to get a response written back and then be able to summarize that within July. \nYerba Buena SX80: August timeframe? \nYerba Buena SX80: See how it is for me. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: cause we would want to have the materials. You know\, 3 or 4 weeks ahead of time\, too. \nYerba Buena SX80: I I wouldn’t know that I would anticipate submitting a permit application before that time. So if that’s okay with\, I think I don’t know Brown\, if it’s you or Julie that would be mainly handling as the analysts. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know our anticipation is that you would be getting an application \nYerba Buena SX80: concurrent with our response to the the Ecrb\, and if that’s acceptable to Ecdc\, then\, I think. \nYerba Buena SX80: move on that pathway. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, we we have Ecrb meetings many times after permits are submitted. Applications are submitted. \nYerba Buena SX80: So you’re probably submitting the application in July. \nYerba Buena SX80: Soon as we get all the design details pinned down\, I can finish my impact analysis for you. I mean\, as soon as I can. There’s there’s a few \nYerba Buena SX80: there’s a few things that I’m still trying to think about. So\, okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: okay\, so we have a motion and a second to \nYerba Buena SX80: ask Caltrans to come back again and and present clarifications and information for Toll Lake Creek Bridge. \nYerba Buena SX80: all those in favor. Aye\, aye\, any opposed? \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, so that motion carries okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: that concludes the Board’s consideration of the topic for today. \nYerba Buena SX80: So that concludes our meeting agenda\, and I would entertain a motion to adjourn. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s moved. Second\, okay\, it’s been moved and seconded that we adjourn. \nYerba Buena SX80: I would maybe suggest that we we all again thank Jen\, for we we adjourn\, and you know\, appreciation of Jen and all of the \nYerba Buena SX80: the work and effort that she’s put in to help us move forward smoothly. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, so anyway. Yeah. Thank you. Jen\, okay\, all those in favor. \nYerba Buena SX80: Aye\, aye\, any opposed? \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, we are adjourned. Thank you. And have a very good rest of your day. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: And we get out. Yeah.\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-21-2025-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250326T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250326T170000 DTSTAMP:20240917T181641Z CREATED:20240917T181641Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240917T181641Z UID:10000197-1742994000-1743008400@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:March 26\, 2025 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/march-26-2025-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250226T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250226T170000 DTSTAMP:20250224T230403Z CREATED:20240917T181449Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250224T230403Z UID:10000196-1740574800-1740589200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:February 26\, 2025 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/february-26-2025-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250122T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250122T170000 DTSTAMP:20241212T200144Z CREATED:20240917T181313Z LAST-MODIFIED:20241212T200144Z UID:10000195-1737550800-1737565200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:January 22\, 2025 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-22-2025-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20241210T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20241210T150000 DTSTAMP:20241126T235552Z CREATED:20240130T060725Z LAST-MODIFIED:20241126T235552Z UID:10000160-1733835600-1733842800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:December 10\, 2024 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Engineering Criteria Review Board (ECRB) meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format. 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. \nMetro Center375 Beale Street\, Yerba Buena 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/84715067651?pwd=boRImiLjJlxbQD2SvGLjc4lbbRmr5X.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-50551 (816) 423 4282Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID847 1506 7651 \nPasscode671230 \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\, Meeting Procedure Review (5 minutes)\nStaff Updates (5 minutes)\nPublic Comment Period (15 minutes; Each speaker is limited to three minutes) A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the ECRB on any matter on which the ECRB 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.\nItem of Discussion: Legal Training on ECRB Laws and Policies and New Members Orientation (90 minutes) BCDC staff will brief new and current board members on their authority\, rights and responsibilities and the board’s function within the agency as prescribed in the McAteer-Petris Act\, the Bay Plan\, and the State regulations governing the board.  This technical advisory board reviews the safety criteria of complex engineering projects and advises the staff on the adequacy of such safety provisions in relation to relevant statutory\, policy\, and regulatory provisions.  (Jenn Hyman\, P.E\, Senior Staff Engineer) [415/352-3670; jennifer.hyman@bcdc.ca.gov] (Michael Ng\, Senior Staff Attorney) [415/352-3610; michael.ng@bcdc.ca.gov] Presentation\nAdjournment\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/december-10-2024-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20241119T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20241119T170000 DTSTAMP:20241031T162842Z CREATED:20240130T060519Z LAST-MODIFIED:20241031T162842Z UID:10000159-1732021200-1732035600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:November 19\, 2024 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/november-19-2024-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20241015T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20241015T170000 DTSTAMP:20241105T171627Z CREATED:20240130T060347Z LAST-MODIFIED:20241105T171627Z UID:10000158-1728997200-1729011600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:October 15\, 2024 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Engineering Criteria Review Board (ECRB) meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format. 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. \nPrimary Physical Location \nMetro Center\n375 Beale Street\, Temezcal Room\nSan 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/84996338811?pwd=uayRxrTs22k43tAsxKaZ0GbYuuoxpt.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers\n1 (816) 423 4282\n1 (866) 590-5055\nConference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID\n849 9633 8811 \nPasscode\n816334 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourself\nPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak \n \n \n \n \n Agenda\n \nCall to Order\, Meeting Procedure Review (5 minutes)\nStaff Updates (5 minutes)\nItem of Discussion: Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan Draft Guidelines (120 minutes)\nThe Engineering Criteria Review Board will hold its second and final review of BCDC’s draft Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan (RSAP) guidelines\, which are currently out for public comment. When finalized by the end of 2024\, the RSAP guidelines will be used by local jurisdictions for developing Subregional Shoreline Resiliency Plans\, required by Senate Bill 272 (Laird 2023)\, that effectively address local and regional sea level rise risks. The public may comment on the presentation at its conclusion.(Dana Brechwald) [415/352-3656; dana.brechwald@bcdc.ca.gov]\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Audio Recording & Transcript\n Video recording \n\n \n\nTranscript\n\nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Hello! I’d like to welcome \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: oops. Sorry. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Okay. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We have new microphones \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: that are kind of echoing in this room. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I’d like to welcome everyone to this meeting of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission’s Engineering Criteria Review Board. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: This meeting is being recorded. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Hey? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Good afternoon. Welcome to this hybrid in-person and online ecrb meeting. My name is Rod Iwashta. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I am chair of the Ecrb. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Yeah\, should be. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Do you? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Do you want my mic on for my computer as well. No\, yeah. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: okay. I’ll try to be. I’ll read closer. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I have a few announcements. Our 1st order of business is to call the role board members. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Please use the microphones on the table to respond\, unmute yourselves to respond and mute yourselves again. After responding. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Jen\, please call the roll. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Roddy Washta chair of the board here. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Jim French vice chair. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Sure. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Bob Talia \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: here. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Geema Kasali. Yeah. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Chris\, may \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I know Chris was gonna be out today. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Ramin Golisorki. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Here \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Nick Sitar. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Gail Johnson. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Patrick Ryan. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: here. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And then we have some alternates present today filling in for people on the board. We have Bill Treme. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Yeah. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Great. And then I do see talia travisaru \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: on the zoom. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And Ellie\, you can participate as a member of the public. If you want to comment at the end. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Is there anyone else on the board I’ve omitted? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I believe Dylan might be joining us remotely later. But Justin is out. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Cherry Washedad. We have a quorum of at least 5 present. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Okay\, thank you\, Jen. We have a quorum present. So we are duly constituted to conduct business. I now call the meeting to order. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I want to start with some instructions on how we can best participate in this meeting\, so that it runs as smoothly as possible. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: First\, st everyone on the board. When you are not involved in the active discussion. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: please make sure you have your microphones or phones muted to avoid background noise. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: When you do speak today\, please move your microphone close to your mouth and speak loudly. So everyone in the room or on Zoom can hear you. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Also. The mics are directional\, so you can leave them on during discussions\, if you prefer. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: If you have a camera\, please make sure it is on during the meeting. So everyone online can see you \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: also board members. If you would like to speak. During the meeting you may raise your actual hand or your virtual zoom hand\, whichever you prefer. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Every now and then I may refer to the meeting host Margie\, who is working behind the scenes \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: to ensure that the technology moves the meeting forward smoothly and consistently. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Please be patient with us if it’s needed \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: ex parte communications as set forth in Bcdc’s communications \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: or regulations. Sorry a member of the Ecrb shall not have any oral or written communication regarding a proposed project \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: or other matter that has been noticed \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: to be considered at an Ecrb meeting with a project proponent permit applicant. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: prospective applicant or member of the public\, except on the record during an Ecrb meeting \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Board members\, in case you have inadvertently forgotten to provide the staff with a notice on any \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: written or oral ex parte communications. I invite you to report on any such communications at this point by raising your hand \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and unmuting yourself. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Okay for the record. No hands have been raised. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Okay\, now on to agenda. Item number 2 staff updates. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Jen\, can you provide us with? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Or now we will have a staff update from senior engineer and board secretary\, Jen Hyman. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you. Chair Washta. I would like to provide an update on upcoming meetings \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: on November 19th Bcdc. Council\, Michael Ng. Will give a legal training to ecrb members on regulations and policies of the Ecrb. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I just found out that this meeting will be fully remote. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: so people doesn’t\, don’t have to come in to the office for this training\, because it’s just a training. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So I hope as many Ecrb members can attend as possible. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: The meeting will still be a public meeting and recorded. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: There is currently nothing on the agenda for the December 10th meeting \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and as usual\, building management needs this room at 5 o’clock sharp. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and so we’ll \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I don’t think we should have a problem winding up the meeting by 4 30 today. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: hopefully sooner than that. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Lastly\, I appreciate all board members Rsvping via outlook to me. To the meeting invites\, so I can determine who will be present for the meetings. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and those are all my announcements. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Okay\, thank you\, Jen. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: before we move on to the presentation. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: are there any announcements from board members? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Okay\, I don’t see any raised hands\, so we’ll move on. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Now. We will move on to the main agenda. Item\, the discussion of the draft \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: regional shoreline adaptation plan guidelines. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: also known as the Rsap Guidelines. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: The Ecrb 1st held a meeting in June of this year to provide feedback \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: on an earlier version of the draft Rsap guidelines. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Bcdc has updated the document \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: based on extensive feedback and issued an updated public draft. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Rsap guidelines. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Today is our final meeting to provide feedback. This meeting will proceed according to the following agenda. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: 1st up Dana Breckwald\, assistant planning director for the for climate adaptation. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and Jackie Perrin Martinez\, Senior Climate adaptation. Planner will make a 45 min presentation \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: during the presentation. It is fine for board members to ask clarifying questions. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: At the end of the presentation we will open the meeting for public comments related to the presentation. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: After hearing any comments from the public\, the Ecrb will resume the discussion with their questions\, comments\, and feedback on rsap guidelines. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: At the end of this discussion I will ask for final comments and then close the agenda. Item \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: bye. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I would like to ask board members and presenters to please turn on your cameras for any discussion during or after the presentation. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and I would now like to turn it over to BC. DC. Planning team to begin their presentation. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Great. Thank you so much. Happy to be back today. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Apologies for those of you who have heard this presentation multiple times\, Bob. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: let me just get my screen share up here. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Okay\, here we go. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: so Bcdc is really excited that we’re here with the regional shoreline Adaptation plan. We have been in the midst of our public comment period on the public draft of the shoreline Adaptation plan. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: It closes this Friday. So we’re nearing the end of this public comment period. We have a hearing on Thursday at our commission meeting that will allow us to discuss this further\, but we’re really excited to talk it through with you today. Share with you where we are and hear your thoughts on it. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So as Rod said\, I’m Dana Breckwald. I’m the assistant plan director for climate adaptation. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Here are our goals\, really for the presentation today we want to make sure that you\, as Ecrb representatives\, and therefore associated with Bcdc. That you’re really familiar with the shoreline adaptation plan with the content\, purpose\, and outcomes\, and that you feel comfortable\, being able to talk about it with your colleagues. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We want to just clarify some things that you know are required. What’s to come? What? Sb. 272 actually says about the responsibilities for local governments. And Bcdc. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We want you also to be advocates for the regional shoreline adaptation plan. So how can you share out what this means to communities\, to other interested parties and help them get engaged in the planning process throughout the bay that’s coming over the next 10 years. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And then\, you know\, if you do have want to make official public comment\, we encourage you to do so between now and Friday. And hopefully\, this presentation will give you the knowledge that you need to be able to do that. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So I wanna just start again. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Hold on. How do I \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: hide this? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Minimize that here? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Yeah. Oh\, yeah\, that’s not my computer. Okay\, so these are the questions that Jen sent in the staff report\, and we just want to pose them right now. So that you can think about them as you’re going through the presentation\, and then\, of course we will revisit these again at the end. But\, you know\, is there anything missing from the technical standards or anything that needs additional explanation? Are there any components of the guidelines themselves that are missing or are too burdensome? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Do you think the adaptation strategy standards will lead to the right kinds of projects. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: What are some trade-offs or challenges you can anticipate with applying the guidelines as they’re written. And then\, lastly\, what kind of technical assistance would be helpful to ensure the guidelines are most usable to cities and counties. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So let’s get into what this plan is and what it means for local governments. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So September 16\, th we launched the public comment phase for the regional shoreline adaptation plan. It was distributed via email to thousands of affected local governments in the region along with other interested parties\, special districts\, etc. Everything is available which Jen links you to already\, but we have materials both on our Bcdc. And our Bay adapt websites. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I also wanted to point out that we have a link to an online data mapping platform which is currently in its draft form. This is not part of our official public comment\, because it’s not part of the Bay Plan Amendment\, but it is a preview to a tool that will be launching in early 2025. That will help users implement the guidelines with data. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: There are 4 ways that we’re soliciting public comment. We have an online comment form. You can mail or email a letter\, although since it’s Tuesday you’ve got to get it in the mail today\, if you want to arrive by Friday\, and then\, as I mentioned\, we have a public hearing scheduled for this Thursday at one Pm. Here at BCC’s offices\, or via Zoom. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and I just want to point out here that the questions and comments that are made today are actually are not recorded as official public comment. So please make sure that if you do have official public comment\, submit them through one of our formal channels. Of course we will take the note notes and take into consideration all the comments you make here today. But if you’d like it to be public\, please please use our formal channels. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So what is the regional shoreline adaptation plan\, or the Rsap\, as you’ll hear us call it\, in the simplest terms. It’s a region wide plan for the bay that guides the creation of locally\, of coordinated\, locally planned sea level rise\, adaptation actions that meet that work together to meet regional goals. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And it does this by combining a top down with a bottom up\, approach the regional approach. The top down includes a region wide\, one bay vision. For what adaptation along the bay shoreline should look like as well as strategic regional priorities that identify region-wide vulnerability issues that need to be addressed in local adaptation\, planning \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: the plan guidelines and minimum standards set set the stage for sub-regional shoreline adaptation plans which are now required by all cities and counties to develop over the next 10 years. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: The guidelines tell you how to develop the plans and how to create adaptation strategies that meet consistent standards and advance the one bay vision. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So later Jackie will spend some time covering what’s in this document and what each of these elements are. But we also\, as I mentioned\, want you to understand why it’s been created and what it means for local adaptation planning. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So before we get to the contents of the plan\, I just want to share a little bit of background about why Bcdc. Why was Bcdc. The agency that was named in this bill\, Bcdc. As you know\, has been serving the region since 1965\, and about a dozen years ago we recognized that the shoreline was changing. And so\, as you are aware\, we incorporated sea level rise into our body of work\, including policies that impact permitting. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We’ve also been leading our adapting to rising tides program\, and one of our recent accomplishments on the on the planning side is the publication of the Bay adapt joint platform which we have briefed you on in the past. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and the the regional shoreline adaptation plan actually builds on many of the actions named in the bay adopt joint platform\, and it was also named in Sb. 2\, 72. That the guidelines should follow. Bay adapts basic guiding principles. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We’ve also been working for many years to align and support the work of other regional agencies like Plan Bay Area 2050\, and the estuary blueprint. So this is all just to say that we’re what we’re bringing into the guidelines and the regional Showing adaptation plan is built on a decade plus of foundational studies and initiatives. Arch Bay Area\, which is our major overview of vulnerability across systems in the Bay area. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and as well as all the work that we have been doing in engaging with local governments over the past decade plus. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And even though each city and county is unique\, we’re all linked due to our shared shoreline. So impacts in one part of the bay will have a ripple effect throughout the rest of the bay. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and different communities are also in different stages of planning. Some need support to even get started. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So it’s really important that we work together as a connected region. We’ve enumerated some of the benefits here that we think\, come with regional planning. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: ensuring that adaptation is coordinated to reduce UN \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: unintended impacts on our neighbors. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: that we prioritize resources in vulnerable frontline communities that have endured historic harms. We prioritize plan for and protect the long term health of our wetlands and coastal habitats. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We’re strategic about how we actually implement projects so that we target the most important systems. First\, st \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: we have common standards and methods so that we can share data and information across the region. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: we line up an effective pipeline for funding adaptation projects\, and lastly\, that we’re able to track and measure progress as a region as a whole\, so that we can continually adapt over time. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So to add extra fuel to the fire of why\, we think it’s important for the Bay Area to plan for adaptation. Local adaptation planning is now recognized by the State as important and required by law. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Last year\, Sb. 272 was signed into law by the Governor\, and this requires that local jurisdictions develop subregional shoreline adaptation plans. By January 2034 \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Bcdc’s job is to develop the guidelines that these plants must follow for the bay for the outer coast. It’s the Coastal Commission. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and then we have the authority to review and approve or deny sub-regional plans based on the consistency with these guidelines. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: cities\, and counties have the opportunity to apply for funding to complete this plans\, and in the bill it states that approved plans will also unlock dollars for implementation of projects. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And even though the law is new adaptation\, planning in the Bay area is not. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And while the regional Shoreline Adaptation plan sets out a complete process to develop a compliant plan. Many cities are likely to have pieces of this already completed. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So just be aware\, as you’re listening through the guidelines that we are committed to working with each community\, to meet them where they are\, and complete the plans to build upon what has already been done locally. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So cities and counties within BCC’s jurisdiction within the 100 foot shoreline band are required to develop subregional shoreline adaptation plans. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: This table shows the cities and counties that fall into this category. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and you’ll also see that some cities have an asterisk next to them. These are cities that are not within BCC’s jurisdiction\, but are projected to be impacted by coastal flood hazards as included in the plan in the near term\, and may want to participate in plan development. For that reason \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: special districts are also not required by the bill to develop plans\, but of course they could play a critical role in the development of these local plans as they own and manage a lot of the shoreline \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: cities and counties may choose to prepare their own plan\, especially if they’re already pretty advanced in their planning process\, but we also highly encourage neighboring cities and counties to work together\, to create a multi-jurisdictional plan that looks at impacts and solutions across jurisdictional boundaries. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So now I’m going to turn it over to Jackie to do a deep dive into the contents of the Rsap. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Great thanks\, Dana. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: all right. So I’m going to provide\, as you said\, an overview on the contents and the development of the draft regional shoreline adaptation plan. And I’ll also be abbreviating it as Rsap. We’ll be saying it often. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So next slide\, please. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So I want to start by saying that we were really intentional about our goals for developing the Rsap\, and especially for developing\, developing the guidelines. In this document\, which outline the requirements for local jurisdictions to prepare subregional shoreline adaptation plans \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: from the very conception we aim to ensure that the guidelines are designed to be flexible and provide multiple avenues to meet requirements. We’re continuing to look at our language in the draft to make sure that we really are. We are committed\, as Dana said\, to working with jurisdictions on this level of flexibility. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We also want to ensure that they encourage alignment across multiple planning processes\, that they’re right size\, meaning that they recognize differing levels of capacity and don’t leave smaller or lower capacity jurisdictions behind \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: that they build upon existing efforts through allowing use of existing elements that meet the guidelines again more to this flexibility\, and that they are impactful that they respond to the needs facing local jurisdictions and are locally adopted\, codified\, and provide the right level of information to catalyze implementation of policies and projects for sea level rise. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and the draft Rc. Was collaboratively developed through multiple forms of engagement. We heard from community members through local community events and co-hosted local workshops with 5 community-based organizations to test our guidelines. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: we deeply engage with subject matter experts through our advisory group who reviewed multiple drafts of the Rsap before the one that we’re sharing during this public comment period. And in fact\, this draft is Number 3. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We shared an early draft with local government planners and held a planning planner and practitioner workshop to ensure that the guidelines work for local planners. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And lastly\, we’ve been touring the region and speaking at Mayor’s Conferences and County Supervisor meetings to share what we’ve been working on as widely as possible. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So thank you. To all those who have participated. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and all of this engagement yielded an enormous amount of feedback. I won’t be able to go through all of it\, but I do want to highlight just some of this feedback and how we’ve been addressing it in the plan. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We’ve heard about the critical importance of emphasizing habitats and nature-based solutions throughout the document\, and we work to make it clear that a healthy future bay is an integral part of how we see the future of adaptation along the bay shoreline. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We heard about the need to provide consideration for existing as well as new developments which we’ve included in our strategic regional priority and adaptation standards which I will touch on in this presentation. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We also heard a desire for flexibility to work with existing plans\, and we’ve been working to do that in this draft\, and we’ll continue to do so in the next. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We heard the need to ensure that shoreline solutions are based on local context\, and we’ll share how the guidelines really include this bottom-up approach to achieve this local nuance while still working towards regional goals. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We also heard an ask for simplification and clarity about what is required\, and this draft seeks to provide clear instructions and remove guesswork about what we’re asking for. We include a complete plan submittal checklist to help make it clear what we’re asking for and why \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: we’ve also had a lot of discussion about what flood hazards to include and the appropriate sea level Rise projections to use. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And lastly\, we’ve been. While this has been a relatively fast timeline. We have heard an appreciation for Bcdc’s efforts to include so many stakeholders and make meaningful changes to each of our drafts in response to those comments. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So now\, getting into the draft and what the sections of this contain\, there’s 3 sections that we have right now. Section one includes the introduction. It provides the underlying science and the context for the Rsap and the subregional adaptation plans. Dana shared a lot of that context in there at the beginning of this presentation \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: section 2 is our one bay vision which includes our strategic regional priorities. This section can be thought about as that regional approach. The top down plan to ensuring that the contribution of local adaptation actions adds up to a shared set of outcomes. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and section 3 provides the subregional shoreline adaptation plan guidelines\, which speaks to the requirements of Sb. 272. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: This is that bottom-up component where local planning will engage with their local communities\, identify local priorities and develop adaptation strategies suitable to their local conditions\, context and community values. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And you can find this graphic in the beginning of our of our document to provide that orientation. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So\, starting with the one bay vision\, this defines the regional outcomes of adaptation that all of adaptation should collectively be striving to achieve. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And this vision served as the foundation for the subregional plan guidelines to ensure that local planning contributes to these key outcomes that we think are necessary for a resilient future bay area. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: The one bay vision includes a statement for the region as a whole which acknowledges the interconnectedness of our region and our societies and all of these different issues. But it also includes a vision statement and goal for 8 individual topic areas that represent key categories and that are addressed throughout the plan. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So to just give you a little highlight of what’s in this vision\, the regional vision starts by stating\, 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 \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: for each topic area. We have a high level vision statement\, and these state as sea levels rise\, communities are healthy and vibrant\, healthy baylands\, ecosystems\, thrive places are designed for changing shorelines. Critical services are reliable. The bay shoreline is accessible to all. Safe and reliable transportation connects us all. People and ecosystems are safe from contamination risks \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and regional collaboration drives efficient and effective adaptation. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Each of these 8 topic areas has a corresponding strategic regional priority. As Dana mentioned\, these are the critical issues that affect the well-being of our entire region and include issues that must be addressed across jurisdictional boundaries \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: through the sub regional plan guidelines. We require that local jurisdictions that contain any of these regional priorities include them in their local planning and describe their part in contributing to these regional and wide-ranging benefits. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I’m going to touch on each of these. So you have a sense of what these regional priorities are. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: These include reducing displacement of communities on the front lines. To do this we ensure that local plans include actions to mitigate displacement\, risk \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: ensuring Bayland’s ecosystems are complete and connected. We require that habitats are not only improved locally in planning\, but also planned for across jurisdictional boundaries. As nature doesn’t follow these lines \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: promoting safe and strategic growth and density\, we utilize Plan Bay Area’s growth geographies and encourage growth in these locations to meet regional housing and development needs \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: maintaining reliable critical and emergency services. We ensure key critical infrastructure are prioritized to maintain services provided which often cross jurisdictional boundaries. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: improving connected regional shoreline access. We require that public access and access to regionally significant parks and trails\, stays connected across shoreline adaptation plans \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: maintaining the regional movement of people and goods. We ensure that local plans incorporate how the functions of these key assets will be maintained into the future. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Another priority is reducing contamination in and in environmental justice communities. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So not only do we include contamination as an asset to be assessed across all plans. But we state a regional priority that contaminated sites in specific communities need to be highlighted and addressed 1st \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and last\, but not least is ensuring that flood risk. Reduction is achieved with neighbors\, and across jurisdictions we require that certain parts of the shoreline with high hydrologic connectivity demonstrate how their efforts work together to minimize unintentional flooding that could result. If everyone goes it alone. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: As you can see\, these are important and often interconnected issues and addressing them effectively\, means that cities and counties will likely need to work together\, or they’ll need to work together\, maybe likely\, even more than they already do to build this resilient future. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So now\, going into the subregional shoreline adaptation plan guidelines. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: the guidelines lay out a planning process organized by elements in a subregional plan. These elements include planning process\, existing conditions\, vulnerability\, assessment\, adaptation\, strategies and pathways\, land use and policy. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: project implementation and funding and a project list \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: for those who are familiar with sea level Rise adaptation. You may have heard me say this before\, but this shouldn’t look new\, and that is intentional. We developed this\, based on existing plans in the region\, and the plan requirements are structured similar to Fema’s local hazard mitigation plan guidelines. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Purpose of the guidelines is to standardize the process to ensure that all planning is using the best available science information and practices to help us achieve the one bay vision. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: You can think about this as a cheat sheet for how to do good planning \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: as part of the guidelines. We also developed 4 minimum standards\, while the plan elements describe a process for planning\, and will naturally include a lot of local nuance. The standards set consistent baselines for all adaptation planning\, and these will be used across the planning process. These include coastal flood hazards and sea level rise scenarios\, minimum categories and assets and equity assessment and adaptation strategy standards. And I will provide a really brief overview of these components in the next 2 slides. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So just again\, very briefly\, because there’s a lot more in the draft itself element\, a requires a description of the plan partners\, the planning area and equitable community engagement. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And I’ll just also note that the planning area\, as Dana mentioned\, can be a city county or a combination. And this could also include planning at the operational landscape units \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: element B requires a list listing existing plans\, policies\, physical and social conditions that create the context for your plan \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: element C is where there’s an assessment of the vulnerability of critical assets\, issues\, and populations to coastal flood hazards. This is where those strategic regional priorities get elevated into the process \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: element D is where adaptation strategies are identified and preferred\, approaches are selected that respond to the vulnerabilities identified in the previous element. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Element. E requires a summary of the approach necessary\, and the land use changes and policies that are required to achieve the adaptation strategies identified in element D \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: element F requires a description of implementation\, including responsible parties. The timeline costs and potential funding sources. And lastly\, element. G. Is where we ask jurisdictions to provide their list of priority projects again\, stemming from the adaptation strategies. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: The standards\, as I mentioned\, are referenced throughout the plan elements. The coastal flood hazards and sea level rise scenarios\, identify 4 minimum hazards that must be addressed\, all of which are exacerbated by sea level rise. These include tidal inundation\, the 100 year storm surge and shallow and emergent groundwater. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We set baselines for sea level rise scenarios based upon the Ocean Protection Council’s updated sea level rise guidance\, which includes point 8 feet by 2050\, and 3 scenarios for 2\,103 point one feet 4.9 and 6.6. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Again\, we’re very aligned with the State’s best available science. On this \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: we also include minimum categories and assets to ensure that no key issues are being left out of planning. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: These only apply if these assets appear in a given location\, and Bcdc. Provides regionally available data to meet many of these requirements for jurisdictions that don’t have easy access to some of this data. The Dana mentioned earlier\, the mapping platform or the draft data preview. That’s where we have included a lot of this data \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: that we can make available. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: The Equity assessment standard includes equity focused questions that must be answered throughout the plan elements to ensure that equity is being centered in the process. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And\, lastly\, the adaptation strategy standards lay out the outcomes of adaptation to guide the selection and development of strategies and adaptation pathways. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: There’s 20 standards and they’re organized by 3 categories which I will summarize next. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: the adaptation strategy standards represent the key outcomes of adaptation\, recognizing that there’s many different ways that local adaptation can achieve\, those outcomes \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: could be various strategies that work together to meet this set of outcomes. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: standards with a green circle indicate that the outcomes these specific standards are related to the strategic regional priorities. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So any of the standards with a green would only apply if a jurisdiction also has that strategic regional priority in their location. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: All of the standards are organized by 3 buckets\, starting with what’s at the water and maximizing the benefits of water\, dependent shoreline uses and Bayland’s habitats. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: These standards include promoting public access. Water dependent uses\, such as ports\, marinas\, and water access points \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: ensuring that Bayland habitats are improved and have the ability to exist into the future. The second grouping is improving. Community health\, economic development\, infrastructure and housing. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: These standards include achieving key outcomes related to reducing flood risk for existing developments and strategic planning for new development. Along with many of the key issues I mentioned earlier in the strategic regional priorities. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and the last category is focused on creating pathways to respond to changing flood risks over time. This is the emphasis on building the adaptive capacity to implement adaptation pathways and be responsive to risk these actions. These include actions that governments can take such as updates to local standards\, codes\, and land uses. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So I have the list here. And again you can read all about them in the draft. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Lastly\, I want to note that Bcdc. Has laid out a formal process for developing\, submitting\, and approving subregional plans with key responsibilities for both local government staff and Bcdc. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: The Rsap is intended to be adopted as a Bay Plan amendment\, and Dana will touch on that next which will give Bcdc. The ability to review subregional plans for consistency with the guidelines. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and our document sets these expectations for compliance. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: This process includes a public noticing\, when plans are initiated\, a minimum number of consultation meetings between local government staff and Bcdc. That we can work with you on where you’re starting from and how we can ensure that maybe existing work that you’re doing can best meet the guidelines. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We’ll also then require a local approval by elected boards at the local level. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and that there is a local adoption of these plans before they’re submitted to Bcdc. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Once submitted to Bcdc. We also have laid out a process where we will review the plans\, develop our staff reports\, notice public hearing\, and bring to our Commissioners for a vote for approval. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So I know that we have shared a lot of information with you. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and we want to emphasize again that we \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: we intend to provide a lot of flexibility in how to create plans with and across local jurisdictions that make sense for your communities. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We want to work with you to help ensure that we’re truly building upon past and existing research and the decisions that have already been made. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and ensure that the guidelines really serve you and your communities\, that they do\, in fact\, provide a helpful cheat sheet for how to do good planning while still providing the necessary space for local solutions that can work towards both local and regional benefit. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And there’s no doubt about it that this work is very hard that the challenge of sea level rise before us is immense\, but we believe in the outcomes of good\, coordinated and consistent planning that we can achieve together \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and meeting these guidelines ensures that we are\, in fact\, prioritizing equitable processes and resources to frontline and environmental justice communities that we’re reducing flood risk to existing homes\, jobs and neighborhoods\, that we are ensuring flood safety in new developments\, that we are continuing to enjoy the things we love about the bay\, recreational areas\, habitats and access to nature\, that we can continue to rely on the services that we need\, the movement of people and goods and other connected systems \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: that we’re prioritizing the cleanup of contaminated sites\, especially in areas susceptible and vulnerable to groundwater rise. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and that we are creating collaborative governance with the ability to respond to these risks and continue to adapt over time. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So with that\, thank you\, and I’ll turn it back over to Dana for a couple more closing slides for our presentation. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thanks\, Jackie. So before we get into our discussion. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: just sharing with you a couple of what’s next. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: the 1st thing to note is that\, as Jackie mentioned\, in order for Bcdc. To carry out its responsibilities under Sb. 272\, we have decided to formally adopt the Rsap as a Bay Plan amendment to give us the authority internally to review and approve local government sub-regional shrine adaptation plans. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We’re adopting this through a process called a Bay Plan Amendment and staff is proposing that the Commission adopt the entire Rsap by reference as a component of the Bay plan. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We’re also proposing to make changes in the existing Bay plan\, climate change findings and policies. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Especially climate change policy 6\, which called for creating a regional showing adaptation strategy. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So we’re amending this to say that the Rsap is now established for use and approval of these these plans. This is the strategy that was laid out in climate change policy. 6. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: The policy also provides direction for future BC BCC action in this area\, such as providing ongoing technical and policy support. So that’s codifying. That’s being codified in the plan amendment or in the policy changes. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: But it’s also worth noting that these changes do not affect the way that BCC. Permits projects. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Some limited updates to policy. 7 allows Bcdc staff to use the Rsap and sub-regional plans in an advisory capacity when reviewing \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: the benefits of projects. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So all these changes can be found in the Bcdc staff report and preliminary recommendation online. If you’re interested in that sort of thing. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Okay? Sorry. My computer’s thinking here. We also are working on some tools to help support local jurisdictions and creating their subregional plans \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: in 2025\, as we mentioned a few times\, we will be publishing the final version of our online mapping platform. This will provide a lot of the regionally available data layers that Jackie mentioned to help it visualize existing conditions\, map all of the strategic regional priorities\, support and vulnerability assessments and could inform adaptation strategies and pathways. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: the mapping platform data and functionality will be updated regularly by BCC. Staff when best new available science is published. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And again\, you can see a preview of that online. Now\, it doesn’t contain all of the data layers that the final version will or all of the functions. But it is a taste of of what you of what you can expect. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We’re also begin in 2025 \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: to develop a local assistance program\, and this will help provide support on how to create plans\, support community capacity\, especially in frontline communities and stay connected with resources. So you’ll be hearing more about that as we develop it in the future. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So this is just a visual look at at where we’ve been and what’s coming. We released the draft on September 16\, th \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and we are frantically preparing for a public hearing on October 17\, th in 2 days and public comment period ending on Friday\, the 18th following\, that we will respond to public comment publicly and revise the draft to develop a final draft that will bring to BCC’s commission for their hopefully potential adoption\, and that is currently scheduled for December 5\, th 2024\, which puts us within the statutorily required timeline of adopting the guidelines by December 2024. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So this might be a little bit moot at this point unless you plan on spending the next 3 days reading this. But we we did want to offer just a couple of ways that you can dive into specific elements. And I know that Jen\, in the staff report also suggested some certain areas that might be helpful to look at if you don’t want to read the entire 200 page document \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: but of course we have an executive summary for a general overview requirements for local plans that Jackie walked through. There are certain areas where we touched on how we’ve incorporated equity where we’ve talked about \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: habitats and the health of the bay \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and certain areas where we’ve emphasized how the plan thinks about housing and development. So this\, this\, these slides will be posted. If you want to look at this slide more deeply. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and just want to reiterate\, please\, you know\, feel free to submit public comment. As I said we are\, we will listen to and consider all of your comments here today. But if you want us to publish your comments as public\, this is the process through which to do that. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And the last thing I want to mention just at that is that we are working with Ocean Protection Council and their Sb\, one Grant program to make money available today for cities to be doing those plans. I think they’ve already \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: approved 6 or 7 grants for cities and counties in the Bay Area to develop these plans. And this is a noncompetitive Grant program that where applications are accepted on a quarterly rolling basis\, the next deadline is December 20\, th \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and we are working closely with Ocean Protection Council to decide how and where this funding goes in the Bay area with the emphasis on funding these plans. There’s also a technical assistance program available for cities and \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: lower capacity communities to access to right to apply for these grant programs. So if you know anyone who is seeking funding for this. This is the program to do it. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So with that. This is our contact information. If you have any additional questions\, feel free to reach out. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and then I guess we can jump back over to just reviewing these discussion questions before we move the conversation forward. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So do I can take this off\, or do you want me to leave the \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: questions up? You can probably take it off. Okay. Also\, do you want to mention how \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: there is. There is built into this process now\, future updates of the Rsop guidelines. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Yes\, good point. So we are planning on updating the Rsap guidelines approximately once every 5 years we know that our needs in the region will change sea level rise\, science will become more refined\, moving forward. So we are committed to sort of reassessing how things are going every 5 years. We don’t want to do it any more frequently than that\, because we don’t want to continuously move the needle on on what cities and counties have to do. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We’re also requiring strategic updates to the plans themselves. This\, the sub regional shoreline adaptation plans to reflect the fact that these are active plans that should be implemented over time\, and therefore the conditions will be changing and \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: cities will be reporting that back to Bcdc. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Right? Thank you\, Dana and Jackie. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: At this point of the meeting we would like to receive any public comments \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: specific to the presentation \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: for members of the public. If you would like to speak today\, we request that you provide you only provide comments or questions \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: specific to the presentations given today. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: If you would like to speak\, you will need to do so in one of 3 ways. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: If you are here in person\, please raise your hand so we can call on you. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: at which time you may come forward to the lectern. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: or one of the microphones to speak. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: If you are attending on the Zoom Platform on your computer. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Please raise your virtual hand in zoom. You may do this by clicking the hand at the bottom of your screen. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: If you are attending via phone. You must press Star 9 on your keypad \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: to raise your hand to make a comment and star 6 to unmute or mute yourself. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order they are raised during the public comment period. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Starting with anyone present in person \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: when called upon\, you’ll be unmuted so that you can share your comments. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Please state your name and affiliation. At the beginning of your remarks you will have \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: 3 min a limit of 3 min to speak \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: as in any public meeting. Please keep your comments respectful. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We are here to listen to everyone who wishes to address the meeting. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: but\, as always\, we ask that everyone act in a civil manner. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Anyone who fails to follow these guidelines\, or who exceeds the established 3 min limit without permission \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: will be muted. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Margie\, are there any hands raised? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: There’s no hand raised. Here. Okay\, thank you. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Okay. Well\, let’s return to board discussion. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: yeah. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Anybody on the board have a comment or a question. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and well\, then\, so then maybe I’ll ask a question. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: if the the guidelines are changing\, and you’re updating the science every 5 years or so. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: What? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: What kind of provisions are there if a community or a city has \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: started down one pathway\, and then \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: there is a change that is significant to affect their planning. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: They’ve already committed\, you know\, resources and funds to \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: that effort. How to. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: How do they? Or would they be expected to \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: find more money? Basically? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: No\, I mean\, this is why we don’t want to necessarily move the needle to too much. There is some flexibility with the guidelines. And you know\, for example\, now\, if you already have a vulnerability assessment that is close to the sea level rise hazards that we list\, but not exactly. There is a process to sort of like work with us\, to account for work that is has already been done. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So I anticipate that we will continue to do that. As we update the guidelines\, a lot of the \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: a lot of the work about making special accommodations or individual circumstances is going to be coming in the individual consultations that happen with cities and counties. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: It’s difficult to put out guidelines that apply for to every single situation and every potential like special condition. So we are prepared to work out a lot of \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: how to actually make these guidelines work for individual communities as we’re doing our technical assistance program. That’s why we’re requiring so many consultations between BCC staff and cities and counties\, so I don’t have like a blanket. Answer for that. Aside from the fact that\, you know. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: assuming that it’s within reason and \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: there’s there’s an understanding of sort of \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Why\, we have the requirements that we do\, and that doesn’t create significant differences in the outcomes. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: no matter what the situation. There’s always a commitment to \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: trying to account for work that’s already been done\, particularly when it’s a change that we we make ourselves. So yeah. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: okay\, thank you \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Oh\, Bob Battaglia\, I see your hand is raised. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thanks\, thanks\, Rod. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: so. I just thought I’d jump in while other people are thinking. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Have the infrastructure entities. I guess that would be like altrans and \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: the water districts and the wastewater \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: districts\, and \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know\, Pg and E and etc. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Have they developed? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: adaptation plans that include \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: clarification of how they’re going to maintain their infrastructure functions \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: with \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: sea level rise it? I I think that would be really helpful \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: to \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: communities to try to figure out. And I guess you could add levies into that into that. But \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: yeah. So I? That’s my question. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I mean\, I can say we’ve definitely we’ve had. I mentioned this advisory group of about 40 individuals. So we work really hard to try to include. Just there’s so many topics. So we’ve had Caltrans involved. Bart. You know we haven’t hit everybody\, but we’ve tried to include some of those critical infrastructure folks. And we’ve thought about this a lot\, this kind of outside of a city or government\, we kind of call them like non-jurisdictional asset owners\, and especially those that cross a lot of jurisdictional boundaries. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So we’ve done a lot to encourage that. They are part of these planning processes\, and we really want to be doing that in our consultations and our discussions on ensuring that if there’s a wastewater treatment district and some are public and some are not. And so encouraging\, even at that initial planning stage and project team that those folks are involved in the process. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And\, as I said\, there’s a lot of flexibility\, too\, and what these plans look like. And so they can include by reference some of the plans from those other entities. What we’re trying to do is ensure that planning is considered together and holistically\, and that people aren’t doing things along a shoreline that nobody knows about\, that they’re really kind of. There’s a space. Now to say\, This is our strategy. So and so you know\, this district owns this part of the shoreline. This is their plan\, but it’s kind of part of the picture. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So that’s ultimately what we want. The law requires that cities and counties are the ones that create or at least adopt these plans\, but we don’t specify who needs to lead the process. We just want to make sure that these jurisdictions are involved. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And in terms of what they’ve already done. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We’ve had various conversations with different entities about. Some are kind of doing a lot of planning. Lots are interested in working with us and with the cities. And\, as Dana mentioned\, we’ll be doing a lot of technical assistance going forward. And we’re going to scope out our role as Bcdc. And how can we support those entities working with cities and counties? How can we make sure that these connections are being made to the extent possible? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Yeah\, thank you for that. And I I know I I expected at least that you you’ve been working on this\, but it seems that some of the entities for example. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and not to pick on anyone but like Caltrans\, or Pg and E\, \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: or the railways\, and and the like. They \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: it seems to me. I’m maybe I’m wrong\, but they don’t really have in their 30 or 50 year plan \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: clear ways of protecting their assets. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I don’t think I don’t know that those are actually planned for. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Yeah\, I could be wrong about that. And so I don’t mean to. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know\, act like they’re not working on it. But I I think from what I’ve seen in other places. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know\, the idea is\, you have a right away\, and you’re gonna stay in that right away. But \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know that may not actually work. And \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: even so\, there’s a question\, are you gonna raise it\, or you know\, what? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: How do you tie into that? What? How does that work? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I mean? It really varies. You know\, I\, Caltrans and Pg and E both have just vast amounts of of infrastructure in the State\, and so there they might not have planned for everything. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: But we have been work\, particularly with Caltrans. We’ve been working with them quite closely on how they’re doing adaptation\, planning in the region\, and ideally \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: they plan \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: not on themselves and have a comprehensive picture for everything they’re going to do for every asset that they own in the Bay Area\, not done in consultation with the cities\, but ideally it is done in consultation with the cities\, so that the approach for adaptation for a particular asset is reflective of local needs as well. So it’s not necessarily like a trap. You know the worst thing. They don’t have \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: a plan for every piece of asset\, because we do think that it will be have better outcomes if they work in consultation with the cities and counties so hopefully\, this process will help to kind of spur that along here in the Bay area\, and they’ll you know the utilities will be good \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: partners\, and it it really varies as well like I said. Caltrans really present. The rail lines\, you know utility or rail rail owners. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: they’re very hard to get a hold of. So it’s \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: hard to answer that in a general sense\, because it’s a case by case basis. Really. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: yeah\, I I just think it. I actually kind of feel like it would be a lot easier for the municipalities if \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: there was a a bay vision that was a little more tangible in terms of where the major infrastructure corridors were gonna be\, and part of the reason why I say that is because \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: it’s not clear to me that they can stay where they are. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and I know that \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: sounds like a \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: big judgment. But \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: that’s \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: until that’s shown that they can stay where they are. I think it’s a dangerous assumption \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: to assume that they will stay where they are \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: in terms of\, you know\, big economic impact at some point in the future. Last lack of \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: resilience\, you know\, kind of a brittle thing. And then\, if everyone’s planning on things to be where they are and they’re they’re not that that could be a problem. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So I don’t know. I just bring that up I don’t have a solution. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: But in the ideal world \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: there would be some \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: regional \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: adaptation \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: vision for all the infrastructure \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: that most of us don’t really have any control over. But we need to use \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: is kind of where I’m coming. I think the the wastewater treatment districts are required. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: at least if they plan to do anything upgrade \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: to consider sea level rise\, and \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I’ll leave it with that. Thanks for listening to my no\, I mean just one last thought. And\, Jack\, I have some thoughts\, too\, but we I think we do have components of that. I’m thinking of \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: In our Bay area. We published a map with hotspots\, which are areas where there’s sort of a cluster of different types of infrastructure growth geographies\, vulnerable communities. It’s an overlaying of a bunch of different things. So that can be a starting point. For where we start looking at where infrastructure might need to be thought through first.st \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And we also have our strategic regional priorities which highlight the areas where \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: there’s infrastructure that we rely on as a region. And therefore we should probably start thinking about those things sooner rather than later. And then the the question of \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Does it stay in the same spot? I don’t think that’s a decision that I want the utilities to make on their own like\, I think that’s a question that needs to happen in consultation. I agree a lot of them are right through a bunch of wetlands and and a few others. So they’ve they’ve been able to stay where they are. So far it’s been interesting. So I hope I’m hoping that we have much more robust conversations about those as we as people are developing these plans. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And I’ll just note quickly to in our one Bay vision section. So I just read kind of the top line of it. But we have a couple more for each category\, and critical infrastructure is one we have that top line vision\, and then some specific goals. And so we’re really careful about our language about maintaining the functions of these services. These are services we need. And we’re really clear and kind of we define protection as a type of adaptation strategy\, but that we want people to reduce flood risk. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and that you can do that in a lot of ways. And that’s going to be dependent on those local conditions. There\, you know\, it’s we as trying to create these standards for the region. Wanna. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: it’s an interesting line of like\, how do we create those standards of maintaining the things that we need while allowing that local flexibility in the local conditions to dictate. What are the specific strategies to get there? So just take a\, you know. Take a look at that it doesn’t go into a ton of detail. But we try to set that value upfront in our one day vision. You know\, I think you guys have done a great job. I’ve looked at this report a couple times\, and I don’t fully understand. I haven’t fully digested it\, you know\, like a lot of people. It’s hard to focus \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: on \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: 200 plus pages\, you know. When you’re a lot of other things happening. But \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I but this brings me to the thought which I think you’re already aware of. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: that everything’s going to be adaptive. The adaptive plan will need to adapt \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and respond to challenges. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And there’s gonna be a need for what I would call technical development ways to \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: address \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: data gaps \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: in a way that works both sub-regionally and regionally and \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And so I think that adaptation concept\, even though you’re not going to update the Rsap \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: more frequently than 5 years. I mean\, I think it’s inevitable that it’ll \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: progress within the framework. I think you’ve done a really good job of \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: laying it out\, but I think it. I don’t know. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: It might be helpful to people to understand that this is going to be a little bit of an adventure\, I think more broadly. You know\, people like the cities. It’s not going to be a 1 \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: time. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I think it’s going to be very iterative in multiple ways\, multiple wheels turning. And \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: yeah\, and I\, I\, you know\, because this is being adopted as a bay plan\, and we don’t have the flexibility to update this on on a really super regular basis. We wanted the plan itself to be a bit timeless. And then the technical assistance program and the online mapping platform. Those are designed to be a lot more nimble and responsive\, \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and flexible in terms of what’s changing and the tools that we can provide to people. Which you know we’ll have tools in 3 years that we don’t have right now. And so I think that’s that’s our vision for how we we keep that nimble side. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Yeah\, that’s excellent. i 1 more comment. I I would like to see more engineering. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Contribution and more content \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: within this process of \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: technical development and adaptation. And I think there’s a a bunch of people that will \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: be interested in that\, and. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know\, should be interested in it\, and should be helpful \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: in this regard. So \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: but I’m gonna stop now and let someone else talk. And thank you. Appreciate it. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thanks\, Bob. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Anyone else with comments \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: or questions. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Nope\, remain. Oh\, oh. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: let Romine go 1st and then. Okay. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: thank you. Thank you\, Jackie. Thank you. Dana. Great presentation. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: One thing that I think I’ve commented on previous discussions. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I’m having a hard time \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: kind of getting my head around \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Bcdc’s position \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: on this whole issue\, because this is \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: the bay impacting \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: the shorelines. It’s not the other way around. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And because the charge of Bcdcs protect the waters of the bay. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: we’re not talking about protecting the waters of the bay. Now you’re protecting shorelines from the bay. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: so the narrative is \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: flipped. So \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: what I’m trying to get my head around is \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: is Bcdc. Now providing \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: just providing guidelines\, like\, you say maps\, for example\, to local jurisdictions. So that the local jurisdictions \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: require this adaption. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Is that \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: what’s happening? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Yeah\, so land uses is always local\, and the projects that will occur along a shoreline in any city or county is not something that Bcdc. Will drive\, that those will be driven by local developers\, cities and counties themselves\, utilities\, etc\, the owners and managers of of that land. That’s not Bcdc. So what the authority will you are given with Sb. 272 is not more authority \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: in the Bay \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: or within our jurisdiction\, which does extend 100 feet\, you know\, upward from the shoreline\, but we were given the authority to set out the parameters through which people \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: think about adaptation. These these adaptation plans \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and and develop those plans locally. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So we can put out our priorities. We can put out our regional vision. We can put out the priorities that the region thinks should happen. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: tie those to how cities and counties do adaptation locally? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: But ultimately\, and then we can review and approve those plans based on the consistency with the guidelines that we created. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: But you know\, the important thing is here is that it doesn’t Bcds. It doesn’t have any authority beyond that. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So if if a city or county doesn’t do a plan\, we don’t have the authority to make them \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: that you know. Sb. 2\, 72 mandates it. But you know \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: plenty of cities \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: don’t comply with state mandates because they don’t have the capacity\, or it’s not a priority\, or whatever. So our our authority is pretty conscripted in that sense based on what was given to us in the bill. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: The other thing in question is\, is this. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: with this sea level rise. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Does the shoreline or do you’re the 100 feet? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Is it moving \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: as well? We anticipate that it will. Yes. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: the original makers of the Mcateer Petrus act. Didn’t think about that at the time. That’s our interpretation of the law. But there’s a lot to unpack here about BCC’s jurisdiction. Bcdc’s authorities in the future. How to better link these plans to permitting in the future. Our \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: our commission has the rising sea level working group\, and that’s really the venue that we plan on sort of workshopping a lot of these questions and identifying paths forward. And you know different roles that Bcdc could take on and play. And then how like the legal and policy pathways that would get us to that point. So if you are interested in that\, in those questions. I I recommend\, you know\, attending those working groups. I think we have one in \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: November. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I’m \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: yeah. There’s 1 coming up in November. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: but we’re we’re really just scratching the surface on\, you know. Kind of what \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: what Bcdc. Needs to do to change to meet. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know\, like you said the charge that we were given in 1965 was a bay that was shrinking. Now the bay is growing\, so it it mandates a rethinking of of how we do our work. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you\, Ramin geema! I think you had your hand up next. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Well\, thank you so much for the great presentation. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Like ramin. I’m trying to get my head around this thing\, too. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: looking at \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: the Senate bill. 2 72. It seemed like. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: it’s all carrot. No stick. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: basically. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: You know\, if you do the plan by January 1\, st 2034\, \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know you’ve given priority for state funding. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: but if you don’t. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: then \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: that’s it. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: what I’m trying to get my head around is \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: this is the original problem. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Even if certain local jurisdiction \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: decide to do something \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: unless the adjacent jurisdiction do something. I mean\, it’s not going to be. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: because we know that. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know. Let’s say you want to address the issue of erosion along a shoreline. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: If you put \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: something a system there to minimize erosion \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: locally. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: there are impacts \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: on natural processes\, you know\, coastal processes \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: that affects. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know\, adjacent \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: basically jurisdiction. So \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I’m kind of wondering\, I mean. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: how the PIN is practical \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: going to work. If \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: there isn’t a mechanism to ensure that \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: everyone is doing something \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: because \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: the issue is regional. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Sure. Yeah\, yeah\, we can. We can both kind of probably say a lot to this. Yeah\, I mean\, so kind of 2 2 points here\, I mean\, and maybe I’ll start by saying\, you know\, this. This plan is a starting point. It’s not gonna solve everything. I think that’s kind of important to know\, too. So in the plan\, in our element\, a in our planning process. 1st off\, we’re really encouraging cities and counties to work together\, whether that’s a single plan that they create \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: or separate plans. But we have a requirement that says\, Tell us how you’re coordinating with your neighbor\, and we want to see this. And in our consultation meetings we’re going to ask those questions about how are your strategies aligned? And so at various points of the process. You know\, when we ask for people to assess different assets for those strategic regional priorities\, those are the places where we’re really asking people to consider kind of impacts\, or how they fit into a broader picture. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And beyond that\, you know we are\, they said\, this is really a starting point. You know\, there’s a lot of not only do we intend to do a lot more technical assistance in the plans\, but we are working with other agencies. I think we intend as a region to develop out these programs. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: You know\, for example\, there’s a science consortium that’s kind of getting off the ground\, and in the Baydap joint platform\, which is kind of where the Rsap also stems from a lot of sources. We list out all of these different types of needs for the region. And some of it is on more of these cumulative impacts\, which is what you’re you know you’re speaking to. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Those are hard to get at\, you know\, that takes a lot of kind of technical understanding. How does an adaptation strategy in this aspect actually affect those kind of hydrological processes\, and the currents and the sediments and other places. And so I think\, at least the way that I envision it is that we are. This is our starting point. We are going to iterate on this. As Bob was saying\, too\, this is an adaptive program\, and that \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: we want to be building up partnerships and those resources to do some more of that planning. As the technology gets better. As we build out our partnerships as we get more funding\, I think we see this only growing in terms of our ability to to make sure that people are putting in solutions that are not\, you know\, worsening things. And this is where we’re starting. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Did you add anything to that? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: no\, I mean\, you know\, we are tracking the projects that people are proposing\, and we don’t have a mechanism right now\, for\, like assessing\, you know. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: we don’t have a plug and play system for \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: putting a project in and seeing how it connects to the neighbors. That’s a dream. So if you have some technical advice on us for that\, that would be great. But until then we have to rely on kind of what what Jackie talked about. Given the absence of\, you know the stick in the bill? Given the fact that \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: we we\, you know\, we have to kind of rely on the goodwill of people to to do the work and to work together. But ideally\, we would have a better\, a better way of assessing \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: of the impacts \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: if each individual project on the shoreline as a whole. But we’re just not there yet. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I would say there is a stick\, but it’s down the line\, and it’s if you don’t plan\, you know\, you will have these impacts\, and we’ve done some of the studies\, and we know the cost of inaction. It is far greater than the cost of doing something\, and we have more opportunities when we plan ahead. And so I think\, you know\, there’s eventually a consequence to not planning. But obviously we want to be working with the encouragement. And you know\, working in the system that we have. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you. Geema \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: is the \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: ultimately is the stick going to be? Well\, you’re not going to get your shoreline development permit. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: unless you \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: not\, as of now\, there’s no plans to to do that. Because the plans are not linked to permitting at this point. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Maybe that’s a path we explore in the future. But I I’m not gonna say that. That’s \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: okay. Thank you\, Jim. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Your hand up. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: thanks. I’m like Ramine and Jim\, I guess\, trying to get wrap my head around this. I’m not not a planner. Sometimes I’m glad that I’m a geotechnical engineer. Sorry could you lean into your mic a little bit more? Thank you. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Sometimes I’m glad I’m a geotechnical engineer\, because it’s an easy \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: field to wrap your hands around and you just stomp on the ground\, and there’s there’s your field. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I just a couple quick observations on doing a control F search to the document. There’s no mention of settle or settlement. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I’m not sure what belongs in a planning document. Exactly\, but if we’re talking about what the hazards are\, I think\, settle and settlement are a couple of things that matter. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: That are going to affect how you design things and what’s going to be a problem in the future. If you’re designing fills to target we I mean\, we’ve talked about this in \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: most of our Ecrb meetings\, I guess\, is that that fills settle. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So if you’re designing a levy for an elevation\, it’s you need to overbuild it by some amount that can be calculated. It’s not not difficult. This engineering. I’m not sure how much this is a planning topic\, but it needs to be associated with this \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: document in some way or other. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: No mention of stability or slope stability or levee stability\, which is kind of \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: the whole \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: ball of wax in \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: in flood protection in many areas where where you \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: we were not just built. At least 14 feet or 15 feet above sea level. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: but where a levee is going to be protecting you\, stability\, slope\, stability\, levee\, stability are are \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: are crucial again. I’m not sure exactly what belongs in a planning document like this. But \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I was \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: started off\, being somewhat distraught to see there was only one mention of the word geotechnical in the whole document\, and that was with respect to barriers or conflicts\, but no instructions as to what needs to be performed. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: There’s no instructions or expectations or no\, no \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: hinting that geotechnical work is needed. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: But then I felt pretty good when I realized geotech had one mention\, but structural had 0 references. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and civil had 0 references. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and geologist is not mentioned ever. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: There are 2 mentions of the word geological \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: but it’s not with regard to studies that are needed. So I’m not sure again\, what belongs in a study\, Doc. In a planning document. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: But as the engineering Criteria Review Board. Eventually\, what we care about is what engineering criteria get \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: suggested or promulgated\, or\, you know\, carried it\, or sticked\, or whatever \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: happens there. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: There’s 2 mentions of liquefaction. That’s not too bad. Maybe that’s enough. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I didn’t have a chance to read the whole document\, but multimodal hazards seems to be a critical \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: issue. I think there’s a lot of emphasis on \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: on sea level rise\, which is clearly what the topic of the document is. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: But we’ve talked about this with Sfo recently\, and with other projects about how earthquakes affect us. Earthquakes are mentioned several times in the document. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Maybe adequately. I’m not sure. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: one thought observation I had early in your presentation. You had this statement. These guidelines are designed to drive effective local adaptation. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: but I think it might be useful to if it could be thought of as to drive and facilitate \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: adaptation. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: a lot of it seems like it’s sort of just laying down rules and regulations and hoops for people to jump through rather than saying\, Let’s help you. Let’s show you \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: what can be done \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: along those lines. I don’t know that this belongs in a planning document like this\, but somewhere\, I think it would be useful if \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: there can be some way that you’re suggesting\, recommending\, requiring \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: engineering standards\, guides\, etc. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Maybe it becomes an appendix to this document. Maybe it’s just a referenced document that exists someplace else in terms of. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know\, sticks and promulgation. I’m not sure that these guidelines are \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: necessarily within the \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: purview of a planning document. It’s it’s it’s \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: sometimes ambiguous maybe about \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: whether it’s in the purview of Bcdc overall. And we have. And that’s why we have an engineering criteria Review board\, because it’s not a simple\, straightforward question\, and it changes in every project changes year by year sometimes. And \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know frankly\, everybody on the board here doesn’t always agree about every question. Although interesting\, we’re interestingly\, we’re really pretty close on most stuff. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So it seems like maybe there should be. It would be. I think it would be helpful along the lines of facilitating\, not just driving \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: effective local adaptation things to. I just. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I think the list is probably not huge\, but several pages long. I have just a handful of things that I thought of along the way. Us. Corps of Engineer Levy regulations \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: 44 Cfr. 65\, 10\, etc\, and related. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: You have before and after 65\, 10\, \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: the marine oil terminal. Whatever \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: document Motems probably should be referenced. Someplace. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: the the Cfr. 65\, 10. That’s the fema \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: of coastal floodplain regulations. I think \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: that you mentioned you mentioned Cfr. 65 10. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Yeah\, yeah\, I just wanted to. I’m sorry\, didn’t I probably shouldn’t have interrupted. But I just wanted to point out\, that’s \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: that’s the those are the Fema regulations and the federal regulations. I think that’s the section you’re referring to? Right? Okay? Thanks. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Yes. Yeah. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: fema has other levy regulations as well as as 44 Cfr California building code. Cbc. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and that references Asce 7\, which talks about loading criteria demands what you’re designing for \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: American lifelines. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Alliance \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: has lots of information\, probably emphasizing earthquakes\, but they also are concerned about floods. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Katrina is is a \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: within the jurisdiction of or within the area of concern of American lifelines alliance. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and those are just a handful of things that I thought of\, but I think there’s I mean\, you probably yourselves could rattle off a handful of other things related to sea level rise in particular. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And so on. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Yeah\, I think these are really great. For inclusion in our technical assistance program. We want to provide as many targeted resources as we can. So if we. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: if you don’t mind putting together a detailed list of the standards that you think \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: should be\, you know that we should be using here in the Bay Area. That would be very helpful as we build our our Ta library. How about this? You get paid more per hour doing this kind of work than I do not engineers. So we don’t have the the technical. I would suggest maybe you or Jen\, or whoever throw together\, you know. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: just an initial draft list and say\, can you add on to this? We can and we can. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We can add on to that. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I’ll just say that was really helpful. Thanks for including those. Yeah. I mean as \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: this\, this is a planning document\, and we’ve we’ve brought this to you all before\, too\, about kind of what’s that line between planning for strategies and designing them? And it’s just not a super clear line. I think everybody’s at a different place as well. Some local jurisdictions are just going to be drawing kind of lines on the map. It’s going to be conceptual. Other places are going to have\, you know\, actual projects which which have some of this. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: But to your point I think we can probably do a better job of making it clear that like that is the ultimate endpoint. And there’s you know\, there’s a lot of considerations when you get to project design\, and maybe there’s even some considerations\, even at that planning scale. So it’s just that’s kind of the area. Where how far do we take it? What can we require? So I took a lot of notes on that. And actually\, maybe you could even say\, you know\, feel free to contact Bcdc staff\, we’d like to help you \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: do your plans. Yeah\, we’re not. We’re not the regulator against you\, but we’re \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: we’re trying to protect the bay\, and we’d like to make it as easy as possible. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Hey? I think there’s a complete place for planning document like what you have here. Everything you have seems to be \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: good. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and I as ecrb\, but also as a consultant that gets assigned a project. You know City calls up and says\, Can you? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Can you give us proposal \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: to comply with this Bcdc document. I’m going well. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: what the heck do you want? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And you know it’s going to be \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: it. It leaves things in a sense too wide open for for the cities and counties\, and \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Caltrans\, and other\, whether whatever agencies and utilities are trying to respond to this and and \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know\, we need to know what as a consultant or as ecrb. Even the more \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: guidelines we can have\, the easier it is. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Okay. Thank you\, Jim. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Patrick\, have your hands up \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: yeah\, \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: whether or not there’s much of a carrot\, probably a lot of jurisdictions\, will\, you know\, jump on this\, and and some won’t\, but some will. It seems like 2034 is a long ways away. So can you tell us a little bit about \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: the timeline between? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: You know\, when this gets finalized and published in 2034 are there. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: or do you envision some intermediate deadlines? Or are we all just waiting for 2034\, \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: is Bcdc going to lead some workshops or something? And to get these jurisdictions together to share ideas. What’s that process going to look like. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: yeah\, I mean\, our legal. Our legal department’s interpretation is that we can’t set any intermediate deadlines that are required\, because that was\, that’s a legislatively mandated deadline. We think it’s a long time\, too. We certainly want people to be doing these plans before that. So the technical assistance program that we’re setting up. We know some early adopters are already underway. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So we’ll probably kind of like right out of the gate. There will be folks who’ve already been doing adaptation plans\, and they want to get that eligibility for funding. You know. Whatever that that benefit is. We don’t actually know what that pot of money is quite yet. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Depends on how the climate bond goes\, I guess. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and we will also be doing outreach to cities that we know haven’t done any adaptation planning yet\, and might take them a while to get up to speed. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We’ll be doing workshops\, most likely\, you know. We’ll be facilitating everything we can to get people to get these plans started sooner rather than later. We have a consultant right now. That’s developing a Ta program work plan for us that will sort of lay out some of the options that we have \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: for how to get that catalyzed. But you know we’re certainly not going to be sitting around for 10 years just waiting for plants to come in. We’re going to be actively working with \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: with our cities and counties to to make sure that they’re getting started\, and also some of them\, it may take 10 years to get to a point where they have built up that level of capacity\, so assessing where everyone is and what they might need to \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: get going on. This is probably going to be a a big part of our early years as well. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I I think it. Yeah. It makes sense that you can’t. You know\, make a legally legally required intermediate deadline\, because \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: there’s no real requirement for them to comply at all\, even by 2034. But I wonder if there are some creative ways that you could have some kind of \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: intermediate deadlines\, even if they’re somewhat voluntary. But \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: again\, there might be some carrots that Ecdc. Could throw out there. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: To at least get some jurisdictions to \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: submit something\, you know\, for \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: intermediate review. It seems like that would \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: help the process a lot. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: yeah. And that idea has come up. We’ve heard it from a couple of different cities\, especially the ones who already have some work\, and they want us to review it early. And so we have the 3 required consultations\, as people are developing their plans\, and those could be tied. You know\, we could have sort of interim deliverables at each of those \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: at each of those consultations\, maybe like a recommended benchmarks\, for you know by net by at this point\, you know\, you should have this\, and we’ll go over it with you before you move on to your next step. Our intention is certainly that nobody submits a plan that Bcdc. Hasn’t isn’t thoroughly familiar with already\, particularly because we’re requiring local adoption prior to submittal to Bcdc. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: so I think it does make sense to have sort of interim steps where we review pieces over time. So it’s definitely come up. And I think it’s a really good idea to manage this this process and help it accelerate and stay on track. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you. Thank you. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Well. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: let me let me follow up with just one quick observation. I \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: had to sit through a city council meeting recently for a contract approval. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and in that meeting you know\, I and I know I know there’s an election coming up. But \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: they it’s\, you know\, the condition of cities sounded pretty dire. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know I’m just worried about. And I think maybe this 10 year \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know\, timeline makes sense. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: to give some of these cities that are just really having financial difficulties. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know\, time to plan for \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and try to figure out how to fund \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: this work\, and I don’t think it’s going to be \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: incredibly cheap. I think you know\, the consultants are\, gonna \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: have\, you know\, in in the requirements here. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: There’s a lot of requirements\, right? So I think it’s going to be\, you know\, a significant effort. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: maybe\, you know. And the carrots\, you know we keep on talking about carrots at 6. I think one of the carrots is. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know\, being able to help \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: jurisdictions with grant funding. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: or you know or point them into the right direction and \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: showing them what’s worked before. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Yeah\, that’s why we’ve been working with Opc on their Sb one grant program and help like telling people to apply to that one. And I think the more scopes of work we see through grant programs and potentially for consultant scopes of work the better we’ll be able to help people hone in on exactly what the level of effort is. But\, like\, as you said\, it really depends on where they’re starting from as well. Yeah. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: thank you. Sorry\, Ajima. You had a \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: quick\, a quick \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: yeah\, that’s like. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I’m kind of wondering. I’m kind of surprised by the Senate\, because \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: there’s an equivalent \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Senate Bill\, Senate Bill\, 1953\, about \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: seismic retrofit of hospital. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And and what has happened over the years is. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know\, hospitals wait until \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know it’s get into 2030\, \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and then they realize they can’t do it. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Alright. So \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I I was hoping. I mean this. This is in support of what \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Rodent just said\, too\, that \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: if there’s a way to encourage \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: this local jurisdiction. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you actually start on something. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know. Then by 2024\, you will get something. Otherwise. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know\, we all procrastinate right \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: until it gets towards the deadline. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and then you realize one. You don’t have enough time. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: or you don’t have enough resource to to do the work. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Bill. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Okay\, thanks. I just wanted to go back and expand a little bit on a comment that Geema had about considering adjacencies of jurisdictions. And I’m wondering \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: if there is scope in this document to consider\, perhaps buffer or transitionary zones between adjacent jurisdictions\, particularly where the adaptation strategies may differ significantly \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: for various reasons\, and perhaps that would be a situation where retreat is considered by one jurisdiction and hardening of \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: the the shoreline as part of the strategy for an adjacent jurisdiction\, and perhaps having a transition zone at least where the strategies \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: are considerably different. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I and I know that you’re limited on the number of sticks that are available\, but perhaps at least saying that the strategies need to be mutually compatible\, or do no harm to the adjacent jurisdiction \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: might be something that can be written into the the regulations\, even if it’s not part of \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: this document that would inform \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: regulations coming down the line. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I think that’s a great idea. Thanks for \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: thanks for sharing. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you\, Bill. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I’m bob \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: your hand up. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Yes\, thank you\, Ron. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: so \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I have a couple of quick thoughts about how engineers \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: can help. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So I do think informed planning is important. Especially when you’re talking about adaptation. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And just one comment on that. My experience has been that. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know\, reality isn’t really a democratic process. And when you ask people what they want. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: sometimes you hear things that they want\, but may not be realistic. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And then you argue about what is realistic. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and that’s where you kind of wish you had some standards that were well vetted\, and that you had some \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: assistance from practitioners like engineers to \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: explain to people things like codes and building standards. And you know\, reality. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: so but one. So that’s kind of a general statement. But but one area. I think the ecrb or flood control agencies\, etc\, could help with. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Is \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: engineering criteria. Specifically\, the sea level rise criteria based on \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: kind of a a characterization of a project or an area in terms of the risk profile \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: to \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: property and \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: life safety. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And you know\, perhaps also\, that could be broadened to include ecology. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: which is not necessarily engineering. But there are a number of \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: There’s a strong restoration practice in the Bay area. So \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: it is multidiscipline. But there are a lot of engineers involved in it that can help balance different things. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: yeah. And speaking of that\, one of the the tools that we developed for \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: large scale wetland restoration \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: planning. You know\, we collectively in the Bay area \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: is what I call hydrogeomorphic modeling \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: that’s been. That term’s been used a lot. But by that what I mean is predicting how the landscape changes \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: based on a change or progression. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: or both of drivers. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: such as sea level rise. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and there are like simplified models\, such as the slam sea level affecting Mars model. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: That\, for example\, can be used in a gis framework to predict \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: how \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: emergent wetlands and other wetlands\, you know\, habitats \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: will evolve when you change sedimentation or sea level rise. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I think that’s really important\, the habitat part of the hydrogeomorphic modeling. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Because\, \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: as we all know. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: people exist in certain areas and \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: they want to stay where they are. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and so they think about staying. And then yet the bay moves\, and so you get the coastal squeeze and \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: the reality of the implications of \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: not doing anything or just staying where you are \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: in a moving framework is that that creates adverse effects \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: on public trust\, resources and other people. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and that needs to be kind of internalized into the commute\, the \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: the communication or the equation. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: because otherwise it’s external. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And then people just sit \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and you lose your wetlands or whatever \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: but within the hydrogeomorphic modeling is also the event type\, modeling like flood modeling. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And so these types of things have been done for the Napa Salt Pond Complex. That’s about 10\,000 acres \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: for the South Bay Salt Ponds. There was \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: an attempt to actually predict how the Bay would respond to sea level\, rise back in the phase one or the programmatic phase. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: there’s a lot of other examples especially on the Pacific Coast\, where this has been tried\, and it’s very useful\, because number one\, you get a baseline \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: as to what will happen\, and then you can compare alternatives to that baseline. And also you then can tease out \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: what the implications are to \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: one area doing something and how it affects other areas. So you get your integration regional integration. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and then\, you know\, department of water resources is looking at \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: how to make future conditions\, flood maps that look like Fema and \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know\, the cosmos and art maps\, in my view\, aren’t really sufficient \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: to clarify \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: what it means \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: to have \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: a higher sea level and inundation\, especially in terms of a where a V zone is \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: or where there’s compound flooding. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: which is a hot topic. Obviously. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So\, I think that there’s opportunities to \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: through the processes that you’ve already identified. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know the mapping and the \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: policy planning framework and the technical assistance program \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: to kind of develop a\, you know\, a technical development program to help people and standardize things. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And I and I think also\, you’ll probably need somebody to look at things and say\, Well\, you know\, as \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: experienced engineers\, not just scientists and planners\, but actually experienced engineers \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and say\, Well\, you know this. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: it’s probably gonna be a little different. Or this is what you think. You know. They just kind of have some judgment on \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: some of these plans. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and I know Jan can help a lot with that. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: but it’s hard for \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: one person to do everything. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And so maybe if you add more staff\, you might. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know\, think about that. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: to support them. Anyways\, those are just some of my thoughts. So I think engineers can be very helpful. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: especially engineers in San Francisco Bay that have \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: worked on these multi-objective problems for decades \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: in \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: in regional context. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: romine had was had his hand up or and \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Ben\, we’ll call on you next. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Oh. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: oh\, okay. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: yeah. I just wanted to comment what Bob just said. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know\, \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: it’s become clear that that \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: having some \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: bay modeling that’s focused on Bcdc’s mission \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: would be extremely helpful\, and we don’t have the staff or the budget to do any of that right now. But there’s a lot\, you know I’ve been initiating\, initiating a lot of talk about it. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and even also just to \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: get some more accurate dates on sea level rise projections. I mean\, I know the Rsap right now is just looking at this range\, but it’s really important to have\, because we have such limited financial resources for this adaptation. Having \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: somewhat \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: reasonably \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: realistic projections of \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: where the water is going to be\, at what year. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and really is really important for capital improvement\, planning on funding plans. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and how high should things be when you put them in\, or when? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And and the modeling\, I think\, is really key to help within San Francisco Bay\, because it’s so unique in its geometry and \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and with all the wetland restoration that’s going on to expand it. So we we have applied for some grants to do some modeling\, but it’s something that’s definitely on my radar to to push forward in the future. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thanks for suggesting. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you\, Ramin. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: My friend Geema mentioned Sb. 1953\, which is the seismic retrofit requirements for acute care \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: centers. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: facilities are islands. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: This is a regional issue. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and I\, you know we can talk about engineering. That’s that’s fine. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: But this has to be a mandate\, or it will never get done. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and we go back to \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: one jurisdiction\, does it? The next one doesn’t do it or can’t do it. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: The framework has to be in the context of a mandate that has to come from the State and State has to take the leadership \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: to make it happen otherwise. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: This is all good\, and you’re you’ve done excellent work here\, but it really. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: unless this is a mandate\, it’s it’s going to be very difficult to achieve whatever \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: is intended to be achieved. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Yeah\, thank you. Oh\, Bob\, you’re gonna say something. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I was just gonna say\, yeah\, this is \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: About 20 years ago I I told somebody I was interested in this\, and they told me there’s no way in the United States that you’ll ever have regional coastal zone management. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: It’s just not gonna happen. And this person was \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: pretty well\, politically connected. I won’t get into specifics. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: But \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: this is the San Francisco Bay Area\, and so we’ve done a lot of cool things in the past. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So I mean. I I share what Ramin said\, but you know it’s a worthy \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: endeavor\, and I think you guys have done a great job. I think you’ll continue \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: to do a great job with it. It’s although it’s going to be difficult. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Things can be very difficult. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Nice. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Okay\, thank you\, Bob\, for the encouraging words for staff. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Any other? Any further questions? Comments. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Okay\, seeing none. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I think that concludes the Board’s consideration on this topic. Thank you very much for the presentation and the \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: the Q. And a. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Yeah\, thank you so much for the thoughtful comments. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Okay. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: let’s continue on here. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: this concludes our meeting agenda. So I would entertain a motion to adjourn. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Is there a motion to adjourn? You guys want to just hang out for a long? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you. Do I have a second \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: second. Okay\, all in favor. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Aye\, aye\, all those opposed. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Okay\, the motion to adjourn passes\, and we are now adjourned. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you all\, and have a great rest of the day. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We got finished at \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: 2\, 43. \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/october-15-2024-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240925T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240925T170000 DTSTAMP:20240927T222725Z CREATED:20240130T060008Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240927T222725Z UID:10000157-1727269200-1727283600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:September 25\, 2024 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Engineering Criteria Review Board (ECRB) meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format. 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. \nPrimary physical location \nMetro Center375 Beale Street\, Yerba Buena 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/81787102673?pwd=vN89JOKiVyJskSGrBrIgssveWc91dm.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-50551 (816) 423 4282Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID817 8710 2673 \nPasscode387171 \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\, Meeting Procedure Review (5 minutes)\nStaff Updates (5 minutes)\nItem of Discussion: San Francisco International Airport (SFO) Shoreline Protection Project (Pre-Application). (120 minutes)\nThe Board will hold its second review the SFO (Applicant) proposed Shoreline Protection Project\, designed to address coastal flooding and sea level rise. The Board will review geotechnical engineering\, coastal hydraulics\, corrosion\, and flooding technical ports\, plus the operation and maintenance plan\, addressing issues raised by the ECRB in their first meeting with the Applicant on September 27\, 2023. These documents are related to the SFO permit application to the Commission for the proposed new sea wall and additional minor project components. The Board will advise BCDC staff and the Applicant as to additional studies\, analyses\, or actions to be undertaken to minimize the risk and consequences to the sea wall stability due to a seismic event\, flooding or sea level rise.\n(Rowan Yelton) [415/352-3613; rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov]\nSFO Presentation\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Audio Recording & Transcript\n \n \n\nTranscript\n\nYerba Buena SX80: Science \nYerba Buena SX80: like to welcome everyone \nYerba Buena SX80: to this meeting of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission’s Engineering Criteria Review Board. This meeting will be recorded. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, good afternoon. And welcome to to this hybrid in person and online \nYerba Buena SX80: Ecrb meeting. My name is Rod Iwashta. \nYerba Buena SX80: I am the chair of the ecrb and I have a few announcements. \nYerba Buena SX80: Our 1st order of business is to call the roll Board members. Please use the microphones on the table to respond. \nYerba Buena SX80: unmute yourselves to respond\, then mute yourselves again. After responding. Jen\, please call the role \nYerba Buena SX80: Rod Iwashta\, chair of the board. Here. \nYerba Buena SX80: Jim French vice chair. \nYerba Buena SX80: Here. \nYerba Buena SX80: Bob Battaglio on the board is not present. He is recused from this meeting. \nYerba Buena SX80: Geema Casali. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: Chris May. \nYerba Buena SX80: Chris May is also recused from this meeting. \nYerba Buena SX80: Ramin Golserki \nYerba Buena SX80: present \nYerba Buena SX80: Nick Sitar \nYerba Buena SX80: here. \nYerba Buena SX80: Gail Johnson. \nYerba Buena SX80: I know he is on vacation. \nYerba Buena SX80: Patrick Ryan \nYerba Buena SX80: here. \nYerba Buena SX80: Justin Vannever. \nYerba Buena SX80: here. \nYerba Buena SX80: Bill Tremaine \nYerba Buena SX80: here. \nYerba Buena SX80: and Dilip Trivetti. \nDilip Trivedi\, Moffatt & Nichol: Here\, but I will be there in person in 5 min. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, great. See you soon. \nYerba Buena SX80: Cherry watched it. We have a quorum of of 8\, almost 9 \nYerba Buena SX80: And so \nYerba Buena SX80: quorum is present. Okay\, thank you\, Jen. So if we have a quorum present\, we’re duly constituted to conduct business. \nYerba Buena SX80: we may have some alternate board members who may be participating as members of the public. \nYerba Buena SX80: and it looks like Thalia is maybe one of those people. \nYerba Buena SX80: Do you know\, Margie\, do you know if Sally is on the line. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: okay\, well\, I I called the meeting to order. \nYerba Buena SX80: I want to start with some instructions on how we can best participate \nYerba Buena SX80: in this meeting\, so that it runs as smoothly as possible. First\, st \nYerba Buena SX80: everyone. When you are not involved in the active discussion\, please make sure you have your microphones or phones muted \nYerba Buena SX80: to avoid background noise \nYerba Buena SX80: for board members. If you have a camera\, please make sure \nYerba Buena SX80: that it is on during the meeting. So everyone online can see you \nYerba Buena SX80: also board members. If you would like to speak during the meeting\, you may raise your actual hand or your virtual zoom hand\, whichever you prefer. \nYerba Buena SX80: Every now and then I may refer to the meeting host\, Margie\, who is working behind the scenes to ensure that the technology moves \nYerba Buena SX80: the meeting forward smoothly and consistently. \nYerba Buena SX80: Please be patient with us if it’s needed. \nYerba Buena SX80: Ex parte communications as set forth in Bcdc’s regulations. \nYerba Buena SX80: A member of the Ecrb shall not have any oral or written communication \nYerba Buena SX80: regarding the proposed project or other matter that has been noticed to be considered at an Ecrb meeting with a project proponent permit applicant prospective applicant or member of the public\, except on the record during an Ecrb meeting \nYerba Buena SX80: board members in case you have inadvertently forgotten to provide staff with \nYerba Buena SX80: a notice on any written or oral ex parte communications. \nYerba Buena SX80: I invite you to report on any such communications \nYerba Buena SX80: at this point by raising your hand and unmuting yourself. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, no raised hands. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. And now agenda. Item\, 2 staff updates. \nYerba Buena SX80: Now\, we will have a staff update from senior engineer and board. Secretary\, Jen Hyman. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. Chair Washta. I would like to provide an update on some upcoming Ecrb meetings. \nYerba Buena SX80: On October 15th \nYerba Buena SX80: the Ecrb will review and discuss the updated regional shoreline adaptation plan or Rsap guidelines. \nYerba Buena SX80: At the end of this meeting\, Bcdc. Council\, Michael Ng. Will give a legal training to Ecrb members on regulations and policies of the Ecrb \nYerba Buena SX80: and that meeting had was just moved from its original date on October 23.rd So I apologize for the last minute change of date on that. \nYerba Buena SX80: Now it’s going to be on October 15th \nYerba Buena SX80: the November meeting has also been changed from the 12th to the 19.th \nYerba Buena SX80: Currently there is nothing on that agenda. \nYerba Buena SX80: also board members\, the building management like our last meeting. Needs this room at 5 o’clock sharp. And so if we can all try to wind up the meeting by around 4 30 building personnel would appreciate them. \nYerba Buena SX80: Lastly\, I would like to ask board members when you speak today and applicant team. \nYerba Buena SX80: please move the microphones pretty close to your mouth. \nYerba Buena SX80: And speak loudly\, so that everyone in the room and on zoom can hear you. \nYerba Buena SX80: And the mics are directional. So if it’s too much of a pain to turn them on and off. You can just keep them on \nYerba Buena SX80: if you’d like. \nYerba Buena SX80: Those are all my announcements. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, thank you. Jen. Before we move on to the presentation. Are there any announcement announcements from board members? \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. Seeing none. Let’s move forward to agenda. Item\, 3 \nYerba Buena SX80: items of discussion. San Francisco International Airport Shoreline protection project. \nYerba Buena SX80: Now we will move on to the main agenda item related to the permit application \nYerba Buena SX80: for the San Francisco International Airport Shoreline Protection Project. \nYerba Buena SX80: Our discussion will focus on the stability \nYerba Buena SX80: of the proposed sheep steel sheet pile\, flood wall that is approximately 7 miles long. \nYerba Buena SX80: and would surround the airport along its shoreline. \nYerba Buena SX80: Jen\, the Board Secretary and Senior Engineer for Bcdc. Has a slide presentation for us \nYerba Buena SX80: with an introduction and a bit of background. \nYerba Buena SX80: Since this is the second meeting on the topic \nYerba Buena SX80: during the presentation. It is fine for board members to ask brief\, clarifying questions. \nYerba Buena SX80: I would like to ask board members and presenters. \nYerba Buena SX80: so please turn on your cameras for any discussion during or after the presentation. \nYerba Buena SX80: and I would like now like to turn it over to Jen to begin her presentation. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, this is Jen Hyman\, and I just have a few introductory slides regarding San Francisco International Airport Shoreline Protection Project. \nYerba Buena SX80: You’ll see it described as Sfo. Spp. That’s the shorthand for the project name. \nYerba Buena SX80: So Sfo. Has begun pre-application meetings with Bcdc. And submitted a draft permit application. \nYerba Buena SX80: The Ecrb review is focusing on the safety of the steel sheet pile flood wall\, which is about 7 miles long. \nYerba Buena SX80: One of the reaches in the project reach 7 also includes 26 acres of fill and special geotechnical treatments. \nYerba Buena SX80: Sfo is pursuing Fema accreditation for the wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: And because of that\, it’s being designed to Us. Army corps standards. \nYerba Buena SX80: Some of these design standards include looking at extreme \nYerba Buena SX80: wave loading and flood events. \nYerba Buena SX80: the the extreme scenario is a 750 year scenario. \nYerba Buena SX80: and they presented some of the results of that. In the last meeting\, in 2023 \nYerba Buena SX80: the project will be bid design build \nYerba Buena SX80: the project. Life is estimated to be about 60 years \nYerba Buena SX80: and hopefully get them about \nYerba Buena SX80: sea level rise adaptation out to about 2085. \nYerba Buena SX80: The airport is considered critical infrastructure. \nYerba Buena SX80: The 1st ecrb review of the project was on September 27\, th in 2023. \nYerba Buena SX80: The presentations at that time included structural analysis\, geotechnical analysis and sea level rise and flood hazards. \nYerba Buena SX80: In that meeting it was concluded that loads from flooding would govern over seismic loading. \nYerba Buena SX80: The Ecrb requested additional information regarding seismic stability. \nYerba Buena SX80: including a seismic and flooding scenario\, some information on corrosion and corrosion\, monitoring \nYerba Buena SX80: emergency operations and alternate designs. \nYerba Buena SX80: So this is the second Ecrb meeting for this meeting. \nYerba Buena SX80: San Francisco Airport provided \nYerba Buena SX80: some of the reports that have are required by Fema for accreditation of the flood wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: and also they presented information to be responsive to some requests from staff as well as the Ecrb comments already discussed. \nYerba Buena SX80: Some of the additional topics \nYerba Buena SX80: staff asked for information on include \nYerba Buena SX80: actually the ecrb requested seismic modeling at other reaches\, then reach 6. To confirm that reach 6 was the most critical reach. \nYerba Buena SX80: Staff also asked if there were internal flood risks from deep wall construction or groundwater sea level rise. \nYerba Buena SX80: land subsidence. \nYerba Buena SX80: wave reflection. \nYerba Buena SX80: operation\, maintenance plans and talking about the California seismic monitoring program \nYerba Buena SX80: were also topics that on Staff asked Sfo to report on today for the ecrb. \nYerba Buena SX80: So here are questions that Staff put together to help the Ecrb \nYerba Buena SX80: today and guide their discussion \nYerba Buena SX80: are the scenarios and design criteria. In the geotechnical stability analyses appropriate for the site\, hazards\, conditions\, and site criticality. \nYerba Buena SX80: Our flooding concerns\, IE from groundwater. \nYerba Buena SX80: coastal and rivering\, flooding\, flooding and sea level rise\, addressed adequately. \nYerba Buena SX80: has the applicant demonstrated that adverse impacts to adjacent properties \nYerba Buena SX80: have been minimized in the design. \nYerba Buena SX80: What future plan reviews or monitoring programs would you recommend that the applicant submit to confirm future project? Safety as the floodwall ages? \nYerba Buena SX80: Some topics to consider are design\, build\, phase\, submittals. \nYerba Buena SX80: corrosion\, monitoring. \nYerba Buena SX80: interior drainage system function\, monitoring. \nYerba Buena SX80: passive barrier function\, testing \nYerba Buena SX80: storms\, waves and sea level rise\, monitoring \nYerba Buena SX80: emergency preparedness or response systems testing. \nYerba Buena SX80: And maybe there are others \nYerba Buena SX80: not mentioned here. \nYerba Buena SX80: And lastly\, are there any other design or safety concerns that have not been addressed? \nYerba Buena SX80: And that’s my final slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, thank you\, Jen. \nYerba Buena SX80: Now the San Francisco airport team will make their technical presentations \nYerba Buena SX80: and pause for some Ecrb discussion after each topic. \nYerba Buena SX80: We will take public comments at the conclusion of the presentations. \nYerba Buena SX80: Take it away. \nYerba Buena SX80: Good afternoon\, Ecrb members. My name is David Kim. I’m the senior environmental planner for the San Francisco International Airport. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m responsible for getting our project shoreline protection program through environmental review and permitting. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m here today with my team of technical consultants to respond to questions from our 1st meeting last September on our project \nYerba Buena SX80: next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: Here’s the agenda for our presentation today. We took your questions from the last meeting\, and we’re here today to respond to each of them. \nYerba Buena SX80: The agenda here references each question. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’ll start with geotechnical analysis\, then operations and maintenance\, move on to groundwater and sea level rise \nYerba Buena SX80: subsidence\, and then finally monitoring for seismic activity. \nYerba Buena SX80: Next slide \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m joined by consultants from Esa Coe\, chair engineers and Geosyntech speakers will introduce themselves at the beginning of their presentations \nYerba Buena SX80: in the next few slides. I’m gonna go through very briefly since we’ve covered this last time and to maximize our time responding to your questions. We’re here because the airport is on the floodplain. \nYerba Buena SX80: and it’s at risk from flooding from sea level rise next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: We have a number of excuse me \nYerba Buena SX80: so to address that we have a shoreline protection program which would consist of primarily steel sheet pile walls driven into the ground \nYerba Buena SX80: with some concrete walls. On the north side of reach one and south side reach 15\, \nYerba Buena SX80: and also a new perimeter dike at the end of our runway\, 19 End \nYerba Buena SX80: side. \nYerba Buena SX80: We have a number of project objectives\, but they’re there primarily to protect our passengers\, workers and airport operations. We want to get off the flood map and protect the airport against sea level rise \nYerba Buena SX80: and to do it in a way that meets Faa. Design standards and requirements \nYerba Buena SX80: next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: This is a a. \nYerba Buena SX80: a summary of the project description. I’m not gonna go into this into too much detail. But they’re here for your \nYerba Buena SX80: for your review. Essentially\, we’re going to be removing the existing shoreline protection that’s there. Now and then we will be installing new shoreline protection\, mostly in the form of the steel sheet pile wall\, with some concrete walls in the north and south end\, establishing a new perimeter dike at the end of our runway. 19. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s like \nYerba Buena SX80: we’ll have some associated improvements in addition to that\, including shifting out our vehicle service roads to meet Faa design requirements \nYerba Buena SX80: retrofitting our existing infrastructure of storm drain\, pump station outfalls. \nYerba Buena SX80: and the reconstruction of the lighting trestles at the end of runway 19 left \nYerba Buena SX80: anticipated fill is roughly 25 acres within BC. DC. Bay jurisdiction largely at the end of the runway\, 19 ends. \nYerba Buena SX80: Here’s a conceptual schedule of what this project might look like\, I just want to highlight. This is highly dependent on funding and budget authorizations. But we’re in the midst of going through Nepa right now. We cleared sequel last year. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’re also in the midst of securing permit approvals with the regulatory agencies and also securing compensatory mitigation for the fill for our project. We would anticipate that the projects would be constructed in phases based on \nYerba Buena SX80: the construction\, methodology\, and the location of the wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: We will be employing a design build process as a delivery method for the shoreline protection program. \nYerba Buena SX80: The again. As Jen mentioned the design\, life is roughly 60 years. So we’re designing out about 2085. \nYerba Buena SX80: At this point I’d like to pause to see if there are any questions on the project description\, for it passes along. \nYerba Buena SX80: David\, real real quick. Yeah\, \nYerba Buena SX80: so it’s gonna be design build \nYerba Buena SX80: So how far along is the design team here going to progress? The the design. \nYerba Buena SX80: So the team here was involved with the conceptual design. But we have yet to procure a design builder \nYerba Buena SX80: and that that can’t start until we get further along with our compensatory mitigation\, our regulatory approvals. So we have to wait until that point. \nYerba Buena SX80: Question\, \nYerba Buena SX80: when we say\, design life of 60 years\, are we? Are we really \nYerba Buena SX80: talking about performance life of 60 years \nYerba Buena SX80: beyond which there would be upkeep. \nYerba Buena SX80: and whatever maintenance retrofits might be needed to continue the useful life. \nYerba Buena SX80: Is that something that you can address. Right? We’ve we’ve targeted 2085\, or basically 60 years establishing sort of like a sea level rise target and just general design life. The reality of is\, we have an operation and maintenance plan which will touch on the corrosion question \nYerba Buena SX80: that with proper maintenance this spot can easily extend past 60 years. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s just where we are with sea level rise in 60 years. Given the probabilities and the you know\, the different scenarios. That’s why we’re not saying it’s gonna last much beyond that\, with \nYerba Buena SX80: again\, I’m really confident it will. But we have to see how sea level rise happens first\, st \nYerba Buena SX80: and I’m assuming that there’s adaptive capacity built into this design. Yes\, there would be. \nYerba Buena SX80: There are no other questions. I’m going to pass this on to Bob Kirby of Terra engineers to talk about the geotechnical analysis. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you\, David. Yes\, my name is Bob Kirby. I’m a principal with terra engineers. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’ve been working on the geotechnical design concepts for several years now. \nYerba Buena SX80: To my left is Juan Pastana\, who’s been working with us for the last several years in a peer reviewed capacity on the \nYerba Buena SX80: on the geotechnical\, particularly the dynamic analysis aspects of the project. I’m gonna make a brief summary of our presentation. But during the Q. And a. 1\, i’m sure we’ll \nYerba Buena SX80: be available to to help me and help respond to your questions. \nYerba Buena SX80: And in terms of the supplemental geotechnical analysis. It’s really responding to an important question that the the Board raised during our meeting a year ago. \nYerba Buena SX80: we \nYerba Buena SX80: developed a and completed analyses for reach 6 reach 6 is A is the location where we have the \nYerba Buena SX80: the thickest amount of young bay mud. \nYerba Buena SX80: and our presumption was that\, given this analysis of the section with the thickest amount of young Bay mud\, that it would be a critical section for the for the seismic design. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think the the the board brought up the point that we need to be careful here\, cautious because of the \nYerba Buena SX80: attenuation properties within the young bay mud. You know\, it could lead to something less than the \nYerba Buena SX80: the maximum thickness being the the critical section. And you asked us to perform additional analysis\, which we’ve done \nYerba Buena SX80: and will be presenting here this afternoon. \nYerba Buena SX80: Next slide\, please. \nYerba Buena SX80: our goal is to move through this quickly. There’s a document that supports the presentation I’m giving. It’s footnoted at on this slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s a supplemental report for for the one that we prepared last year. \nYerba Buena SX80: just to give you a preview of what? How we’ll be approaching this presentation. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’ll take a quick look at the at an overview of the shoreline protection program. The locations of the sections that we’ve analyzed. \nYerba Buena SX80: we’ll take a look at the average subsurface conditions and how they vary along by reach by reach. \nYerba Buena SX80: Then we’ll take a look at soil conditions at the sections that we’ve actually analyzed\, which different \nYerba Buena SX80: usually somewhat from the average\, because we were getting sections that were of most interest to us whether that’s maximum thickness or \nYerba Buena SX80: where we had available information. \nYerba Buena SX80: at at that time\, too\, I think it might be good at the beginning to give you a quick preview of what we found. \nYerba Buena SX80: and just kind of go over those results in a in a rather quick way\, and having done that\, we would then walk through the the models that we developed at 2 additional sections for the plexus \nYerba Buena SX80: in addition to plexus analysis\, we did a number of sensitivity\, studies\, site\, response analysis. \nYerba Buena SX80: using the deep soil approach if you will. \nYerba Buena SX80: and and that was also geared towards looking at the influence of the thickness of the young Bay mud on the\, on the performance of the of the system. \nYerba Buena SX80: So after. So those are the additional studies that we’ve done\, and then we’ll close with some summary and conclusions next slide\, please. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think you’re probably familiar with this. And Jen showed something similar. These are the \nYerba Buena SX80: the shoreline protection program\, nominally 7 miles long. \nYerba Buena SX80: 15 reaches the reaches we spoke about last year last time. \nYerba Buena SX80: or reach 6 and 7 reach 6 is typical of most of the program\, and 7 is in this extended dike area. \nYerba Buena SX80: What we’ve added to that is plexus analysis at reach 5 and reach 14. And there there’s the locations of the \nYerba Buena SX80: analytical sections are shown on this slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: Next slide\, please. \nYerba Buena SX80: Here are a couple of tables. They’re kind of bookends\, if you will. From what we have in our report. \nYerba Buena SX80: Table one on the left. Indicates for the 15 reaches what are the the lengths of the reach and the average \nYerba Buena SX80: thickness of the existing fill the average thickness of the young bay mud. The depth to to rock\, have to keep in mind that the variation within a reach\, because the reaches are quite long can be pretty significant. So these are just the average values based on the \nYerba Buena SX80: borings that we have available. There’s lots of available information that we’ve summarized to to get these average values. We’ve shaded in the reaches where the analysis are being done just as shown on the previous slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: 5\, 6\, 7\, and 14 \nYerba Buena SX80: table\, 8 s. 8 is shown to the right\, and if we take a look at that\, we see that for each 6\, which is kind of our benchmark here our anchor for the analysis that we showed before what the conditions are. We had 20 feet of fill\, and some of the data that are shown here. Thickness of fill was nominally 20 feet thickness of young bay mud\, 61 feet \nYerba Buena SX80: and the analysis results that we got there are about 1.3 feet of lateral displacement \nYerba Buena SX80: for the for the top of the sheepah wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: and we had rather quite low and acceptable. Can I ask a question real quick? What level of earthquake is this? \nYerba Buena SX80: Thanks. It’s a 475 year return period. \nYerba Buena SX80: the earthquake. \nYerba Buena SX80: the \nYerba Buena SX80: So so we have. That’s some information about Route 6\, Route 6\, with the 475 year return earthquake \nYerba Buena SX80: and then\, if we look at what we found out from our analysis of reach 5 and reach 14 just as a quick preview our reach 6 displacements of about 1.3 feet. Turned out to compare \nYerba Buena SX80: with we’ll see calculated displacement for reach 5 and reach 14 and point 8 \nYerba Buena SX80: feet and point 9 feet. \nYerba Buena SX80: The \nYerba Buena SX80: the variation in properties that we looked at for reach 5 and reach 14 are summarized there. The thickness of the fill. It was 20 feet of reach\, 6\, and we went to 30 feet of reach\, 5 and 7 feet at reach 14\, and as far as the young bay mud is concerned. We had 61 feet at reach 6\, and we went to 17 feet at reach 5 and 43 feet or so at reach 14 \nYerba Buena SX80: with respect to the bending moments and stresses\, they’re they’re summarized. They’re just in general comment. They they turn out to be \nYerba Buena SX80: really quite low\, well within the elastic range from the soil structure\, interaction perspective. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then the the PGA within the fill is a very important for the liquefaction assessment \nYerba Buena SX80: and the the values we had to reach 6.1 8 \nYerba Buena SX80: at reach 5 and 14. We’re point 2. 0\, and it’s actually point 2 3 at reach 5. That’s a typo in that table \nYerba Buena SX80: next slide. Please \nYerba Buena SX80: hang on\, Bob. Sorry. \nYerba Buena SX80: real quick. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: this. So the there are 3 new analyses that are being presented here today? 2\, 2. And what was the selection? Criteria for the 2 reach these 2 new reaches? It was to \nYerba Buena SX80: give give a good representation of the variability in subsurface conditions. So we started with the maximum value of young bay mud at reach 6 at 60 feet. So we went to 40 feet and \nYerba Buena SX80: 17 feet\, which which were the thicknesses that we’re looking. And if you look at the average values of the thickness of the young bay mud in that table to the left you’ll see that they tend to vary from 20 feet as the low at the low end to 60 feet at at the high end. So we’ve we’ve covered the range of thickness of the young bay mud\, I think pretty well\, and we are looking at \nYerba Buena SX80: some also some differences in thickness of the fill itself 20 feet at 6 went to 30 feet at 5\, went to 7 feet at 14. This it looks like the new sections that got selected have \nYerba Buena SX80: higher maximum displacements. \nYerba Buena SX80: No\, no\, they no\, they don’t. They have less. \nYerba Buena SX80: If if we look at the table. Essay. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah. Essay. So reach 5 is\, oh\, and 14. Okay\, I’m sorry. Yeah. Reach 5 and 14 are the new ones and reach 6. Is the the original. I was reading it wrong. \nYerba Buena SX80: Sorry? No problem. \nYerba Buena SX80: any any other \nYerba Buena SX80: next slide\, please. \nYerba Buena SX80: I I have a question. Sure. \nYerba Buena SX80: Why is the 1st of all? Why are you? You have done a lot of work\, and you call the report preliminary. And just \nYerba Buena SX80: what is the intent of this being a preliminary? Is it in the context of the design build? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, yes\, I think that’s a fair way to put it. And also it’s in the context of the geotechnical explorations that have been made. I mean\, we. There’s a lot of data available\, and we summarize the information available from borings. \nYerba Buena SX80: There was a huge study done in 2\,001 on engineering properties\, none. Nonetheless\, there are a need for further geotechnical investigations. So with with that as a background\, it it really supports the notion of preliminary\, because there are additional \nYerba Buena SX80: investigations. \nYerba Buena SX80: And the next question\, thank you. The next question\, why is the bending moment\, the maximum bending moment in reach? 14. So much \nYerba Buena SX80: less than everywhere else? It seems \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s it’s be and we’ll take a look at it\, it’s because there’s much less fill. I I think the main reason is this\, this\, there’s considerably less fill\, and I think the \nYerba Buena SX80: The bending moment in the in the sheep piles is driven by the interaction from from the fill. If you will. Yeah\, thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Next slide\, please. \nYerba Buena SX80: So reach 5. \nYerba Buena SX80: the. It’s it’s quite a. It’s quite a busy diagram. The cross section that you see there is one that was prepared in 2\,001 by the Ada group. \nYerba Buena SX80: showing cpts. But it it. It shows how the general variation and \nYerba Buena SX80: the various young bay mud and fill\, and the the much stronger layers beneath. Are. \nYerba Buena SX80: What we’re looking at is a boring at the edge of the \nYerba Buena SX80: the fill\, if you will. There are 2 borings\, one very deep boring that we we had to. \nYerba Buena SX80: I extend those that information above 700 feet to to get there\, but it. It really provides good information on where the the top of the rock is. \nYerba Buena SX80: The the boring \nYerba Buena SX80: the other boring in that location gives us good delineation on the thickness of fill and young bay mud. \nYerba Buena SX80: And this was an unusual situation where there was quite a lot of fill and very little young Bay mud\, comparatively speaking\, but we decided to anchor on that and use that because we’re trying to get variability and judge the effects of having things that are really quite different. So that’s the reason we we selected that \nYerba Buena SX80: section for analysis. Next slide\, please. \nYerba Buena SX80: So here’s the plexus model that was developed for \nYerba Buena SX80: for reach 5. The sheet pile is shown there. \nYerba Buena SX80: And that’s typical of what goes on and goes through the fill and penetrates into the young bay mud typically 10 feet. \nYerba Buena SX80: and what we’re looking at is the and this particular location of the \nYerba Buena SX80: quite\, quite an additional thickness of fill because of the way it was construction. There are some mud waves that that were probably created during construction of the airport at a number of places \nYerba Buena SX80: next slide. Bob\, can I back up to the previous slide for real quick question? Sure. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, it’s pretty small. But\, for instance\, on the far left edge there\, what? What’s the color coding mean on the Cpt \nYerba Buena SX80: you’ve got. If you zoom in yellow\, red\, and blue\, I think\, and green. \nYerba Buena SX80: wondering what those different color codes are. I’m not \nYerba Buena SX80: really sure. I I’m quite sure the the higher values\, of course\, are associated with\, you know\, cohesionless type\, sandy materials\, stronger standing materials. \nYerba Buena SX80: and I’m not \nYerba Buena SX80: really positive about the \nYerba Buena SX80: the I and and I think it may tie into the color code that’s used in the in the boring logs\, for the. \nYerba Buena SX80: for the\, for the different layers that have been interpreted. \nYerba Buena SX80: But but that is straight from the the the 2\,001 Ada. Report. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: next slide\, please\, for going. After that I was just gonna add one more thing. If you\, if you I can zoom in and see the the horizontal axis. Here is the tip resistance\, if that helps with you tripping up. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, but I’m curious. Why\, there’s green\, red\, and blue on the the non yellow stuff \nYerba Buena SX80: it. It does look like tip resistance\, but but the color is some sort of an interpretation. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: So if we could move ahead \nYerba Buena SX80: and then next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: So that was the model. And and and here are the results of the calculated lateral movements for for this\, for this section. \nYerba Buena SX80: the the color coding \nYerba Buena SX80: shows the higher displacements in in red with the lower displacements in blue. \nYerba Buena SX80: The \nYerba Buena SX80: should point out and remind folks that \nYerba Buena SX80: we have 7 ground motions that were used for the analysis. So the analysis was repeated for 7 different ground motions that are associated with the 475 year event. \nYerba Buena SX80: They’re positive and reverse normal and reverse polarity. So there’s actually 14 cases that are that are analyzed. \nYerba Buena SX80: If we the displacement. The average displacement was 0 point 8 feet for the top of the sheepah wall\, based on that analysis and the standard deviation was 0 point 3 feet \nYerba Buena SX80: next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: This is information on the soil structure. Interaction for the sheet piles. \nYerba Buena SX80: What we’re looking at is the the maximum bending moment \nYerba Buena SX80: induced during shaking for each of the 7 \nYerba Buena SX80: ground motions\, and for both positive\, our normal and reverse polarity. \nYerba Buena SX80: And \nYerba Buena SX80: the \nYerba Buena SX80: and in a general sense the maximum moment occurs at about the interface between the fill and the young bay. Mud. \nYerba Buena SX80: The maximum bending moment is about 27 \nYerba Buena SX80: kip feet that compares to an allowable of 69 kip feet. And that’s just based on. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, permanent loading. What? What kind of allowable bedding moments for a mild steel. \nYerba Buena SX80: So these these are really relatively \nYerba Buena SX80: low\, and those red vertical lines are the allowables on either side. So you see that the the stresses and bending moments within the pile are actually quite small. \nYerba Buena SX80: And on the right are the the displaced position of of the pile for those 14 cases that were analyzed\, and the lateral movement is exaggerated by a factor of 10\, \nYerba Buena SX80: and in order to just \nYerba Buena SX80: allowed to see it if you will\, but it’s really very straight. So so the the soil structure interaction is rather small and obvious. Yeah\, quick question the so the at the piled the sheet pile tip. It looks like there is \nYerba Buena SX80: displacement. Yeah. And so \nYerba Buena SX80: they’re \nYerba Buena SX80: I guess maybe I’m getting out of my out of my lane here. But is there vertical settlements as well associated with all of this? With the \nYerba Buena SX80: with the the movement of a foot. Say. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, yes. \nYerba Buena SX80: Essentially\, the the pile is translating with with the with the ground. We see that in the lateral movement. And then that is what’s plotted there on the right is the lateral movement. There\, there will be some some vertical movement. That occurs. I think we’re \nYerba Buena SX80: but it’s \nYerba Buena SX80: and and when we look\, if if we could back up a moment\, Matt\, to that \nYerba Buena SX80: deform mesh\, so this on. These are typical lateral displacements. \nYerba Buena SX80: okay\, yeah\, no. These\, these are just the lateral displacements. So so \nYerba Buena SX80: we in in the analysis\, we’ve we’ve actually done a total stress analysis. And \nYerba Buena SX80: I\, I think we’re we’re probably overstating a bit the the vertical movements that that are recurring. Okay\, because it’s \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s going to be shared constant volume\, you know\, and and during the earthquake for the for the young Bay mud. That’s that’s going. But but it’s a permanent set\, right. It’s a permanent okay\, this is permanent. Thanks. \nYerba Buena SX80: I have a question about this \nYerba Buena SX80: figure also looks like the the dashed red line is the allowable moment capacity\, and a couple of the cases. \nYerba Buena SX80: Ground motion one\, both normal and reverse\, exceed the allowable. \nYerba Buena SX80: I wonder if you can comment on that? \nYerba Buena SX80: No\, no\, let unless let’s review with this. So we are. Are we looking on the the left hand side\, right\, the left hand panel. \nYerba Buena SX80: So the the allowable bending moment of 69 foot kips is characterized by the \nYerba Buena SX80: the 2 vertical lines on either side. Oh\, I see. There’s another dashed line. Dash\, red line. Okay? I got it. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: So that 69 on either side\, plus or minus 69 compares to the width of the yeah\, there’s there’s 2 dash red lines. Yeah. So when when you say reverse polarity\, you mean you’re applying it as pushing the \nYerba Buena SX80: the mass in this case to the left. \nYerba Buena SX80: Is that what you mean by that? Yeah. And maybe Juan can help with this. But it’s it’s my understanding that you \nYerba Buena SX80: you you take the ground motions and on face value or normal\, and you shake it. \nYerba Buena SX80: But it’s not symmetrical. And it’s and it’s a two-dimensional problem. That’s that’s asymmetrical itself. So depending on on which way the average movement is\, you’ll get some different results\, whether it’s normal polarity or reverse polarity. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, I mean\, that’s if it was level ground\, the answer \nYerba Buena SX80: from the standard. So the the question is whether\, there’s only one motion that we need to be applied\, and if it’s level ground it doesn’t matter \nYerba Buena SX80: but if the ground is not level\, if the geometry is not \nYerba Buena SX80: is symmetric in the sense we have to use. \nYerba Buena SX80: We have to apply the direction of the motion in the \nYerba Buena SX80: direction of the S. Axis\, and then in the opposite direction\, because we don’t know which direction it’s going to go. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. So it’s the same. It’s the same motion. Yeah\, it just reverse\, because the geometry is not symmetric. Right \nYerba Buena SX80: on \nYerba Buena SX80: next slide. Matt hang on a second. I \nYerba Buena SX80: get a ton of zoom spam callers\, and seems like they just temporarily cut us off \nYerba Buena SX80: back with you in a minute. Okay? \nYerba Buena SX80: Does the allowable bending moment for the steel sheet pile wall change with time during its 60 year life. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, I can cover that. We actually trust that in the corrosion section. So we I don’t wanna get ahead of myself\, but I’ll get ahead of myself. We have accounted for future corrosion loss. \nYerba Buena SX80: And so when we did our structural checks\, we took some very conservative approaches on reduced wall thickness which in theory would reduce the capacity. But in that slide I’ll go into. Why\, we believe that is an extremely conservative approach\, and where the operation and maintenance manual airport will implement will actually result in likely vary to 0 to very little loss over the life of the project. \nYerba Buena SX80: But but 69 is the uncorroded \nYerba Buena SX80: allowable \nYerba Buena SX80: up? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, that I mean\, that was for for that section. Given the the properties. Yeah\, I didn’t reduce it. \nYerba Buena SX80: We we did on our end. And again\, based on\, you know\, just looking at that diagram. There’s plenty of room at the start. And we looked at a more conservative approach. If we lost this based on these values. \nYerba Buena SX80: and again\, this is seismic bending. The the flood case actually ends up controlling from a structural perspective. \nYerba Buena SX80: And so that induced the actual maximum moments. But we’ll touch on that later. And again\, there’s there’s quite a bit of reserve capacity on this. The wall thickness was actually selected \nYerba Buena SX80: primarily for installation. We didn’t want to go below 3 eighths inch wall thickness\, just for driving purposes. So again\, there’s there’s a lot of extra reserve structural capacity. \nYerba Buena SX80: But in 60 years this dash red line down the right edge would be shifted in theory. Yes\, yes. \nYerba Buena SX80: James\, did you also\, while we have this plot up? Do you want to talk about where the corrosion would be more significant relative to where the maximum. \nYerba Buena SX80: Why don’t we table that up? \nYerba Buena SX80: Maybe if we wait to? A little later we could come back to the slide. If there’s further questions\, because I do talk about corrosion rates\, and where that corrosion will occur\, you know\, in ground atmospheric splash zone. \nYerba Buena SX80: And again\, based on where this wall is relative to the actual water level\, I have a graphic and some discussion there\, I think\, will help with this discussion. \nYerba Buena SX80: but the structural \nYerba Buena SX80: properties of these walls you provided to the geotechs correct. The sheet is a little small there\, but the sheet pile the Az. 19700 was the basis of our structural design and Bob’s geotechnical analysis. We established a 36 inch\, 36 ksi yield\, which again \nYerba Buena SX80: the design build team may select 50 ksi if needed. We just picked a conservative value. And in this particular case the the stresses on the wall due to the seismic movement under the 475 is just not inducing a significant structural load. The sheet is essentially \nYerba Buena SX80: sort of sliding\, moving with the mass of soil. There’s not a lot of differentials. It’s not retaining any soil in essence. But the shoreline does move as Bob has indicated. \nYerba Buena SX80: and I had a question\, too. Here\, \nYerba Buena SX80: and maybe you have slides that cover it. But my question was on slope stability. \nYerba Buena SX80: Primarily\, because \nYerba Buena SX80: these are non tied back. These are cantilevered sheets right? \nYerba Buena SX80: And so they are relying on the passive \nYerba Buena SX80: pressure from the buttress in front of it. \nYerba Buena SX80: and so slope stability\, analysis for existing case \nYerba Buena SX80: and post sheet pile construction case for the same design. Earthquakes that you have analyzed are those forthcoming in the slides that we’re going to see. \nYerba Buena SX80: They’re actually included. \nYerba Buena SX80: Mike. Sorry\, I’m sorry. Thank you. The the plexus analysis is a is a nonlinear analysis. It it takes into account yielding\, that goes on\, and the and the movement associated with with that yielding \nYerba Buena SX80: So \nYerba Buena SX80: we and and what what it’s doing is the the movements aren’t taking the the system to failure\, if you will. They’re they’re just analyzing the system as as it’s loaded by these inertial forces \nYerba Buena SX80: during shaking but but the the displacements that we see here include the yielding that that’s going on within the \nYerba Buena SX80: within the various soil layers \nYerba Buena SX80: understood. But for existing case all of the slopes \nYerba Buena SX80: meet \nYerba Buena SX80: the criteria of greater than 1.1 under seismic conditions\, right? And and and of course they’ll they’ll there’ll be design criteria for the there’s going to be some regrading going on. And what have you that that’ll \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, in the final design? There’ll there’ll be minimal \nYerba Buena SX80: adjustment in geometry\, because we? \nYerba Buena SX80: We? We have a situation that’s out there already\, and we’re not trying trying to avoid new loads. \nYerba Buena SX80: But yeah\, the current situation has is stable. Yes. \nYerba Buena SX80: So there is no rotational movement because of the imbalance in \nYerba Buena SX80: peace. Love. \nYerba Buena SX80: pre-previous slide\, please. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. And you can see the movement. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: So one of the things you see there is that the sheet pile \nYerba Buena SX80: in the vicinity of the sheet pile? The ground level is is pretty much the same\, so the the wall is not holding anything. So I\, I understand your question about cantilever\, but this is really not cantilever. This is \nYerba Buena SX80: this is essentially like an eye wall. It’s just providing flood protection is not retaining soil. That’s not the design criteria for the. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I have a question about how the movement was considered\, and the analyses that you’ve been presenting are looking at out of plane response of the the wall and the different reaches\, and I was interested to know if there’s any consideration given to \nYerba Buena SX80: in plane\, the potential for any in plane differential movement to accumulate along the length of the wall. Given \nYerba Buena SX80: the preponderance of the movement appears to be in the soil. \nYerba Buena SX80: Obviously\, there’s different conditions. \nYerba Buena SX80: As you work your way around the different reaches of the the seawall. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. Well\, again\, I think there’s a specific question of the joint. \nYerba Buena SX80: Again\, this is designed primarily as a flood protection element. \nYerba Buena SX80: There is seismic again\, different. The 4 75 year event as Bob is presenting does create some movement. \nYerba Buena SX80: So we have some slides about how jointly \nYerba Buena SX80: that\, like post seismic flood protection will be provided by Sfo. In this this structure we do make some rough assessments of where we think there could be some potential post 4\, 75 year event damage. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s a little hard to specify\, particularly when we looked at kind of where discontinuities and alignment\, where the wall makes a 90 degree turn. You know\, these are generally movements trying to move towards the bay. So obviously\, if you have 2 walls at angle each other\, they’re going to want to move in different directions. The sheets are quite \nYerba Buena SX80: flexible. Accordion. Ask\, but there still is limits. And so the expectation is there is potential \nYerba Buena SX80: for some interlock breakage. And then we discuss what new risk that induces from a flood protection standpoint back on the airport. And so I have a series of slides that I’ll go into that shortly. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. And and I just might add that \nYerba Buena SX80: it. It is a 2 dimensional analysis. \nYerba Buena SX80: and so we have these estimated estimated movements from the 2D analysis. And we also \nYerba Buena SX80: took a look at the potential for differential movements along the along the the outer plane. Much the way you would looking at a \nYerba Buena SX80: a settlement of a building? Or what have you get? What’s the total settlement? What’s the differential settlement? And for this the analysis we use was the I estimated the differential settlement might be about half the total settlement\, and then compare that to the kind of longitudinal strains that we would have along the alignment of the Shepa wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: And what kind of rotations these are? Zz! These aren’t flat sheet piles. These are Z shaped so they they have the ability to to handle some some longitudinal strains just just because of rotation\, if you will. And and the \nYerba Buena SX80: James\, that doesn’t look like there’s much much of a worry about breaking interlocks in for that mechanism. But but for when you have sharp ends\, know that that where it’s it’s more \nYerba Buena SX80: correct\, our our assumption right? Our analysis and evaluation is in alignment\, like essentially one of the reaches. That’s a straight reach like reach 12 along that the general expectation is the movement will be towards the bay. It’s going to be fairly uniform across the alignment\, obviously with variability in soil and so on. There could be some differential. But the differential isn’t significant enough where we’d expect a lot of breakages along those interlocks. Essentially\, that whole wall is going to kind of move along. \nYerba Buena SX80: or when it reaches\, reach 11 and reach 13 and makes a 90 degree turn. \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s going to induce significant\, more stresses. And again\, our theory is that there could be a gap there. Now we present where we think the gaps will happen. But our solution to that could apply. If there was a gap on a straight segment\, because of unknown changes and stiffnesses and soils\, it would still get addressed the exact same way at these other discontinuities. I would point out that our design purposely did not design a concrete cap initially for this project. \nYerba Buena SX80: We have a bent plates\, and it’s because of the concrete caps rigidity. We felt that by binding all of the sheets together it would remove some of this kind of flexibility to accommodate these differential movements\, and it would create sort of less predictability and more difficult repairs in the future. \nYerba Buena SX80: The steel sheets itself don’t need that cap from a structural standpoint to resist these loads from the flood wall\, and the sheets themselves will act well in cantilever. However\, we didn’t want to\, also a rough looking sheet. So we provided a \nYerba Buena SX80: kind of a capping element. \nYerba Buena SX80: Bob\, my question is\, is the profile that you analyze and considered \nYerba Buena SX80: the most critical profile \nYerba Buena SX80: that you know you can think of. All could happen. \nYerba Buena SX80: Which means that anything that happens\, you know\, from natural phenomena \nYerba Buena SX80: will result more in accretion \nYerba Buena SX80: of flattest love. \nYerba Buena SX80: and there is no potential for removal of material which will change the slope. \nYerba Buena SX80: Something more critical than this. Yeah\, and that. That’s a good question that what we’re looking at here are various sections now to to understand the impact of differing subsurface conditions on how the energy gets. \nYerba Buena SX80: You know\, leads to seismic or influences seismic performance. \nYerba Buena SX80: So our presumption was that reach 6 because of its largest thickness of young Bay mud would be the critical location in terms of seismic performance. So this this is a case now\, where there’s very little young bay mud. So we’re at the other end of the spectrum. We’re trying to understand \nYerba Buena SX80: how things behave for different soil profiles at this point. \nYerba Buena SX80: But \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, the the basic idea\, I think. And and I think it’s proven to be probably okay \nYerba Buena SX80: is that\, you know. Reach 6 is a good \nYerba Buena SX80: good predictor of the the maximum movements that that we’re gonna encounter. \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, I guess the question is\, I mean\, do you foresee a potential that this profile. \nYerba Buena SX80: for example. \nYerba Buena SX80: could be \nYerba Buena SX80: the slope in front of the wall could be steeper \nYerba Buena SX80: due to \nYerba Buena SX80: coastal processes. Wow! I could take this one \nYerba Buena SX80: So in our cross section we do have riprap protection on the outboard side of all the reaches to provide that protection. So we’re not having soil loss or erosion. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, Matt\, why don’t we move? \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, so that was reach 5. That. So we’ve covered that now. \nYerba Buena SX80: Similarly\, we we analyze\, analyzed reach 14 \nYerba Buena SX80: the\, this is \nYerba Buena SX80: along the mud flat. At at the airport. It’s on the on the on the eastern side. \nYerba Buena SX80: the \nYerba Buena SX80: the we. We have a deep boring at the location of our analytical section\, the the one that’s normal to the to the shoreline. We we have information\, then\, on the on the depth to the rock\, and and the the various layers \nYerba Buena SX80: beneath it. The the young bay mud is nominally in 40 feet or so thick. Here the the fill itself was was only 7 feet thick. So it’s it’s an intermediate thickness of young bay mud and a and a very nominal\, a small thickness of fill for this analysis \nYerba Buena SX80: next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: So this is the plexus model that that we developed for that \nYerba Buena SX80: the situation. \nYerba Buena SX80: And on the next slide we look at the \nYerba Buena SX80: the contours of lateral displacement and and the the average and the standard deviation of the \nYerba Buena SX80: of the movement of the sheep pile itself. And that’s the 0 point 9 feet on average. \nYerba Buena SX80: with a standard deviation of 0 point 4 feet. \nYerba Buena SX80: So so those are the the this\, that’s the displacement information\, and that we tried to capture in that table. We looked at at the beginning of the \nYerba Buena SX80: of the talk \nYerba Buena SX80: next slide\, please. \nYerba Buena SX80: and and this is the the moment behavior. And\, as as you noted earlier\, they’re they’re smaller still at at reach 14 than they are at the others. \nYerba Buena SX80: And and I think again\, that’s driven by the fact that there’s relatively little fill that that’s that’s that’s associated with with this particular section. \nYerba Buena SX80: So so that’s kind of a summary that is a summary of the the 2 new reaches that we’ve done\, the plex analysis. \nYerba Buena SX80: We we also spent a fair amount of effort looking at site\, response analysis\, and how it varies with soil conditions. And that’s next next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: you. You may recall from our last meeting that we looked at Reach 6. This is the site. Response analysis for reach 6 \nYerba Buena SX80: 1. 1 of the interesting things and and a question that came up at our meeting. \nYerba Buena SX80: Last time was\, boy that \nYerba Buena SX80: that very stiff layer beneath\, right at the bottom of the young bay mud\, I mean\, what? How important is that in terms of the performance. \nYerba Buena SX80: So \nYerba Buena SX80: after our meeting\, we we decided to take a a second look at that. On the next slide we can see \nYerba Buena SX80: the the peak ground acceleration panel that we had on the previous slide is shown again. That hasn’t changed. That’s the reach 6 \nYerba Buena SX80: psa values and the panel just to the right of it is a an analysis where we said\, Okay\, assume that that stiff layer is in there\, and that the engineering properties\, the material underneath it extend through that. \nYerba Buena SX80: And what? What are the implications of that for the results of the analysis? \nYerba Buena SX80: So we we see that by removing that stiff layer we do get some increase in the PGA in the lower portions of the young bay mud. \nYerba Buena SX80: but as it works its way up \nYerba Buena SX80: and to towards the fill it. It winds up actually at at the same PGA within the fill\, or not exactly the same\, but 0 point 1 8 became 0 point 1 9 g. In terms of the the PGA with within the fill. So so we see that the PGA within the fill\, which is \nYerba Buena SX80: but you know\, the most important thing from a liquefaction. Assessment point of view is\, is is pretty pretty stable. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s it’s it’s not affected much by these kind of deep differences. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then we also looked at \nYerba Buena SX80: other sensitivities. We went to reach 5 where the rock is not as deep. \nYerba Buena SX80: You you see\, the rock. Is higher up\, and what we did there on on that reach. 5. We we looked at \nYerba Buena SX80: This happens to be a thickness of 40 feet \nYerba Buena SX80: of of young bay mud compared to the the 60 feet that we had at at reach 6. And what we see there is that the that the PGA \nYerba Buena SX80: within the fill is again \nYerba Buena SX80: 0 point 1 9. So so we see cutting that young vein thickness in half. \nYerba Buena SX80: really didn’t bother the it didn’t change anything within the \nYerba Buena SX80: the the fill. And 1 1 of the important things to \nYerba Buena SX80: that we have to keep in mind. We’ve kept the thickness of the fill the same across the sensitivity. Study. But but we see that the that \nYerba Buena SX80: that there’s really been hasn’t been a change in the in the PGA\, and then we we reduced it even further in the final panel. \nYerba Buena SX80: And I guess that thickness there\, I think it’s about 20. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m not sure what. I don’t recall what that is. About 28 feet or so\, and and there we have similar results. And the the the PGA in in that particular case\, went to 0 point 2 0\, as I recall. So so you know again\, we’re we’re we’re seeing that we can \nYerba Buena SX80: turn the knobs in terms of the various thicknesses. And it’s not changing things in any substantial or material way. \nYerba Buena SX80: Sorry. Good question. Just \nYerba Buena SX80: when you remove that that stiff layer just below the bay mud \nYerba Buena SX80: did the displacement\, profile\, change of the \nYerba Buena SX80: of the soil column. \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t have that in front of me. One\, do you? \nYerba Buena SX80: I I don’t have that information in front of me\, but I I don’t remember\, it was very significant. So the results\, the results were very\, very similar. \nYerba Buena SX80: Just curious are these plexus results or deep soil results here. These are deep soil results. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: Next next slide\, please. \nYerba Buena SX80: This. This is a separate study that we made. It was actually\, we reached out to on Gsntech \nYerba Buena SX80: to to do this for us. \nYerba Buena SX80: we most of our work is for the 475 year earthquake\, but what we wanted to do was to take a look at. \nYerba Buena SX80: How does the magnitude of the earthquake change the the the PGA within the fill? So what this is? A plot showing the the PGA within\, at the surface\, within the fill\, on the vertical axis and the horizontal is the PGA at at the input motion at the rock. \nYerba Buena SX80: And what we’re looking at here are return intervals of 72 years\, 2\, 25\, \nYerba Buena SX80: 4\, 75\, and 9\, 75. So we’re kind of looking at a full spectrum. \nYerba Buena SX80: and each of the diamonds that you see there represents a result\, an analysis result for one of the ground motions. \nYerba Buena SX80: So there were 7 data points that that we analyzed for each of those return intervals. \nYerba Buena SX80: Now\, this happens to be one where you don’t do the normal and reverse polarity. Because it’s a 1 dimensional problem. It’s not asymmetric. So \nYerba Buena SX80: then that’s that’s why there are only 7 of those diamonds. And and the the average values. \nYerba Buena SX80: For for those \nYerba Buena SX80: groups of 7 are captured with the red\, the red circles\, and the and the curve that goes through it. \nYerba Buena SX80: So what? What we\, what we see is a a really\, quite a well defined bend over curve\, if you will\, \nYerba Buena SX80: When we get to the design earthquake\, which which has a PGA at the rock of about point 3 2 or so. We’re we’re at that 0 point 1 9 number \nYerba Buena SX80: that we saw before. And then when we get up to the 975 year event\, it’s it’s \nYerba Buena SX80: leveled off asymptotically\, it appears at about point 2. \nYerba Buena SX80: So it \nYerba Buena SX80: it. It just gives us a feel again for the the sensitivity of these results to the to the the intensity of of the ground\, shaking. \nYerba Buena SX80: so the the next slide\, please. \nYerba Buena SX80: So so here are the site. Response analysis\, deep soil analysis for reach 5 \nYerba Buena SX80: that really are a companion to the plexus analysis that we’ve done for reach 5 \nYerba Buena SX80: and it and it shows actually\, for for reach 5\, \nYerba Buena SX80: the and and here the the thickness of the field is 30 feet rather than 20 feet\, which is what we had it. \nYerba Buena SX80: reach 6 \nYerba Buena SX80: and and we we do have a PGA of of about 0 point 2 3 is what we came up with here compared to the you know\, the point 2 saturation number at \nYerba Buena SX80: at reach 6. Question. Yep. \nYerba Buena SX80: So if I look at this\, obviously\, you have the classic behavior between soft and stiff boundaries \nYerba Buena SX80: that could \nYerba Buena SX80: translate into issues of curvature on the sheet piles. \nYerba Buena SX80: and that that is additive to the. \nYerba Buena SX80: if you will\, the inertial kind of demands on these. Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s that been looked at. \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, well\, just to make sure I understand the. \nYerba Buena SX80: Of course the pox is modeled of \nYerba Buena SX80: that. We have \nYerba Buena SX80: has built into it those those various stiffnesses\, and you know\, soil properties. And and we are looking at the soil structure\, interaction\, which \nYerba Buena SX80: which reflects that so \nYerba Buena SX80: it the the displacement shapes\, and the the moment diagrams that we looked at before. I mean they. They reflect the \nYerba Buena SX80: the difference in stiffness. Now\, there are really only 2 materials that the pile is in. It’s in the fill\, and it’s in the young bay. Mud. \nYerba Buena SX80: But but the the effect of differing stiffness is is captured by plexus. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, but \nYerba Buena SX80: it begs the question \nYerba Buena SX80: if these 2 analyses need to be kind of calibrated \nYerba Buena SX80: against each other\, if you will. \nYerba Buena SX80: or how calibrated are they? \nYerba Buena SX80: So the deep soil analysis\, the one dimensional analysis\, was used to calibrate \nYerba Buena SX80: the plexus analysis. So plexus was. \nYerba Buena SX80: in a sense. \nYerba Buena SX80: was used to replicate the one dimensional assets we got from deep soil. So those are compatible. Okay\, okay\, they’re not identical because they’re 2 different tools\, but they are. They are compatible regarding your questions. \nYerba Buena SX80: of the moment. \nYerba Buena SX80: the moments that we shown were the envelope of moments. So there was a maximum moment. \nYerba Buena SX80: It could have been at any given time\, any given time or at the end. \nYerba Buena SX80: So it’s the envelope is not\, is not necessarily capturing the inertial. \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean. I can tell you what the moment was at every point in time. But the those graphs show the envelope for all time\, all depths. Instantaneous. Highest value. Yeah. Okay\, thank you \nYerba Buena SX80: next slide. Oh\, wait sorry\, Bob. \nYerba Buena SX80: the the airport. I’m assuming that that the airport is classified as an essential facility\, or is it? I I guess \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m curious about the 475 year versus\, you know\, 975 year \nYerba Buena SX80: selection\, especially if you know from the previous \nYerba Buena SX80: slide that you know that there really isn’t a lot of \nYerba Buena SX80: additional ground acceleration occurring between those 2 events. \nYerba Buena SX80: and and I\, miss and I apologize. I missed the the 1st meeting \nYerba Buena SX80: or last year’s meeting. I I just was curious. If there was \nYerba Buena SX80: an explanation or thought as to why 475 year return period \nYerba Buena SX80: was selected as the criteria rather than the 975 year return period. \nYerba Buena SX80: You know we we did a quite a quite a careful study on that. And have a tech memo that describes it. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think it’s included as an appendix within our original report \nYerba Buena SX80: and it has to do with the the kind\, the potential for damage and loss of life\, and the nature of the damage and and the return interval of the of the of the ground motion. \nYerba Buena SX80: We and we have to keep in mind that the \nYerba Buena SX80: the saturation that we saw in the PGA for the fill is \nYerba Buena SX80: I I think it’s it’s correct. It’s it’s for the fill. But but the \nYerba Buena SX80: the the increased magnitude of of shaking is is going to have an impact\, not only on the fill\, but on the on the young bay mud. And you know\, so we? We want to choose an appropriate design level and I I wouldn’t \nYerba Buena SX80: necessarily. \nYerba Buena SX80: I wouldn’t. \nYerba Buena SX80: Conclude off the bat that that that this insensitivity to the level of shaking is is \nYerba Buena SX80: is is based on all failure mechanisms\, if you will\, I would add again\, just the fundamental function of this is a flood wall. Yeah\, and so\, and we again\, I’ll dress on it a little later\, when we look at combined flooding and seismic. But essentially. \nYerba Buena SX80: we do not want it to fail during the flood. That is its design. There would be consequential impacts if you had the 100 Year Flood\, especially when you start looking at sea level rise. If this wall failed at that moment\, it’d be quite consequential to the airport. \nYerba Buena SX80: If there’s an earthquake and we’ll talk about it later. And gets damaged at these interconnections. There’s no \nYerba Buena SX80: the life safety risks. There’s no general risk. And obviously what the flood combined case \nYerba Buena SX80: which we’ll demonstrate in some slides. It doesn’t the airport. It’s not like a New Orleans situation where it’s retaining wall water continuously. If it fails\, you have an instant flood. It’s quite the difference. 99% of this time over this life of this wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: we’ll see no load. It’s only during these few rare events. \nYerba Buena SX80: and at that point\, obviously a combined seismic event hitting at that exact moment would be very bad. But again\, we’re going to go into \nYerba Buena SX80: that kind of risk profile. Yeah\, okay\, thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: What I mean. \nYerba Buena SX80: I just wanna comment that PGA is a very \nYerba Buena SX80: simple \nYerba Buena SX80: parameter. I don’t disagree about saturation\, but it’s because of a lot of straining and nonlinear behavior that you’re not getting PGA to really be different for input levels that are \nYerba Buena SX80: higher necessarily. But a lot of other things can happen. So so I think \nYerba Buena SX80: the discussion about PGA being saturated and doesn’t matter. \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s not the whole picture. \nYerba Buena SX80: but \nYerba Buena SX80: to the point of of this being a critical lifeline facility. It’s an airport. It’s an international airport \nYerba Buena SX80: 10 miles south of here. \nYerba Buena SX80: while I understand the intent of this system. \nYerba Buena SX80: But \nYerba Buena SX80: if there is a higher level of shaking\, and the intent of the system is compromised. \nYerba Buena SX80: is there some redundancy there? Against that? Again\, we’re probably a few slides away to walking through our approach to this? Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: hopefully\, one last question\, or maybe a response is\, Wait \nYerba Buena SX80: but these reaches all show the \nYerba Buena SX80: sheet pile through an existing perimeter. \nYerba Buena SX80: The new fill. The 26 acre of new fill is the cross section at the perimeter similar to these reaches. Ultimately it’ll be very similar. The wall we at the top of the slope with the Riprap. How we get there there’s\, you know\, it’s modern construction versus 19 thirties fill. So we’re going to accommodate for \nYerba Buena SX80: that\, making sure we’re taking out initial settlements. But ultimately the cross section is very similar\, Bob. Anything to add. \nYerba Buena SX80: So it is a. It is a. It is a new \nYerba Buena SX80: levee\, right? Or a deck. Essentially\, if you went out there after construction\, it’ll look like everything else. Basically\, we’re building out riprap on the shoreline. There’ll be a flood wall right at the edge of that. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? And so you have cross sections within the new fill area\, so reach 7\, which was previously presented\, was at that particular reach. Yes\, and and the \nYerba Buena SX80: The the analysis we did at Reach 7 was covered in our report from last year. \nYerba Buena SX80: Of of course\, the requirements today are. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, they tend to be more stringent than than they were 50 years ago\, you know. So we’re we have preloading. We’re going to be installing wick drains to to allow this the settlement to occur more quickly. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’re we’re going to be \nYerba Buena SX80: treating the fill with with vibratory\, deep\, vibratory compaction to \nYerba Buena SX80: aggressively mitigate liquefaction. Potential. \nYerba Buena SX80: and yeah. So. So I I think that the \nYerba Buena SX80: the expectation is\, and then the goal is\, it’s going to be the the new construction is going to be better than than the old. The thing that the old construction has going for it\, though\, is old\, I mean it’s good. I mean\, it’s been there a long time\, and then that that’s a good thing in terms of \nYerba Buena SX80: stability and and the like. So much much of the effort for the new construction is getting it to fully consolidate and strengthen. And what have you quickly? Which? Because we don’t have the the luxury of time \nYerba Buena SX80: in that regard? Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, and I think we’re some. Yeah. So the the next \nYerba Buena SX80: and yeah\, reach reach 14 is essentially the same. There we we\, we have about 40 feet of young bay mud\, and the the PGA in that thinner is is 0 point 2 0 from from from this analysis\, the deep soil analysis. \nYerba Buena SX80: So if we move on to the \nYerba Buena SX80: I think we can skip this because we’ve already looked at it. But just kind of the summary slide. Mark Matt next \nYerba Buena SX80: would be good. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I I think the \nYerba Buena SX80: the the 4 reaches analyzed. They. We think they bracket the most subsurface conditions along the shoreline prediction program. \nYerba Buena SX80: alignment \nYerba Buena SX80: on the additional plexus analysis and the and the site. Responsive analysis \nYerba Buena SX80: indicate that reach 6 provides a conservative estimate of the magnitude of lateral displacement of the Xipa wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: Where the reaches of the young bay mud is is less than at reach 6\, and new fill is not added. That’s the case. \nYerba Buena SX80: the source structure. Interaction stressors are remarkably small\, and it’s and that that’s what leads to kind of a counterintuitive conclusion that the calculated stresses \nYerba Buena SX80: for the flood walls under the flood loading are larger\, and you know\, in many ways controlling the design. I’ve just a general question. \nYerba Buena SX80: earlier on you gave us that tabulation of the 4 different cases that you had run with Reach 7 \nYerba Buena SX80: being an a year old study result \nYerba Buena SX80: having \nYerba Buena SX80: twice as much deformation. I think it had higher \nYerba Buena SX80: moments also. \nYerba Buena SX80: But you didn’t present the plexus results on that is that coming up later in the presentation\, we presented them last time \nYerba Buena SX80: the the reach\, 7 analysis\, were were summarized\, so no no changes\, no change in that\, including the deep soil. And all right\, right? There’s no changes. \nYerba Buena SX80: And and the \nYerba Buena SX80: right? And you’re you’re right. The the displacements every 7 are larger. We we had \nYerba Buena SX80: 1 1.3 feet at reach 6\, and we have 2.1 feet\, and I’ll get\, and that’s something I cover in a in a wrap up\, slide the next wrap up\, slide \nYerba Buena SX80: So if we could get to the summary Matt \nYerba Buena SX80: and the the sensitivity studies. \nYerba Buena SX80: that varied the magnitude of the shaking we we looked at\, and and show the maximum expected PGA within the fill is about \nYerba Buena SX80: 0 point 2 g. \nYerba Buena SX80: The the next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: Th\, this gets to the reach. 7 question that that you asked the \nYerba Buena SX80: The new fellow read 7. \nYerba Buena SX80: It. It’s gonna cause somewhat larger\, estimated lateral displacements there. \nYerba Buena SX80: 2 2 feet versus 1.3 feet \nYerba Buena SX80: but the maximum transient bending stresses. \nYerba Buena SX80: and the she power wall at sixes and 7 at reach 6 and 7 would be less than 11 ksi. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, really a very small stress. From a steel point of view. \nYerba Buena SX80: and far below the allowable bending stress on the for steel under permanent loading \nYerba Buena SX80: and and the final bullet here is in some ways a non sequiturge\, but just to emphasize that \nYerba Buena SX80: as we discussed last time\, we we really do need to do \nYerba Buena SX80: a very extensive program of of cone penetrometer tests to characterize the fill \nYerba Buena SX80: so that we get \nYerba Buena SX80: good good average properties within the field and are able to delineate areas that may require ground improvement. \nYerba Buena SX80: Of of the film. \nYerba Buena SX80: So that that’s that’s the last slide that I have. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, any other. Oh\, Jim\, you still got your mic on. Is there any other questions. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m just looking through last year’s presentation for 6. Well\, maybe I can. And and it’s probably non-technical. But in the reach 7 area\, where there is a new \nYerba Buena SX80: containment levy being created. \nYerba Buena SX80: Is there a need to put in the cut off wall or a flood wall there\, rather than just elevating the the levee to what it’s need to be. \nYerba Buena SX80: There was some reviews of different options\, including our earthen levees\, other structures. There was actually a cantilever cheap pile solution originally through kind of evaluation of each of those options. This was determined in the most cost\, effective solution. \nYerba Buena SX80: but it also includes a sheep pile in the in the perimeter diet \nYerba Buena SX80: that goes into the young B. Martin. \nYerba Buena SX80: here’s the \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, that that is. \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s conceptual. But it’s showing the the dyke. The preload fills the the wick drains\, and the \nYerba Buena SX80: and the sheepah wall\, which would be installed last\, you might say\, once \nYerba Buena SX80: mo- movement\, sir. \nYerba Buena SX80: are are done\, then you would be yeah installing the sheet piles within that perimeter deck. \nYerba Buena SX80: Did did you want me to pull up the results from the last? The presentation last time\, or are you okay checking it on your own? \nYerba Buena SX80: Gee! \nYerba Buena SX80: Do you? Do you have them? Do I have them? Do you want me to pull them up for all of us is what I’m asking. Would that be helpful? \nYerba Buena SX80: I wouldn’t mind looking at. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hang on. \nYerba Buena SX80: remember which 7 is new construction. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. So that’s the difference between Reach 6 and reach 7 reach 7. We’re extending into the bay. So all that is new construction. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m sorry\, isn’t it. What? Oh\, it is part of the project. Yeah\, interested in the entire project\, which? \nYerba Buena SX80: And so you’re presenting everything except everything today except for the worst case. \nYerba Buena SX80: And actually\, I think those results are in appendix C \nYerba Buena SX80: of the turn your mic on. \nYerba Buena SX80: and I’m sorry. I think those results are an appendix C of last year’s report. I don’t think you have those with you. I do\, do you? Okay? And I’ll add again\, it looks like we’ll pull it up. But last year\, when we met\, we focused exclusively on Reach 6 and 7. And then the question basically was like\, well\, is that indicative of the entire report \nYerba Buena SX80: the exercise that we’ve been through is to demonstrate that we feel it’s representative. Again\, given\, this is a design build projects and trying to kind of fit that middle ground of going too far into design versus giving you assurances that we’ve captured a solution that’s representative. That’s where we’ve selected 2 additional reaches\, but I think here we go. It’s pulled up so we can discuss about reach 7. \nYerba Buena SX80: There’s this one\, and then I think \nYerba Buena SX80: there’s the envelopes \nYerba Buena SX80: the moment command envelopes. And and I think \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s Route 6. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. I saw the deep 6 deep soil either reach 6 deep soil\, but not reach 7. \nYerba Buena SX80: That might be in the report. Hang on a second. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? Well\, well\, Matt’s looking for \nYerba Buena SX80: the slide. Just do a quick time check. It’s almost 2 30. \nYerba Buena SX80: How how are we doing in in terms of your presentation? \nYerba Buena SX80: We’re about 20 min over where we said we were\, gonna be we had left a \nYerba Buena SX80: about a half an hour allowance so that we’ve eaten up 2 thirds of our contingency. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Do. I can keep looking for this in the background\, and we come back to this one at maybe after James is done. Does that work for? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, if it’s in last year’s presentation you give me some time notified. Yeah\, I’m not all that worried about it just seems like if we’re comparing. Well\, if you’re saying\, all the new stuff is representative or last year’s was representative of what you’re showing now. It’d be nice to see the last year’s. It was included as a supplemental to the materials provided ahead of time. \nYerba Buena SX80: So there was an attachment to the geotech report that was focused on the new material was also provided was the old material well\, so we didn’t focus it on this meeting\, since it was repeat\, but it was provided in the materials were provided\, I think which appendixes I have all those attachments right now. Okay\, let’s have James get started. Bob’s going to look through the ones\, and and we can get you like the page numbers in those things. Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: now\, I gotta figure which version hang on a second. \nYerba Buena SX80: This \nYerba Buena SX80: actually\, can I ask a question in the meantime\, yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: I have a question more about the process. You talk about design build. \nYerba Buena SX80: we’re looking at some very specific analyses. So how does the design come into this if if these analysis are not part of the design\, so I could try. So I’m trying to understand who’s designing what? So again\, it’s it’s with a design build approach. And we’ve been through this from some of our other clients generally. In order to \nYerba Buena SX80: get through a board like yourself. There has to be a certain level of analysis completed to establish the criteria and the general concept. So Sfo has asked us to take the analysis far enough to gain general acceptance of the approach that we’re taking here\, and then this information will be established in the design criteria that will be used by the design build team. \nYerba Buena SX80: which we’re gonna help the airport which will be established by the airport. The design build team. Then ultimately\, as the engineer of record will have to design\, finalize the design to adhere to the criteria that we have established \nYerba Buena SX80: and provide additional analysis supporting all the reach designs. Our expectation is when they come to reach 6\, 5\, 7. Their results should essentially mirror or be very similar to what Bob and his team has presented. \nYerba Buena SX80: Again\, it’s it’s in that process of design\, build doing enough upfront to gain assurance of the criteria\, but giving the contractor that kind of design\, build advantages\, especially in an airport project like this with a lot of the coordination \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s really going to be a challenge. And so they felt that models the best. So that’s generally how we see this project moving forward. \nYerba Buena SX80: And I’ll add a comment that \nYerba Buena SX80: Bcdc’s permit\, which will be based on the conceptual design that you’re hearing about today. There will be a condition\, special condition in the permit that \nYerba Buena SX80: the permitee will have to submit the final design documents and \nYerba Buena SX80: I’ll review them to make sure that they conform with. All the reports that they’ve already submitted. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, thank you. That’s what I was asking. At which stage do we make sure that actually\, what was what was presented here \nYerba Buena SX80: is taken into account in the final design. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: So Jen. Would. Does that mean that \nYerba Buena SX80: The engineer of record may not. \nYerba Buena SX80: or the Ecrb wouldn’t hear from the \nYerba Buena SX80: engineer of record with the final design. \nYerba Buena SX80: or would I? I think that’s where Nick’s going. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, I don’t want to speak for you guys. But design build packages. Typically have some. The design criteria written into them that have to be met right\, and an example of a project that went through this full process is Redwood City wharfs one and 2 Koe. On that project was same position where the owners\, engineer\, preparing design build contract. We met with Bcdc. Went through this process\, established the criteria\, and then our job as the owner’s engineer kind of representing was to make sure that \nYerba Buena SX80: did final design adhered to the criteria that was agreed upon through this process it was submitted back through Bcdc. Again. I don’t know the how the wheels turn at Bcdc. But at that point it was they. There was enough checks completed that everyone agreed that this was in adherence with the permits. \nYerba Buena SX80: and I \nYerba Buena SX80: don’t recall it having to come back to Ecrb. But again\, it’s somewhat up to your discretion. Okay\, thank you. Yep\, makes sense. \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean just one. So you guys will be 7 as peer reviewers. Then \nYerba Buena SX80: I cannot speak for Sfl. \nYerba Buena SX80: but we’ve been involved for this project for a while\, and assuming they would like to keep us on\, we would be. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: because that’s the only way you can assure that you know the criteria you’ve established. \nYerba Buena SX80: Right? So if you are not peer reviewing what they’ve done. \nYerba Buena SX80: there is no way of ensuring that the criteria be met. \nYerba Buena SX80: Understood. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: should I jump on in? \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. So I’ll try to talk fast\, but feel free to stop me at any point. So this is related to operation and maintenance. In particular\, you had a question \nYerba Buena SX80: you asked for a scenario of combining looking at both earthquake and flooding. \nYerba Buena SX80: So summary of our analysis to date is\, we did evaluate both earthquake and flooding\, but we looked at them initially as independent events. We looked at a hundred year flood event\, which included a 3 and a half feet of sea level rise. \nYerba Buena SX80: And again\, this is a flood wall. We designed it to remain completely elastic. No damage. \nYerba Buena SX80: We also looked at. Okay? And again\, what we classified as medium hazard level. We call it 72 year. That’s terminology. We use for this. But it was a 72 year event \nYerba Buena SX80: again\, that remains there’s no damage where they they’re the ground shaking is enough to create this lateral movement. The wall is essentially a sheet\, pile. \nYerba Buena SX80: self weight. It can accommodate this. The loading on the wall is much less than the flood case \nYerba Buena SX80: is where we run into the 475 year event. As Bob just presented. There is some movement\, so our expectation is there could be some localized\, but we would assume\, or we believe is repairable. Damage. \nYerba Buena SX80: A load case looking at specifically a flood case. So you have the 100 year Flood\, and the seismic event happening at the exact same time given just the probabilities of the return periods of those is extremely \nYerba Buena SX80: improbable. Event very bad day for Sfo. I’m not saying could not happen. But just again\, from a risk-based design standpoint\, I think it wasn’t concern wasn’t happened at exactly the same time\, which is an extremely rare event. But it’s a chance of what happens in the next 6 months. I’m glad you’re seeing that because that was a little worried you want at the same time. But so we focused our analysis is on that particular approach. Okay\, you do have a seismic event. You do get the 475 damage occurs. \nYerba Buena SX80: What happens. Now\, what risk have you reintroduced the airport from a flood perspective? \nYerba Buena SX80: So this analysis we present here is basically demonstrating what we believe is the post seismic behavior of the flood wall\, the response for implementing temporary and permanent repairs. And generally\, what is the risk the airport is looking at if you go to the next slide. And there’s a lot of kind of like moving targets in this. So we’ve had to make some key assumptions because there’s what’s occurring today\, and I have a slide coming up. But what happens with civil level rise? So we do look at this at sort of 3 time horizons. \nYerba Buena SX80: 1st off. What is the expected post seismic behavior? \nYerba Buena SX80: Again\, after the sizing event\, some gaps are expected to form at discontinuities\, and I have a figure that shows our estimate of where that might occur \nYerba Buena SX80: in this case. From 0 days to week\, one after the seismic event\, there is going to be gaps in the wall. That wall will not provide flood protection. At those particular gaps\, however\, the remaining portions will remain intact\, providing a level of flood protection. So it’s not as if the entire wall collapses\, just gaps will open. \nYerba Buena SX80: but it does reduce the flood protection\, and we’ve made a conservative assumption that’ll get reduced down to the existing ground\, level as it is\, so that wall will split all the way down to the current ground level. We went through and looked at Lidar along the current proposed alignment and took basically the lowest elevation of each reach \nYerba Buena SX80: right at the wall\, not behind the wall\, because it does the wall. The land does dip down a little bit\, but right in the alignment \nYerba Buena SX80: week\, one to 6\, the expectation is within one week the airport would be able to implement some level of temporary repairs\, and we’re envisioning \nYerba Buena SX80: sandbags fill. They’ll be able to place and fill these gaps with a roughly up to about 3 feet\, and again it will provide some level of flood protection. There might be some seepage through that gap\, but it won’t be a free path of water. \nYerba Buena SX80: The airport will be responding to this event. You can imagine a 4\, 75 year event \nYerba Buena SX80: is likely. Have other consequences at the airport. There’ll be a full response. So our expectation is they would have the the manpower and the personnel to inspect the wall and make these decisions within about a 1 week period. Let’s get some sandbags and close these gaps. \nYerba Buena SX80: Our expectation is the full\, permanent repairs would take roughly about 6 months to implement\, and that would generally consist of\, probably\, again\, depends on what the exact damage\, but probably pulling some sheets\, driving some new sheets\, welding in some interlocks\, basically closing the gaps. \nYerba Buena SX80: So those are some just basic assumptions to set this analysis moving on to the next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: we talk about where these gaps could form. And again\, this is based on where we believe a discontinuity could create enough stress in those interlocks where you potentially could pop them. And you’d have a gap. \nYerba Buena SX80: We looked at each of the reaches\, and you can see some of them have very distinct direction where it changes\, and so we circle these at each of these discontinuity or changes in directions\, and we roughly estimated 30 degrees. I’m not going to say here we analyze it to get exactly the 30 degrees. It was a engineering judgment on that. Just to get a order of magnitude\, of potential gaps in this for this exercise. Next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: Again we looked at 3 different timelines\, the sea level rise. For this project we looked at a medium high risk aversion\, so to add into the probability of all this that has a 1 in 200% chance of occurring \nYerba Buena SX80: of exceedance by the target date of 2085. So based on this\, we’re saying\, sea level rise by 2030\, we just is it truly 0? No\, it’s going to be a little bit more than 0 by 2030. But just for by the time this wall is built we just said 0 at that point 2050 would have 1.9 feet of sea level rise. \nYerba Buena SX80: and by the end of the project. Essentially\, design life would be about 3 and a half feet of sea level rise is our target \nYerba Buena SX80: moving on the next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: We looked at. Okay after the seismic event. When are we really vulnerable to flooding? Again\, we assume the existing ground. Elevation at the wall would be essentially our lowest level of flood protection at that point\, right after a seismic event. If the mean high high water exceeds that floods that elevation\, the expectation is you could have some water pouring through \nYerba Buena SX80: could essentially create some flooding. Matt has some slides later\, if in that scenario like\, how much would then get sucked into the interior drainage. But for this purposes we’re assuming. If it reaches that level\, we’re going to have some widespread flooding. It would be an area of concern. \nYerba Buena SX80: still water level. Now this requires a hundred year flood event to happen\, or some lesser storm. That’s again the water raises to that full elevation. If that starts pouring through \nYerba Buena SX80: again\, you could get some widespread flooding. The final one is total water elevation. Now\, that’s sort of wave splashing over the top of your wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s definitely more of a localized area. You wouldn’t\, you know. It’s just a splash over the top. So our expectation\, if that’s coming through your gaps of lesser concern\, and it’s a little hard to see on the image on the right. But I do want to point out. I think this is a key point to this whole project \nYerba Buena SX80: is\, if you stand out there currently on the shoreline\, you are above mean high high water. You’re above the extreme atmospheric annual water elevation. The airport would only flood in this case if you had a storm event getting close to 100 year Flood\, as it currently sits. \nYerba Buena SX80: When you start adding sea level rise only when we reach 2085 will the mean high water at any given day just barely get above our lowest point currently on ground elevation\, which is elevation 10. So\, and essentially\, this wall is not under any load. It’s not under any flood \nYerba Buena SX80: cases. On every given normal tides. If you had earthquake and the storm hit\, then yes\, you would have some flooding. But you do need those combined events to occur \nYerba Buena SX80: next slide \nYerba Buena SX80: when you said on the last slide\, 30 degrees of movement is that vertical? Oh\, no\, no sorry apologies. If you go back to it’s 30 in Plan View\, where the wall direction makes a tangle change of more than 30 degrees. The most pronounced is at the end of the runways. You can almost see it like a 90 degree bend and the sheet direction changes. But we said anything over 30 degrees. \nYerba Buena SX80: And there’s been some questions like\, Why don’t we just straighten out the wall? There’s a lot of stuff along 7 and a half miles. So we do have to accommodate existing infrastructure which does create some \nYerba Buena SX80: undulations of the wall alignment. \nYerba Buena SX80: Just a quick question. This long-term projection of levels does that include settlement of the of the airport itself? I mean\, there’s a huge field that is slowly settling. We have some later slides on on settlements\, I would say\, to keep the variables down. One. I didn’t include the \nYerba Buena SX80: the\, the expected settlement of the grade\, the existing grade behind the wall. You’re correct over a long period of time\, our elevation. I have some slides here\, like our lowest elevation\, is at reach 4. That’s at the Coast Guard. It’s about elevation 10 ish \nYerba Buena SX80: in theory. If there was subsidence now\, 10 might turn into \nYerba Buena SX80: 9.5 9 point\, you know some value\, and we might have some slides later on that. But in the overall response post seismic I don’t believe it’ll change the results. Okay\, I understand post seismic. But \nYerba Buena SX80: unfortunately\, there\, there are a couple of very modern airports that are becoming essentially unusable \nYerba Buena SX80: in situations like this because of the long term settlement\, not because of other issues. We have a whole segment on subsidence that was looked at in detail\, and it was about one to 4 inches\, which would be about\, you know\, 0 point 1 to 0 point 3 feet. If you want to think of that in terms of these sea level rise amounts as a compensatory relative to seal rise. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. Matt. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, so moving on past this slide again\, these are a little hard to read here\, but they’re presented in the report\, but these are snapshots in time so essentially per reach. We establish what is the current design elevation of the wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: Again\, that’s account for the sea level rise plus 2 free free boards. So it’s quite above the potential flood level. \nYerba Buena SX80: at the yeah post earthquake. Again\, the existing minimum ground elevation per reach. \nYerba Buena SX80: The lowest is about 10. It goes up to around elevation 12 in some locations. So again\, the risk at each reach varies\, just depending on the existing grade. After you place the sandbags we’re assuming. Within a week you get 3 feet of flood protection back in there and then we looked at how many gaps within that area so potential spill points. And so if you start looking at 2030 \nYerba Buena SX80: looking at just basically mean high high water again. You’re not going to get that every day\, but you can get that several times a month. There’s no point as exceeding the existing ground elevation. So it’s essentially today \nYerba Buena SX80: at 1%. Still\, water elevation. Even that is just barely above. So you’d have at reach for some very limited exposure. If you had the 100 year event within one week. But after the sandbags are placed\, you’re essentially going to have protection from that event. Oh\, sorry! \nYerba Buena SX80: Isn’t it correct that the titled items which you point out are from the \nYerba Buena SX80: a previous title epic. \nYerba Buena SX80: that when sea level rise is 0. \nYerba Buena SX80: Those \nYerba Buena SX80: elevations are really more closer to the year. Like 2\,000\, not 2030 \nYerba Buena SX80: there could be some nuance in there. It might fluctuate these results a little bit. But again\, for this purposes of trying to limited variables we assume that the Navd 88\, the 0 out datum\, as is currently published by the Noaa’s type charts and data would be representative of 2030. It’s not completely true\, right? There will be some increase in the Navd 88\, but not enough to significantly change the results. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you for bringing that up. I did have. You know. I don’t think it’s going to change the results\, but sea level rise of 0\, \nYerba Buena SX80: you know I would take. I would take objection to that. \nYerba Buena SX80: because\, as Jen mentioned\, all of these sea level rise numbers are based from 2\,000\, and we are already at 24\, \nYerba Buena SX80: and I think the existing. We just did some of the recent NASA ultimatery data measurements we looked at as part of \nYerba Buena SX80: one of the other projects that we were responding to Vcdc for. And it’s about 4 inches has occurred to date right? And by 2030\, yeah\, it’s going to be about\, you know\, I’d say about 5 inches is baked into it. So you know 0 may not be\, and I fully admit that is again\, maybe my effort to keep things slightly simpler. I may have added this extra comment\, but \nYerba Buena SX80: I think once we go to the next slides when we are\, those were really\, we’re targeting the sea level rise 1.9 feet 3.3 and a half feet. Those results in the future we’ll have those slides again\, showing that there’s quite a bit of post seismic protection \nYerba Buena SX80: and immediate flooding is not expected. I was trying\, I guess\, in essence\, with this current base case 2030 in essence. If you had this seismic event for about a 1 week period you’d have essentially the current flood risk potential that the airport has right now\, as we sit here today. \nYerba Buena SX80: reach for has no protection. Currently\, it’s the lowest point in the airport. It’s very vulnerable. So our goal is to get this wall built. Yes\, there may be some damage after a seismic event. But the reintroducing risk is less than what you experience today. \nYerba Buena SX80: and you know the benefit of getting the flood protection in versus the cost of trying to mitigate all seismic damage. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s just it’s the balance is just not there. The value to the airport isn’t significant enough to try and prevent all seismic damage. \nYerba Buena SX80: especially when you’re compared against how much benefit this provides from a flood protection standpoint. \nYerba Buena SX80: So so in conclusion\, on this slide is is\, you know\, there’s very limited risk after the projects are initially constructed. Even in the short period of time\, post seismic event of widespread flooding and essentially\, at worst\, you’re back to where you are sitting today for that week period. \nYerba Buena SX80: If you go to 2050 things start getting a little bit worse\, but not much. Again in the week period after. You know\, there’s no mean high water that’s above the existing ground elevation. Even when you add in the 1.9 feet of sea level rise to the mean high high water value. \nYerba Buena SX80: So again\, our expectation is in a regular tide event. You shouldn’t have water pouring through. If you had the storm or event\, the 1% yes\, during the one week gap\, you are vulnerable\, for sure. But again\, that would be very similar to where you’re sitting today. When you start looking at sandbags getting placed\, you’re going to get that protection for that 6 month period\, and eventually you’ll get your wall built back up\, and again the protection will be placed there \nYerba Buena SX80: looking at 2085 things do start to get a little worse. But I would point out that this is at the very end of the project. It assumes a 1 in 200 chance of sea level rise\, meeting 3 and a half feet\, and the one reach that really has the biggest problem \nYerba Buena SX80: is reach 4\, where\, if you had a mean high high water elevation plus sea level rise\, you could get a flood event coming across that one particular reach\, and Matt will demonstrate later. Then\, again\, we believe the interior drainage can accommodate some of this spillage. \nYerba Buena SX80: I would say again\, this also is a big assumption. The Coast Guard’s facility is \nYerba Buena SX80: 50 60 years old. \nYerba Buena SX80: The expectation that they will do no projects\, no improvements to their airfield between now and 2085\, \nYerba Buena SX80: and my opinion is very low\, so our expectation is sometime between now and 2085\, \nYerba Buena SX80: they will likely have reconstructed that there’ll be some benefits to their project to raise their existing elevation\, and so we think this risk at the end of our project. Life is actually probably over pronounced here. \nYerba Buena SX80: but not to say it’s it’s it’s 0. Again. You do have more flood risk in 2085. \nYerba Buena SX80: If we had the large seismic event you would be looking at a little bit more flood risk. But again\, is it worth the airport spending the money now \nYerba Buena SX80: to protect something at the end of your flood walls? Service life? And our opinion at this point is \nYerba Buena SX80: not necessarily. \nYerba Buena SX80: thanks\, James. The question is the existing minimum ground elevation \nYerba Buena SX80: post project going to be raised at all? Or are we going to have an 8 foot stick up at reach \nYerba Buena SX80: 8 7 in general. Yes\, if you go out there and go along the shoreline\, the wall will basically be placed at the current top of shoreline. So where the Riprap meets the shore. \nYerba Buena SX80: there is some existing berms and other infrastructure. Some of that’s going to have to get cleaned off in order to install the new flood protection. So the last specific grade this is again\, is going to be where the design build comes in. It’s probably varying a little bit\, I’d say\, plus minus a foot from the values I’ve had here. But again\, the general conclusions I feel are fairly accurate. \nYerba Buena SX80: But the idea is\, we’re not planning to use this as a retaining wall structure. We’re not going to pile up soil on the inside. The wall itself is the flood protection element. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think that’s it. I have a conclusion slide that I think I’ve more or less stated all of these. \nYerba Buena SX80: again\, there is some exposure. I’m not going to sit here and say there’s 0 risk\, but we feel it’s quite low. \nYerba Buena SX80: The site is not expected to be a risk of flooding due to daily tides until the very\, very end of the project. And even that’s very limited. And that’s based on one and 200%\, 200 \nYerba Buena SX80: chance of exceedance and sea level rise. The expectation is\, repairs can be placed within 7 days. Airport has a very robust group that can accommodate these these repairs\, and we have an operation and maintenance plan in place that would work in this response. \nYerba Buena SX80: and essentially to prevent all of this damage that Bob had presented\, or that movement. The cost of that just does not make a lot of economic sense\, especially considering this is a flood protection project. \nYerba Buena SX80: And again\, at no point. If there was an earthquake\, it’s retaining a significant amount of water that would create a risk to the public \nYerba Buena SX80: unless we have a very\, very unfortunate event of the flood a hundred year\, Flood\, and that seismic event occurring at the very same time. \nYerba Buena SX80: And that’s my presentation. \nYerba Buena SX80: Any more questions on that \nYerba Buena SX80: aspect of the combined event. \nYerba Buena SX80: just really quickly. You mentioned subsidence as well. \nYerba Buena SX80: Is that included in this? \nYerba Buena SX80: A. A. Again\, I did not add that variable into those tables just because of the the amount as Matt had mentioned. It’s it’s minimal. And also just was one extra variable that’s trying to keep it simple. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, thank you. You could also think of it from 2050. The 1.9 value comes from some of the higher 2018 Opc. Values. Those have since been ratcheted down. So actually\, now\, 1.9 for 2050 is pretty high. So if you want to take your subsidence and park it into the sort of top end of that 1.9. It gets you there for 20. Yeah\, yeah\, thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: I have a just a \nYerba Buena SX80: I. I have no issues with the analysis. I have more. You. You refer to operations and maintenance\, and I think I mentioned it before. \nYerba Buena SX80: Does the does the airport stack a bunch of sandbags in ready made the idea after an earthquake looking for sandbags? That’s little too late. And again\, this is part of the design process as it moves to design build. There’s been there’ll be agreements and requirements established with the maintenance group. \nYerba Buena SX80: we’ve had some on early ongoing discussions about the expectations of what we’d be looking for them to provide. \nYerba Buena SX80: We have one location. There’s a deployable barrier. We’ve walked through them like again. Nothing’s gonna get built there for a while. But we’ve already had those open\, those discussions of a post Pre pre flood event. \nYerba Buena SX80: They may have to implement those post seismic event. This would be another thing that they would have to accommodate. Yes\, and I think I asked this question \nYerba Buena SX80: in the previous meeting. Sandbags are low cost\, low tech electrical supplies\, and all of that. \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s not easily replaceable. If it gets flooded\, I hope\, and I assume that the airport is \nYerba Buena SX80: putting all of these things sufficiently high\, that there is\, however\, incidental\, flooding\, electrical\, you know\, essential electrical services will not be flooded. \nYerba Buena SX80: That to me is this is what happened in Tokyo happened. You know\, other places\, I mean Japan. Those things you cannot repair in 3 days\, and that’s something that really the airport should be looking at in terms of potential flooding \nYerba Buena SX80: send backs is not a problem. And again\, I would say that the primary line of defense from flooding is this flood wall \nYerba Buena SX80: and the expectations. It will be intact \nYerba Buena SX80: in the unlikely event of a seismic event. There will be a 1 week. Vulnerability? So yes\, there will be some vulnerability to that. Some of that equipment. \nYerba Buena SX80: But I would say it is at less risk in the future than it is as we sit here\, currently \nYerba Buena SX80: lower risk in the future. I’m happy to hear that. But the point is\, it’s still a risk. If you had gone to Japan the day before Tohoku earthquake and looked at those flood walls\, you would have thought that the Japanese were crazy. All those flood walls were 4 meters too short. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, the day after. And the point is\, if some of that equipment in the nuclear power plant had been elevated \nYerba Buena SX80: that power plant would still be there. So my point is that there are other ways of protecting yourself besides just putting the flood wall. I have no problems with the flood wall\, I’m simply saying \nYerba Buena SX80: there is a there is value in looking at cumulative protection understood. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, maybe what’s not not in here. And and that’s probably gonna happen at a later stage with the design builder is that you’re going to the airport is going to approach Fema for \nYerba Buena SX80: a Lomar application as part of that Lomar application. \nYerba Buena SX80: All of the electrical infrastructure will \nYerba Buena SX80: need \nYerba Buena SX80: backup systems\, an alternative power system. So that’s all part of Fema’s requirements which will be baked into the design anyway\, maybe not into the design. But to get the fema certification. \nYerba Buena SX80: And I can say we are actually right involved in the Clomar process right now we’re actually in. We’ve received our 90 day letter. We’re working through our last few comments. So you’re correct all those discussions through Fema\, so the goal of the project will to have a Clomar in hand which \nYerba Buena SX80: then leads to the design build team\, and ultimately a Lomar at the end. \nYerba Buena SX80: And and I would also say\, I suppose\, as part of a broader citywide program is working on its overall emergency response programs and responses that would probably envelope over top of this. \nYerba Buena SX80: I was wondering if you could go back to the slide that has the table with the results. Sure\, you talked about the lateral displacement of the wall\, but we didn’t really talk about the water side of the wall where the rock slope protection is. Presumably there would be some damage or displacement of the rock protection as well. \nYerba Buena SX80: And like\, when I look at these ground elevations around the perimeter. \nYerba Buena SX80: I they’re kind of surprisingly high. I I didn’t really think that they would be that high\, because the airport is kind of mostly lower than that\, and I guess it sort of comes up around the perimeter. \nYerba Buena SX80: and I guess just my concern would be \nYerba Buena SX80: if the focus is on filling gaps and other activities in the airport to address damage\, and you sort of have this exposed unarmored\, you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: Earthen material it could erode there. So those elevations may not persist for very long. \nYerba Buena SX80: I was just wondering if that had been kind of considered sort of the waterside response. And I would say\, Yeah\, ultimately\, our expectation post sizing event. Someone will go and inspect the entire wall\, both the riprap\, the sheet piles\, and so on. The immediate concern will be the the gaps. The longer. A little bit further field. You’re absolutely right. We we do not want unprotected riprap \nYerba Buena SX80: like Riprap\, that sloughed away. The way we assume is Riprap\, in a certain sense as we get these movements as Bob had presented. \nYerba Buena SX80: the Riprap is going to go along for the ride and somewhat be self healing. It’s gonna fall back in. But it doesn’t mean there won’t be some exposed areas\, and the expectation is after that those will be filled if we get widespread just like\, wow! This rip out really slid in \nYerba Buena SX80: first\, st it’s more moving than we are calculating\, and then you would have to be looking at some other post media post seismic event to stabilize that area. So you don’t get erosion. But ultimately our most of our plan is most repairs will be implemented within 6 months. \nYerba Buena SX80: To be honest\, there’s probably going to be a lot of other things of critical importance that are going to get damaged. The airport. We’re just trying to make sure the floodwaters don’t add to this problem. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. And along those lines I would second the comment about looking at stockpiling materials nearby. And then\, I guess\, just in terms of like the one week and 6 month timeframe. I know that’s \nYerba Buena SX80: your assumption. \nYerba Buena SX80: But were those sort of vetted in in any way. Is that like a reasonable timeframe? So we’ve met with the maintenance group\, and they confirmed the 7 days. They thought that was reasonable. The 6 months is a little bit more that’s based on our engineering like. \nYerba Buena SX80: how long is it gonna take permits? How long is the get a contractor on board. It’s a little hard to predict\, but the level of damage we’re expecting within 6 months. If you could get a you know\, a contractor out here with a driving rig\, he should be able to fill that pretty quick. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s hard to predict the permitting process in the future. And that response. But we felt 6 months is a reasonable estimate\, especially \nYerba Buena SX80: being a critical infrastructure. We’re hoping they’ll have enough urgency to get. \nYerba Buena SX80: say\, the front of the line. But get in the line pretty quick. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thanks. \nYerba Buena SX80: Do you think those passive gates will fail in an earthquake? \nYerba Buena SX80: There is some vulnerability to them\, I would say\, of those passive gates\, especially once we start getting towards the later 2050\, 2085\, \nYerba Buena SX80: only one should remain operational. There are others assuming flood protection programs for South San Francisco\, San Trans Island\, Millbrae are implemented. \nYerba Buena SX80: These will all fall behind there. \nYerba Buena SX80: Flood protection will be sort of a uniform\, so there’ll be less importance there. The one that would be required is at the Mr. Our expectation is there could be some vertical settlement. It’s a little hard to predict honestly\, it might be something. We’ll look at a little bit further on a design perspective. If that’s where we have some localized ground improvement. \nYerba Buena SX80: Just to make sure that is less vulnerable\, and that could be a good \nYerba Buena SX80: way to mitigate that risk. \nYerba Buena SX80: I have a related question to Justin’s\, and taking the focus from the \nYerba Buena SX80: the water side to the land side. \nYerba Buena SX80: and looking at those gaps\, I was curious. If there are always\, wherever those gaps are expected to form. Is it always adjacent to hardscape? Or are there areas that may be more vulnerable to say \nYerba Buena SX80: erosion? If a flood were to occur and leak through those gaps\, and perhaps scour out \nYerba Buena SX80: the material that’s otherwise stabilizing the the edges of the sheet pile where it’s damaged. \nYerba Buena SX80: And is that a consideration\, perhaps\, for the \nYerba Buena SX80: the maintenance operation plan\, we would I’d have to go back and look at what’s behind each of those gaps. And again I would say\, these are our best estimate of where the gaps ultimately\, it’s going to be hard to predict exactly where all these reform. These are just a higher probability. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’d say majority of them have a roadway or some infrastructure right behind it. I wouldn’t say it’s all of them there may be somewhere. It’s sort of like we’re kind of our the Vsr. The roadway\, and then you have like a berm or gravel gap. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’d say it’s probably a mixed match. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’d also say again\, the the basic geometry \nYerba Buena SX80: of most of these is the interior ground surface is relatively flat. You saw that in Bob’s plots as well. So it’s not like. It’s coming over a levee\, and you have the backside plunge that you might be thinking of in like a levee where you have really high free board over the backside of the levee. It’s coming out\, and it’s mostly flat \nYerba Buena SX80: doesn’t extend that far here on this one. But if you take this figure here. But if you take this and Bob’s figures sort of from the cross sections\, you could remember that. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean 20 to one slopes 50 to one slopes behind it. It’s not 3 to one\, the back of a levee where it’s\, you know\, rushing back down the other side that you get the big erosion issues. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thanks\, Matt. \nYerba Buena SX80: thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Anybody else. \nYerba Buena SX80: No\, okay\, let’s move. Move forward. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? Corrosion. So there was a question related to corrosion in particular \nYerba Buena SX80: discussion about providing a monitoring program to measure the actual corrosion rates as the site. So coding maintenance can be timed appropriately. \nYerba Buena SX80: So we’ll talk 1st about kind of our design assumptions. And then what is the current approach to inspection and monitoring corrosion? So again\, the wall is designed with additional thickness\, essentially sacrificial steel\, and a coating system. \nYerba Buena SX80: The sheet piles have been selected as 3 8th inch minimum wall thickness. That’ll be part of the criteria\, and the code is at least 10 feet below the mud line. The 3 eighths inch wall thickness\, as we really mentioned\, was selected for more drivability than pure structural capacity. \nYerba Buena SX80: We did assume. All this structural analysis was done with corrosion of the wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: and we followed the California Department of Transportation corrosion guidelines. Version 3.2 \nYerba Buena SX80: these provide different corrosion rates. And essentially\, we’ve assumed for the atmospheric zone \nYerba Buena SX80: which is the sheet pile above there. And again\, as I previously said\, I have one coming up. It’s going to be dry. \nYerba Buena SX80: 99.9% of the life of this structure. It’s not in the water\, it’s not retaining water. So we feel the atmospheric zone is representative. So we use that. And in the fill and subsoil we use the values provided by Caltrans\, we’ve assumed\, the coating is good for 10 years. We’re made a conservative assumption. The airport is ignoring\, coating and never going to maintain it. That’s not their plan\, but from a structural analysis standpoint. We built that in \nYerba Buena SX80: so we have enough life with a 3 eighths inch wall. And as kind of Bob presented in our own structural calculations\, we submitted. There’s plenty of capacity for all the load cases \nYerba Buena SX80: going on to the next slide talks about \nYerba Buena SX80: really\, the operation and maintenance manual. So the plan is to the sheep piles will be visually inspected. Every 5 years is the current plan\, and any damage will be documented and repairs will be implemented. The sheep piles will be accessible fully from land side and the waterside at the majority of tides. \nYerba Buena SX80: Again\, in 2030\, all tides in 2085. Again\, you may not want to head out on a high to mean high high water day. \nYerba Buena SX80: The inspection program calls for the Asc. Waterfront facility. Inspection \nYerba Buena SX80: plan is a level one\, general visual inspection on a 5 year basis. If corrosion is encountered\, maintenance hasn’t been maintained\, then we may trigger a level 3\, which would be the ultrasonic testing at that point. And then we would check what the corrosion loss essentially\, looking at the geotechnical results that we have. There’s no corrosive soils been identified to date\, and that’ll be confirmed during the detailed design phase. \nYerba Buena SX80: You mean\, even the Bmart is not corrosive. \nYerba Buena SX80: Bob. \nYerba Buena SX80: pay months corrosive not per our results correct. \nYerba Buena SX80: I guess I can’t speak to that again. From what we’re seeing and the corrosion rates we’re assuming\, we feel that we’ve captured it. But again\, this is assumption. So the final geotechnical investigation usually provides a report on the corrosive \nYerba Buena SX80: of the soils. And the if you had a higher corrosion rate\, the final design would have to accommodate that\, and we say 3 eighths inch minimum if they find that that case is higher corrosion rates\, they would have to increase that for the final design. \nYerba Buena SX80: So that so so\, not being corrosive\, that really is a misstatement there\, you don’t know. Well\, I would say everything we have from all the existing borings that we went through. There’s been no reports or nothing mentioned in any of the geotechnical reports to date that have said it is corrosive soil so based on that\, we feel it’s a valid conclusion. It’s something we feel needs to be validated. \nYerba Buena SX80: There is quite an extensive database borings. I would have thought it would have popped up at least one of them\, but I could be wrong. And again\, that’s where we feel the validated \nYerba Buena SX80: even if it admittedly my perspective\, even if we did find we had some corrosive soils\, feel the corrosion rates relative to the wall thickness\, and then the demands on the wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: I feel like this design in essence would still work. We just may have to increase the wall thickness of the sheets \nYerba Buena SX80: when you say there’s no mention of corrosion. Are you saying that they tested? And and they say it’s non corrosive\, or they just never tested it and never mentioned it \nYerba Buena SX80: could be either again. I’m not gonna swear on my kids. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s not. Hence the final conclusion. This needs to be validated during the design build phase. \nYerba Buena SX80: But\, Bob\, I mean\, you guys just some boring out there. \nYerba Buena SX80: Did you still saw corrosivity tests on the materials you encountered. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. And \nYerba Buena SX80: I I think it’s something that James\, that we can have. \nYerba Buena SX80: We we can look into and evaluate\, you know\, based on existing data. But I I just can’t speak to it this this afternoon. I I haven’t \nYerba Buena SX80: personally\, you know\, looked at that information. \nYerba Buena SX80: Now Rod Washita would probably have a good handle on corrosion\, resistance and young bay mud for piles. But it \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, I I would expect there to be some. But but you know these piles\, I’m you’re I’m hearing that they’re coded. \nYerba Buena SX80: and the only the question that was kind of coming into my mind is the installation technique. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’ve noticed \nYerba Buena SX80: just anecdotally that you know driven pile \nYerba Buena SX80: especially in hard driving tends to affect the coding. \nYerba Buena SX80: And I’ve seen locations where the top you know the top section of pile piling \nYerba Buena SX80: the coding fails much sooner than \nYerba Buena SX80: you know anticipated\, whereas the you know the lower sections are okay\, and that’s correct. I’ve seen that also. Our approach here is these will be driven with a vibratory hammer. Yeah\, we’re coating the top\, 10 feet into the ground\, and then everything to the top are the plan would be the design build contractor at the installation would have to repair any visibly damaged coating. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then at that point\, Sfo’s operation and maintenance. 5 year annual inspection. \nYerba Buena SX80: Now you can’t really control what’s happening below ground. And again. Your point about corrosive soils is a good one. There is where we’d have to accommodate with a combination of sacrificial steel \nYerba Buena SX80: and then we put the coating at least 10 feet in even though some of it may get damaged\, the bulk of it won’t\, and that still adds some level of protections. \nYerba Buena SX80: and it is anaerobic at some point below. So you need you need that oxygen to make it grow. That’s usually where we pick about 10 feet. It’s kind of the general rule of thumb in the industry. \nYerba Buena SX80: Do we want to go back to that question we had with the bending moments\, and how that affect corrosion. Because I think this relates to this point of where the maximum bending moments were were usually at those depths where you were starting to go anaerobic \nYerba Buena SX80: anybody. \nYerba Buena SX80: But I think that’s I think that’s the the kind of the conclusion of that. If \nYerba Buena SX80: the corrosion is expected at \nYerba Buena SX80: kind of in the upper exposed areas of the sheet pile. \nYerba Buena SX80: The maximum moments are not. It’s it’s further away from the maximum moments. Okay? \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m not an expert on coercion. \nYerba Buena SX80: but I assume you all are\, and for the portions of the wall that are buried you mentioned something about there being this anaerobic environment. \nYerba Buena SX80: Wouldn’t the if the soils are corrosive \nYerba Buena SX80: and also if they’re if the young bay mud is corrosive\, and also\, if there are currents stray currents in the steel. \nYerba Buena SX80: Wouldn’t those corrode the buried steel? And you wouldn’t. You wouldn’t know about it? Or are you saying that there’s certain there’s going to be this anaerobic environment that’s gonna quash corrosion. \nYerba Buena SX80: Again\, just just based on our design experience. Waterfront structures generally. Once you start getting below 10 feet\, the expectation is\, there’s not enough oxygen to create widespread. You do consider some corrosion\, and that’s built in the corrosion allowance \nYerba Buena SX80: working with the geotech and ultimately establishing if it’s corrosive soils that then would factor into what corrosion rate you would use from that zone\, from like the ground surface to that area where you’d feel the oxygen would drop off\, and then you would have to reestablish your calculations on expected corrosion rate\, and\, if necessary\, increase the wall thickness once it’s installed. It’s not really practical to inspect\, and you have to pull out sheets. It seems pretty. \nYerba Buena SX80: Be destructive\, and it’s usually not done. Again. My experience with waterfront structures in that zone. It’s not 0 concern\, but it’s often. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, you can mitigate it through design good design practices. \nYerba Buena SX80: Do people ever put in just a couple of extra sheet piles and then pull them out later \nYerba Buena SX80: to see what’s going on. No\, okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Here’s the figure with the maximum bending moment\, which again\, yeah\, the maximum is down at like negative 10. And so the ground surface in this figure is at about 10 feet. \nYerba Buena SX80: because this is in Navd. So the maximum bending moments are about\, you know\, 20 feet below. \nYerba Buena SX80: This is where you would yeah expect to see that corrosion happening\, though\, is in the splash zone. So not at the top of the sheet. Right? Yeah\, exactly. That’s what I was coming. But coming back to the point about where the corrosion would happen relative to the maximum bending moments. This is those zones don’t overlap. Yeah\, and it’s more pronounced when you look at the flood case\, which is the design event. Obviously you have your flood event. It’s cantilevered. Wall. Your maximum is in the ground. \nYerba Buena SX80: And it’s at depth. So we don’t expect a significant amount of corrosion. But we have accounted for in our design. \nYerba Buena SX80: and if you go back to our structural calculations. You’ll see the DC ratios are quite low\, so there’s quite a belt and suspenders with a coating extra thickness. And again\, we in theory\, we could have picked a sheet thinner than 3 eighths\, but from a drivability practicality of it\, it’s not advisable we need to get these sheets in. So that ended up kind of dictating the wall thickness. Not so much the structural of the corrosion \nYerba Buena SX80: expectations. So we feel there’s a fairly robust solution. And again. Ultimately the design builder will \nYerba Buena SX80: validate all of this. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I mean\, in looking at these results\, I mean\, the sheets are not very deep\, right? These are 40 foot sheets\, I think\, is maximum. I saw\, yeah\, 30 to 40 feet sheets. We’re extending them deeper than they need to be\, geotechnically or structurally to act as a potential help\, as a cut off a little bit from and just allow the airport to mitigate it. If there’s any groundwater issues in the future\, right? And and so. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, and that’s being driven by very little loading. Right? I mean\, there’s very little loading except \nYerba Buena SX80: hydrodynamic dynamic wave loading. That’s probably the largest loads\, I guess\, in this case\, with sea level rise \nYerba Buena SX80: and largest wave heights there. That’s probably the largest loads. \nYerba Buena SX80: And so you’re \nYerba Buena SX80: it. It looks like you’re going to specify the thickness. \nYerba Buena SX80: Minimum 3 eights minimum. \nYerba Buena SX80: And you’re not specifying embedment depth. It’ll just be based on the analysis with us\, or are you? I think we’ve we specified? And again\, this will ultimately get in the design\, build criteria. But I believe the goal right now is to have them seeded into the young bay muds. \nYerba Buena SX80: so they have to tow into that. And that is again\, even if it’s not necessarily needed from a geotechnical standpoint\, we want to at least tow it in there to provide again. Cut off a seepage path through the fills. If you ever had any sort of groundwater or seepage issues\, especially when you start looking at \nYerba Buena SX80: future sea level rise\, when the water in the bay could start getting higher than some elevations on land. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, yeah\, it’d be good to specify that\, as part of the criteria. And the reason I’m saying is\, you know\, a design builder would look at loading and say\, You know my sheets could be just 25 feet deep. \nYerba Buena SX80: I concur\, and that\, I believe\, is our plan. Yes\, I’m pretty sure all the reaches and the design drawings show it towed in 10 feet into the young bay mud. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: that was our design recommendation that it be 10 feet into the \nYerba Buena SX80: but but\, as Dilip says\, it might be good to put that as a design criteria rather than looking at design\, build\, their response is much more. It will be sorry. That’s too wishy-washy it will be. \nYerba Buena SX80: And to to that point I think it’s really critical not to let them drive it into the denser\, stiffer material. So you want to make sure that that doesn’t happen. I mean\, you could think that it’s better. But it’s not really better from a kinematic standpoint\, understood. And I can speak from being a lot of design build teams. They don’t like to drive them any longer than they want to. \nYerba Buena SX80: So let’s say we have them in the yard\, and we’re gonna use it. \nYerba Buena SX80: But no point taken we would be looking for\, and we’re trying to reach the young Bay. MoD. But we don’t necessarily need to go beyond it. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, they they should be floating files right? \nYerba Buena SX80: There is no connection at the top at all right. I know you’re going away from a pile cap\, but even even a simple connection to just well again\, there’ll be a bent plates which will be\, have tabs attaching it to each of the individual sheets to hold it in place. But it’s not a structural element per se. So it’s not going to have it acts. Lock everything in together. \nYerba Buena SX80: We move towards Foster City. I don’t know if you’re familiar with that project. They do have a concrete cap along their seawall. \nYerba Buena SX80: It creates a lot of construction issues. And again\, I haven’t seen their seismic design. But how do you manage this movement. Unless you have 0 movement on the wall\, you’re going to get a lot of post cracking that you. It’s hard to predict\, and it’s going to be difficult to repair. \nYerba Buena SX80: Given that\, we don’t need that continuity from a structural standpoint. We felt this was the best approach. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. And the reason I bring it up is\, you know\, depending on driving conditions\, 7 miles of of sheets. \nYerba Buena SX80: It gives you some. Fluff gives the contractor some fluff to\, you know to have some amount of \nYerba Buena SX80: inaccuracies in the top. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, elevation of the sheets\, and so pile cap sort of covers all of that\, you know\, and you could have joints in there. If you don’t want to transfer the load\, the bend plate provides that similar behavior again. It’s gonna it’s like a cap. So from a visual perspective\, it’ll flatten it out. There’s gonna be\, you know\, underneath that cap. The walls might be up and down a few inches right\, and they’ll have a tab attaching\, but it gives you that same visual look without all the kind of locked in concrete. But I agree I’ve seen concrete caps do that. It does look very nice. \nYerba Buena SX80: But I’ve also seen this detail used elsewhere. And we feel it’s effective \nYerba Buena SX80: in okay\, great just one going back to the 3 eighths inch minimum thickness \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s been a rule of thumb for for us or for me \nYerba Buena SX80: forever. So Jen\, just make sure. Put it in the conditions right that we’re we are gonna maintain that at least a minimum. 3 eights inch wall thickness. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. And with the variability. Again. We’ve done checks\, and you know \nYerba Buena SX80: the odds of them hitting something down there is pretty good at some point\, you know. It’s all fill. It’s not a lot of rock fill. But we do expect. And being I have a 3 eighths inch\, we feel that’ll improve the drivability and create less issues of them having to continuously go down and dig something out. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m just gonna make a note on note on time. We’ve gone through the 30 min contingency. We had the end\, and we’ve also gone through 5 min of the 10 min contingency of the break. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I wanted to check with you on the order which we’re presenting these things. So far\, the order of questions that have come up that we’ve said is coming next. We’ve managed to hit all those \nYerba Buena SX80: because we got the geotech. Then we got the earthquake and flood. We got to corrosion. There were the gates and flood operations\, which is next we touched on the groundwater one\, which is the one after that. So we’ve hit all those\, and then the ones we end in subsidence. \nYerba Buena SX80: and we have strong motion at the end. So I think we still relatively have them prioritized to the interest. But if there’s any particular need\, or someone needs to go early\, they’re sort of modular\, and we can move them around. \nYerba Buena SX80: So again\, those remaining topics are flood operations. \nYerba Buena SX80: groundwater subsidence and strong motion\, monitoring \nYerba Buena SX80: any thoughts on changing those\, or I\, I I think what you guys have \nYerba Buena SX80: got organized is fine. It’s just \nYerba Buena SX80: talk faster. Everyone has to talk faster. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, so responding\, this\, this one on flood operations responds to a series of both Ecrb questions and also some Bcdc. Staff questions which are overlapping will be dealt with in the permit process. We sort of group them together because they have you know\, sort of overlapping topics and the things that they touch. \nYerba Buena SX80: This 1st comment that we had here from Ecrb was talking about emergency events\, and was one of the ones that we sort of roughly talked on is\, how would emergency services and electrical \nYerba Buena SX80: things be provided in backup power. 1st on the flood case. What you see it in the lower left panel of this is the results of some of the modeling that was done for the fema Lomar application. \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s considered the extreme event for interior drainage assessment. That’s the 100 year precipitation event\, and also\, since some of the riverine channels\, that sort of run behind and around the airport do not contain everything within the flood walls. It also includes inputs. \nYerba Buena SX80: In a few overtopping events from there. And in this situation you see that the this is the depth around. \nYerba Buena SX80: and some of the low lying parts of the area\, and these blue shadings are all less than a foot and generally cursive there in the \nYerba Buena SX80: And the other thing I’ll point out is what’s overlaying on this as well is the storm drain system is the series of sort of purple lines there. It’s a little bit hard to read\, but the red dots on the shoreline are the pump stations themselves. So you can see that the pump stations are not overlapping with where the low lying areas are\, and the areas that would tend to pond even for this extreme case with the 100 year precipitation and the inflow from the adjoining cases. \nYerba Buena SX80: In the event that there is a power failure because of earthquakes or reasons to go down for other \nYerba Buena SX80: events. The airport plans to use portable electrical generators\, such as those pictured in the lower right. \nYerba Buena SX80: and that would be in response to. There’s a they already have a standard operating plan that’s alluded to there. That’s sort of\, you know\, monitoring the pump stations\, and when they’re needed\, and that changes obviously between sort of a date\, you know\, once a day feature to when it’s raining more common\, more recent updates. And so those cases\, those portable generators\, you know\, basically have sort of an additional free board of a foot. So those 2 combinations of the pump stations are not in the areas where water would be expected to pool \nYerba Buena SX80: and the free board of the portable generators. \nYerba Buena SX80: Providing the capacity for backup power. \nYerba Buena SX80: The question also included considerations of earthquakes. We I’m going to refer back to the discussion we just had about this combined event of the 100. Well\, the the 100 year Flood events. \nYerba Buena SX80: and the 475 year earthquake event occurring in the same year. \nYerba Buena SX80: being a relatively unlikely consideration. But in the event that it does happen\, most of those 1st couple bullets have already been addressed by James. I’ll just point out\, and we’ll get to a little bit later. That second to last bullet \nYerba Buena SX80: that that he touched on. We’ll go into a little bit more detail. The floodgates themselves are only anticipated to be need to block water rails for a few hours\, so\, in terms of like blocking access \nYerba Buena SX80: to the site that would only be like during the most extreme tide. So it’s not like the it’s not expected the floodgates would be up in such a way that they would be blocking the tide gate elevations. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then\, also\, there was a question about who would need to access the site. So just to follow up on that again with some of the discussion of the Sfo’s operations staff. You know the temporary repairs. If there’s not too many wall breaks. If there’s enough sandbags on hand\, those sorts of things may involve just Sfo. Possibly an external contractor. Permanent repairs would likely include an outside contractor because of those things about driving additional walls. \nYerba Buena SX80: Where are the floodgates on the graphics? The floodgates will come up in a few slides. Oh\, okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: so then another question that is\, is a follow on. And again\, sorry that we’ve we’ve changed over some of the Bcdc. Staff questions here a following was\, how much water could pour in. So now we have sort of\, you know\, in combination of \nYerba Buena SX80: the \nYerba Buena SX80: 475 year earthquake event a week to repair to get those temporary structures up to about 3 feet high\, and then\, in that circumstance\, what sort of inflow volumes would you have? So I followed for this sort of James’s designation of where they would happen by using this sort of green and orange. And if you remember from James’s\, you really didn’t see anything significant happening until 3 and a half feet of seal rise. So just sort of skipped to that case \nYerba Buena SX80: and look for those conditions. I also took a worst case of assuming. There’s that column there that’s assumed number of gaps. Those are 56 of those at those junctions where the wall bends by at least 30 degrees\, so I assumed all of those could possibly fail. You see\, you know\, it’s reach\, for\, as James alluded to before\, is the one that even for mean higher high water starts\, you know\, earliest and sort of turn orange\, although point of that case you only have 0 point 3 feet of free board. \nYerba Buena SX80: But in the event of if you had the 1% Stillwater case\, you have 4 reaches where you have gaps in them. So I took for those 4 reaches and assumed all the gaps that could fail in those reach fails. I think you ended up with about \nYerba Buena SX80: sorry reach. 12 doesn’t have any assumed gaps. So you end up with 9 gaps. Think of them\, each being 10 feet wide. Think of a maximum flow velocity! Think of a you know time that the tide would be at 100 year water level to get an estimated total still water inflow. And so I got that one on the upper right of about 24 million gallons\, and then compare that to the overall stormwater pumping capacity again just at a very bulk level may not \nYerba Buena SX80: where it’s going to appear\, and how it get routed to it didn’t cover at that point. But if you look at those you’re under an hour to\, so the amount of water that could inflow during a hundred year tide happening after a 475 year earthquake. \nYerba Buena SX80: you still have the pumping capacity of only needing an hour to remove that amount of inflow. If you take a more extreme case of considering also the overwash from total water level and so wave splash as well\, which would affect a few more reaches. \nYerba Buena SX80: You get a higher rate\, maybe double. It’s about 2 h to remove the inflows. \nYerba Buena SX80: Oh\, yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: Chen. \nYerba Buena SX80: in this scenario\, where there’s 3 and a half feet of sea level rise. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m also envisioning that groundwater levels at the airport will be like close to ground level. \nYerba Buena SX80: and that the storm drain system\, unless pumps are pumping continuously\, the storm drains would be filled with groundwater. \nYerba Buena SX80: Is that have? \nYerba Buena SX80: What do you? What do you imagine is going on in the storm drain system and the shallow groundwater in this scenario? \nYerba Buena SX80: So we we didn’t envision that for the particular case in the groundwater study\, which we’ll get to in a minute. We also compare those \nYerba Buena SX80: we looked at the maximum inflow rate from groundwater into the storm drain system was about \nYerba Buena SX80: 500 Gpm. And so that’s relative to the 500\,000 Gpm. Capacity\, the pump stations. So the pump stations may have \nYerba Buena SX80: a slight increase. If you were looking at the dry season pumping. \nYerba Buena SX80: you might have to turn on your sort of\, you know low flow pump a little bit more often. But during the stormwater\, heavy precipitation event it’s going to be really that precipitation event and the stormwater that’s coming that the stormwater system was designed for was really the surface water precipitation\, and the groundwater is a minor part of that\, either now or with seal for us. So it’s not the controlling factor. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m not sure how you estimated that in the future \nYerba Buena SX80: high groundwater levels would only contribute 500 gallons a minute to the storm drain system. So we have a presentation coming that was detailed in the demo. So we and we have a presentation coming up. So maybe we should. Just yeah\, we should work on that one that we do. They did a whole full groundwater model for that one. But are you? Are you envisioning in the future? Because I think in the last Ecrb meeting you did mention that \nYerba Buena SX80: the storm drain system is going to need upgrades in the future because of sea level rise. And I’m assuming that that’s because of groundwater rise\, and the fact that groundwater will \nYerba Buena SX80: will continue to increase in how much it infiltrates into the stormwater system. \nYerba Buena SX80: And it’s my understanding that that actually the stormwater system currently operates like at high tide on a sunny day. Right? \nYerba Buena SX80: Is that not? Is that so? The the airport does want to meet\, and some of the \nYerba Buena SX80: ways the airport would like to continue to maintain. Groundwater is to maintain it at roughly the same level. \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s why they’re willing to invest in the additional sheets getting driven down to the young Bay mud\, because that provides part of their. It increases their capacity to manage the groundwater level\, because there won’t be as much groundwater infiltrating from higher bay water levels into the site. So that’s part of the reason why that you know they’re willing. The additional depth of seats is going to cost more\, and that’s 1 of the things that are trying to do is to cut that off \nYerba Buena SX80: and provide a cutoff wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: Previously\, when we had talked about the storm drain systems need to be improved. We recognize that though we we I think we said something like it could. \nYerba Buena SX80: It may need to be improved\, depending on how much infiltration rates there were into it. \nYerba Buena SX80: And so then that was one where we\, as part of the groundwater study\, tried to figure out sort of the overall water balance of like when we said it may need to be improved in the future\, but we don’t know exactly when we just think it’s far as we wanted to\, you know\, be more specific about that response. And so that’s why we work with Geosyntech. They developed the whole groundwater model to provide at least a screening level approach for what those orders of magnitude would be that Julie’s going to present in a bit. And from that model results is where we’re getting the \nYerba Buena SX80: what seem to be the infiltration rates into the storm drain system of on the order of 500 Gpm\, we don’t have. Maybe I’ll hold off my questions until that those slides. Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: thank you. Yep. \nYerba Buena SX80: onto the floodgate locations. So there are 7 closures along the the edge. \nYerba Buena SX80: most of them are like sort of in reach\, one and 15. Those are the reaches that you know have more crossings that come in because of roadways and things like that. \nYerba Buena SX80: So you know\, that’s where you want to have this ability to have the gate down most of the time. But then deployed during the flood event. \nYerba Buena SX80: So this is what James was referring to before\, where he thought\, there’s a likely chance that\, as other communities go forward with their their own flooding their own sea level rise. Prevention that these gates would maybe behind those\, and that would be Gates one and 2 on the \nYerba Buena SX80: north side and reach one\, and then gates 5\, 6\, and 7 on the other reach\, and then at the end\, I’ll show a little bit more detail on the 2 gates that are more exposed reaches 3 and 4 \nYerba Buena SX80: so \nYerba Buena SX80: 4 with a gate. Elevations for that were shown in that previous table. Here’s a comparison of taking those and looking at how the gate\, the the low point of where the gate lies \nYerba Buena SX80: along the reach compares to mean higher high water\, so would the gate have to close about every day to as compared to the 100 year still water level. Like I said\, most of these gates are inboard from the edge\, and would probably be more exposed to the 100 year. Still water level rather than total water level\, and looking at\, you know under what conditions would they have to close? And so again\, the apologies for using 0 feet of sea level rise rather than some small 0 point 3 or some amount to account for present day conditions relative to 2\,000. \nYerba Buena SX80: You see that for both 0 feet of sail rise\, and one and a half feet of sail rise for mean higher\, high water. We don’t expect any of the gates to need to be closed on a daily basis. You will see with 1.5 gate 5 is the one that basically is these numbers. Here are the free board. So all these are positive free board means no cancel flooding. \nYerba Buena SX80: So gate 5 right at one and a half feet of silver rise gets to 0. \nYerba Buena SX80: The exact. As if that’s 1 of those gates that’s interior to the site and would likely be \nYerba Buena SX80: integrated as part of more of a regional flood protection program. \nYerba Buena SX80: The gates would need to be closed even present day\, for the 1% floodwater levels for gates\, 3 through 7 gates\, one and 2 are the ones that are higher and the ones that are actually gate. One is basically from the north access road into like a maintenance yard \nYerba Buena SX80: gate 2 is the gate that’s really across the North access road. That would be the most impactful if it was closed for an extended period of time in terms of access to the site. And you see that gate 2\, even for 3 and a half feet of Seville rise doesn’t need to be closed \nYerba Buena SX80: for mean high tides\, and that’s also\, again\, if a project came regionally that sealed it off. It wouldn’t really need to be closed at all. So Gate 2\, which is the one that had the biggest impact on access is really the gate that is least likely to ever be deployed. It is also the gate that would not is the only actively deployed gate as opposed to a passive gate\, so \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, but presumably you’d have knowledge of forecasts. It would have to again probably be with fair amount of civil rights not likely to even be need to be deployed. Even for up to one and a half years civil rise. And so it’s really that last case of in the event that a regional shoreline planning doesn’t happen and you have the 100 year events. Then you might need to deploy. Gate. 2 \nYerba Buena SX80: thanks\, man for the information mean high high water\, and 1%\, you know\, typically \nYerba Buena SX80: as engineers\, we do like to know\, just on an annual high tide\, you know what? How is this going to function? And what I’m looking at here is that \nYerba Buena SX80: the closure number 5 is probably going to operate every year in December \nYerba Buena SX80: with a king tide. \nYerba Buena SX80: If you have one and a half\, it would be at the edge if you could see. Well\, we can go back and zoom where it is\, but where it is. I it it’s currently there. And it’s currently exposed under present day conditions\, and they don’t currently close it. \nYerba Buena SX80: So these assumptions are. Again\, this is because it’s set back from the shoreline. There’s actually high ground between it and the thing. So this is also sort of the the fema approach of assuming the 100 year water level can get all the way up to where the gate is located. \nYerba Buena SX80: This current place they do not close every time it’s a it’s a there’s an extra access road where there’s like an emergency access on the the south part of the runway. \nYerba Buena SX80: Ye yeah. Because last year we had actually what a foot above King Tide. Right? So in that case\, if \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, this would have operated\, I’m not like\, I said. It’s not changing the grade. There’s a current gap there\, because it’s just the main reason why it’s there is. It’s emergency access like for vehicles to come in from the Millbrae side if they need to. And as far as I’m aware\, it’s not a place that currently floods. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s right. At this bend \nYerba Buena SX80: As you go from along the shoreline I reach 14\, and then\, as you come in along like that’s where the uber waiting lot is \nYerba Buena SX80: gas station. There’s a few other things right there. So Gate 5 is inboard from that. And so it’s not actually right on the shoreline. It’s maybe 30 feet in from the shoreline. It’s actually \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s a little hard to see here\, but they call it the fueling station entrance. There’s like a basically a parking lot. That’s not part of so those campus but so runs it. And so the plan is to provide flood protection around that. And so the 2 entrances \nYerba Buena SX80: get floodgates as part of this program\, but\, as as mentioned\, the water has to get 1st get across their higher elevation and then dip back down is\, if it ever did get in from the shore\, it is a low spot\, so the idea is to protect it. \nYerba Buena SX80: Where again\, if mill great moves forward with their project. And again\, they’re in that planning process. \nYerba Buena SX80: This\, all will be behind theirs\, and it becomes a moot point. \nYerba Buena SX80: any more questions on blood. What we can go back to? \nYerba Buena SX80: now to those 2 gates that would remain sort of\, you know\, not behind a regional flood protection. \nYerba Buena SX80: And we’re specifically asked about one was Sam. Trans Island. So that’s case. Reach 3 out here. So North access comes in just along reach one. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then Sam trends \nYerba Buena SX80: I think they’re the sole owner of the island. There might be one or 2 other sites that there’s a \nYerba Buena SX80: But San trench is the main user of the island. That’s where they store buses and things like that. So in this particular case\, you know\, they need access to move their equipment back and forth on a daily basis. So this would be one of the a passive floodgates sort of shown here in the conceptual cross section that deployed by buoyancy. Once there’s enough water \nYerba Buena SX80: approaching them. So while there would be issues for this\, if this gate was up\, it would impact access to Sam. Trans. The road that is outboard of that that is outside of the area. The airport’s control would be flooded as well\, because it’s actually lower elevation by a foot or so. \nYerba Buena SX80: So. In this particular case the floodgate would be protecting the airport. But you wouldn’t have access\, or you lose access previously for Samtrans\, and to that point Sam trans. Is working on its own sea level\, rise\, protection\, effort\, and would address these sorts of things in the future. And again would be a case where likely the need to close the gate would decrease \nYerba Buena SX80: in the future. With Sam Trans’s efforts. I would just say there has been conversations between Sfo and Samtrans to coordinate their efforts. Again\, we’re only showing this from a Clomar Fema perspective. Ultimately the goal would be to eliminate this from the project. If Sam\, trans. And Sfo’s project align \nYerba Buena SX80: and from a timing perspective. \nYerba Buena SX80: additionally there’s reach 4 which includes the Murph\, the marine emergency response facility. This is a place to store marine rescue vehicles that I think are primarily focused around\, you know\, emergency response to airplane issues out in the bay \nYerba Buena SX80: And so this is another case where\, again\, because of the desire to maintain access for all but the most extreme cases\, there would be a passive floodgate. Basically\, at the end of this pier\, approaching the facility you can see here under present conditions. Sorry wouldn’t need to be closed for high tides until you’re starting to get to about 3 feet of seal rise \nYerba Buena SX80: again\, that in that time period the mer facility itself might be would probably need to undergo its same sort of \nYerba Buena SX80: sea level rise protection\, and this is also the reach for that James mentioned before is the Coast Guard reach\, that they are also probably looking at raising the grade on the inboard side again as well\, so that this again is a gate to \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, Dot\, i’s and cross t’s from a clomar perspective under present day conditions. But you know we’ll change in the future and likely \nYerba Buena SX80: be less of a risk pathway in the future. \nYerba Buena SX80: The last part on the on the operation side was just the details of the operations maintenance for these gates. 6 of the gates were passive gates. So self activating don’t need any power\, human intervention that one deployable gate that I talked about across North Access Road. But it’s also the one that’s highest and would least likely need to be deployed. \nYerba Buena SX80: All the gates would be managed by the Sfos facilities. Their paving and grounds group that manages basically everything that’s out there at the airport. They would be inspected\, annually\, repaired as they get needed. Follow vendor maintenance procedures\, make sure that staff is trained. If they are deployed either for training purposes or in an actual event. Make sure they’re cleaned and restaged after that \nYerba Buena SX80: and in during an actual operational deployment. Of course\, they would be sort of added into the things that would get checked to make sure that they’re not leaking \nYerba Buena SX80: what is the typical lifespan of a passive gate. \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t know the answer. I mean\, they’re built to be deployed outside\, I from roughly looking at. I think they’re mostly made out of fiberglass\, stainless steel and there’s I would guess the things they do have things like a few rubber gaskets in a few areas that I could guess would be something you might want to check every 10 years and maybe replace if they start to break down. \nYerba Buena SX80: a. Again. If you ask the manufacturer plenty long. \nYerba Buena SX80: But generally the idea with the maintenance program we would be replacing certain components and the idea we can extend that life through 50 years with our regular operation and maintenance\, or sorry? 65 years. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, thanks. \nYerba Buena SX80: Any other questions about the flood operations. \nYerba Buena SX80: I had a couple of questions. \nYerba Buena SX80: can you go to the slide that has the flood map with the precipitation and riverine \nYerba Buena SX80: is is that showing \nYerba Buena SX80: flooding extents assuming the pump stations are operational like that. They don’t lose power. \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s assuming they’re operational. Yes. So if they did lose power. \nYerba Buena SX80: the flood extent could be greater than shown on the map. Yes\, okay. And then I just I feel compelled to comment on the portable generator. Just it just doesn’t seem like the best solution. And maybe maybe there’s a reason \nYerba Buena SX80: why\, like a kind of permanent installation of a generator co-located with the pump stations\, just seems like something that might be worth considering. \nYerba Buena SX80: at least for ones that \nYerba Buena SX80: are critical or or vulnerable to flooding. \nYerba Buena SX80: So that would be one comment I have. \nYerba Buena SX80: Do you want to? Has there been any discussion with Fema about whether or not this meets their interior drainage criteria. Again\, we’ve presented this\, and they’ve accepted that again as far as redundant power. And they haven’t commented on that yet. I mean\, your point is \nYerba Buena SX80: a good one\, and I think we probably have to have some further discussion with Sfo about how this would be handled. How many portable generators does Sfo have? Could you supply all of the pump stations? Right? I can say again\, the interior drainage system has been in place for a very long period of time. These rain events are probably what it sees. More than any of these flood. Events were occurring so\, and we being a low line area\, if the pumps were out\, there would be \nYerba Buena SX80: some issues based on interior drainage. So \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m not sure we can quite give. I I think it’s a good point. I just can’t speak to what that supposed plans are for that. \nYerba Buena SX80: So for the for I’m sorry if it’s on that same topic\, is it? Okay? Then\, in that case I’ll I’ll maybe I’ll chime in. So I mean\, Fema does require a backup system\, anyway\, right as part of the existing. So this would be a backup of a backup. Correct. \nYerba Buena SX80: I believe. Well\, I’ll have to look back again what their requirements are. But we definitely have presented the operation and maintenance\, and within the operations of that we outline exactly how Sfo is operating it currently and to date. We’re not fully through the process. But they have. That’s not been one of their comments or concerns. Yet. \nYerba Buena SX80: because\, as far as I’m aware\, I think the backup \nYerba Buena SX80: is an alternative grid which is still electric and not propane or natural gas. \nYerba Buena SX80: or any other backup. And so maybe that \nYerba Buena SX80: would be good to know at some point internally. Yeah\, we’ll we’ll reach back\, or I could reach back to H. And Tb. And suffl counterparts on that. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? And then the one actively deployed gate would just just curious the reason why that one alone is active as opposed to passive. So we did study this a lot\, and it came down to the gap. It’s essentially crossing the roadway. There’s a spill point from our flood \nYerba Buena SX80: analysis. It’s a very as Matt presented at a higher point. But when you start looking at the future sea level rise and the Fema’s requirement of a 2 foot \nYerba Buena SX80: or one foot air gap it was below that point. So then we went through a whole series of concepts of \nYerba Buena SX80: how do we raise the grade here? Because we can’t put a flood wall across a permanent flood wall across the road. The road needs to remain open. We started looking at different options\, raising grade. There’s a off ramp coming off the freeway. It started to snowball pretty rapidly into impacts. \nYerba Buena SX80: Then we started evaluating\, and in conversations with Sam Trans. Island and some other South San Francisco\, it became pretty apparent that they have flood protection programs that are going to tie in at essentially where our reach 2 ends right at Sam trans. Island. \nYerba Buena SX80: and this reach one will be behind all of that flood protection. \nYerba Buena SX80: So we felt that this solution\, although it does require active deployment. \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s a stopgap until those future projects. Now\, if we are sitting here having this conversation in 2070\, and they never did anything in South San Francisco. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know that probably would have taken a different approach\, and maybe looked at more permanent passive area that would open itself. But given that the likelihood they’ll never need to deploy this. We felt this was the the kind of the best path forward to be honest\, to get through the Clomar Fema process. \nYerba Buena SX80: and and I assume that a requirement of that would be that there’s some kind of \nYerba Buena SX80: storm monitoring in place to identify those events in advance of when it has to be deployed as part of the Clomar package\, we’re required to submit an operation and maintenance guidance\, and we do have submitted that to fema how this would get deployed and what the process would be. And again they’re in review. I can’t say here they’ve accepted officially\, but so far they haven’t commented on that. \nYerba Buena SX80: I just have a little question. \nYerba Buena SX80: Towards the end of the design. Life looks like \nYerba Buena SX80: half a dozen gates are gonna open and close every day. Right? I mean\, that’s a couple 1\,000 openings and closings\, I would say. Most likely one. \nYerba Buena SX80: The Murph will be my suspicion in 2085. My expectation is\, Millbury will have introduced a flood protection along their shoreline \nYerba Buena SX80: South San Francisco and Sam Trans. Will have also by 2085. Otherwise they’re going to be. Their entire towns will be flooding on a very regular basis. So it’s really the Murph will be the only location \nYerba Buena SX80: if we’re thinking at end of project life. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m curious\, are there gates like this that are currently opening and closing every day? Are they pretty darn reliable for so generally they’re not something you want opening and closing every day\, but they have been Foster City. They have 2 of these gates as part of their flood protection\, which has been built\, we actually had a chance to tour it\, and this gates have been used quite extensively now\, being deployed in like back in New York. \nYerba Buena SX80: There’s a lot of different cities that have around hospitals\, critical infrastructure. So it’s a. \nYerba Buena SX80: the technology is proven. So that’s why we selected that particular. It’s proven in the sense that they’re actually opening and closing on a semi somewhat regular basis. There are many openings and closings that have functioned properly correct under flood events again\, I would not recommend this if we were in a case where you’re on a daily tide\, and I understand in the future this is something that would be starting to creep in. If sea level rise at one and 200% chance. \nYerba Buena SX80: If that is the case\, you know\, I could imagine a future generation looking at that particular passive gate and looking at the vulnerability of its deployment \nYerba Buena SX80: on a regular basis. But as it stands right now\, yes\, this is a proven technology used at other projects. And again\, you have a chance to visit Foster City. It’s they have 2 of them on that site. \nYerba Buena SX80: Jen. \nYerba Buena SX80: Sorry I missed this\, if you already said it. Where are there already? Emergency generators on site for each of the storm drain\, pump stations \nYerba Buena SX80: again. We’d have to get back to you on that one. I don’t know the exact appointment. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’re getting a head nod from Rinaldi behind us from Sfo. There we go. Yes\, you can introduce yourself. So Rinaldi Project Manager Sfo. So the airport actually interconnects to the high voltage transmission at 2 locations. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then\, as the power is fed into the airport\, it actually is transformed from 1 15 kv. To 12 kv. And we operate a 12 Kv. System. \nYerba Buena SX80: and we have about 32 miles of cable. So that’s going away from the discussion here. But what I was gonna say was\, each of the stations can be affected multiple locations. So there’s a redundancy built into the electrical distribution system. We that we manage as an airport \nYerba Buena SX80: in addition to the belt and suspenders of the electrical generators. Some of it’s mobile\, but there are permanent ones\, too. Yeah. But anyway\, I think there is. There is a plan for resiliency and redundancy in the electrical system\, especially for a critical facility like \nYerba Buena SX80: our assets\, such as the outfalls and home stations which are primarily needed to \nYerba Buena SX80: collect and convey the storm water\, especially during storm events. \nYerba Buena SX80: So cause I’m imagining that in in the large earthquake scenario also\, the power will be out\, and that you would have to deploy the emergency generators to keep the pump stations running. And so it sounds like you have emergency generates for each \nYerba Buena SX80: of your storm drain pump stations. Is that right? \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? \nYerba Buena SX80: Also\, I had a question\, are there any \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, during the these time frames when \nYerba Buena SX80: in these emergency scenarios \nYerba Buena SX80: where the pond stations could be out. And there’s flooding. Are there any basements \nYerba Buena SX80: or subsurface areas on the airport \nYerba Buena SX80: that people are in that could be vulnerable to flooding. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’ll \nYerba Buena SX80: I can give it a 1st attempt. And\, Ronaldo\, you can correct anything. Say\, but yeah\, there is like at that central parking garage at the center of the airport. That is a low point. So in theory. \nYerba Buena SX80: if you had the flood event and it got through like right now\, if you had the flood event 100 year flood event\, the expectation is the water could get into those areas. Yeah. But there’s there’s no people in those spaces. It’s actually a bunch of chillers and boilers for the facilities. So it’s not a habitable space. So there’s nobody in there. I think\, Rinaldi\, you previously told me. It’s more of an operational impact than a life safety impact like you would lose critical infrastructure to run the airport. \nYerba Buena SX80: Oh\, okay\, so there are. There are components of critical infrastructure in below grade areas. Okay\, thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: How we doing with time\, Matt. \nYerba Buena SX80: do you want it with the break or without the break? \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t think we yeah\, I don’t think we can take a break\, and and our board members or folks. If you need to go\, you need to go if we take the breakout then\, and we’ve used our contingency. We’re we’re on track\, but we gotta keep everything else to where \nYerba Buena SX80: we might make \nYerba Buena SX80: alright. I’m Judy Shaman from Geosyntech\, and I’m gonna \nYerba Buena SX80: excuse me. \nYerba Buena SX80: Address common number A\, that relates to \nYerba Buena SX80: the potential impact of the Spp on groundwater. And to address these comments we perform a quantitative assessment of potential changes in groundwater levels due to the Spp and Sea level rise\, using a screening level groundwater model for Sfo and its immediate vicinity. \nYerba Buena SX80: This analysis really focused on evaluating the differences between current groundwater condition and future groundwater condition\, taking into account sea level rise\, and then looking at \nYerba Buena SX80: 2 scenario with and without the Spp. To really look at the impact that the Spp may have on groundwater. \nYerba Buena SX80: The evaluation was based on a screening level\, steady state groundwater model using mud flow\, and the area I evaluate is shown here on the figure\, and it represents Sfo and its vicinity\, including the San Francisco Bay to the east\, and then we can see the proposed Spp as an orange line. \nYerba Buena SX80: The screening level model is \nYerba Buena SX80: is a simplified tool that can be used to evaluate the differences between current and future conditions\, but because of the simplifications. It doesn’t necessarily accurately represent the current condition and the groundwater elevations at Sfo. \nYerba Buena SX80: If you look at the next slide \nYerba Buena SX80: cool. \nYerba Buena SX80: So this slide provide an overview of how the groundwater model is set up\, and so for the model layering. It represents the observed geology with artificial field\, with variable thickness that is overlying the young bay mud and the upper layered sediment that are below \nYerba Buena SX80: the bay area. The bay is represented with a specified head boundary condition\, and that’s shown in purple on the figure. \nYerba Buena SX80: And the values that I use are based on the current water levels at 3.3 2 feet and then increase to 3.8 2 feet to account for sea level. Rise in 2085 \nYerba Buena SX80: for the scenario with the proposed Spp. The subsurface barrier is represented with a hydraulic flow barrier that is \nYerba Buena SX80: along the reaches one through 15\, and is shown on in orange. Here on the figure\, and the barrier is specified in the field and 10 feet into the bay\, which\, as we heard previously from James\, that’s a design future of the proposed Spp. \nYerba Buena SX80: The Sfo. White Storm drain system that we just talked about and is shown here. The actual drains are shown with green lines here on the figure. This is represented with a drain boundary condition in the model where groundwater can infiltrate into the drain. When the groundwater elevation is above the drain elevation. \nYerba Buena SX80: and the amount of water that infiltrates into the drain is controlled by the drain conductance that is basically representing how leaky the drain might be. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then we also represent an air recharge over the inland portion of the of the model. \nYerba Buena SX80: because we have some uncertainties in terms of how much recharge is occurring\, and how leaky\, or what is the conductance of the of the storm drain? We looked at 3 pairs of parameters\, or 3 combination for the recharge and the conductance of the drains \nYerba Buena SX80: to account for this uncertainty. And look at how those parameters may impact the results. We selected those 3 pairs of parameters based on \nYerba Buena SX80: looking at the the simulated groundwater elevations with the model\, and we wanted this to be consistent with what is currently observed at Sfo. \nYerba Buena SX80: Look at the next line. \nYerba Buena SX80: So we looked at 2 different metrics to evaluate the results. And this slide provide an overview of the results. For the 1st metric meaning the simulated granular level increase under future conditions as compared to current conditions. \nYerba Buena SX80: And here we see the results on the images for the 3 pairs of recharge conductance parameters\, and then also for these 2 future conditions\, which are \nYerba Buena SX80: for all of them silver rise. But then\, without the subsurface barrier that’s on the left side\, and with a subsurface barrier\, and that’s on the right hand side. \nYerba Buena SX80: The colors indicate the simulated water level increase as compared again to future conditions from 0\, which are shown in blue to 3 feet\, which are shown in red. \nYerba Buena SX80: Based on these results\, we can see that the extent of the serrated groundwater level increase from the shoreline depends on the drain conductance\, and we can see it by comparing the different \nYerba Buena SX80: figures from top to bottom with a larger extent. \nYerba Buena SX80: for a smaller conductance\, and then the proposed Spp translated to result in less increase to future groundwater levels at Sfo as compared to future conditions where we take into account sea level rise\, but without the subsurface barrier\, and this can be seen by comparing the 2 columns for the figures. \nYerba Buena SX80: and finally\, more than half of the western portion of Sfo is not significantly influenced by silver Rise and the proposed Spp. And those are shown with the area in blue and light blue on the figures. \nYerba Buena SX80: If you look at the next line. \nYerba Buena SX80: The other metric that we looked at for this evaluation was a simulated \nYerba Buena SX80: flow rates\, and here go back to the previous discussion. \nYerba Buena SX80: We looked at both the simulate inflows into the drainage system\, and also the simulate flow from the bay into the field\, and for both of those flows those are lower with the proposed Spp. As compared to future conditions\, we still have arise\, but without this subsurface barrier. \nYerba Buena SX80: and while we\, it is anticipated that the ground that the groundwater infiltrating into the drainage system is going to increase \nYerba Buena SX80: the estimated increases which are shown here in highlighted in blue in the in the table for the case \nYerba Buena SX80: with with the Spp. Those values are less than 50 gallons per minute\, and are really negligible as compared to the capacity of the storm drain system. \nYerba Buena SX80: If you look at the next line. \nYerba Buena SX80: and so to conclude\, the proposed stp is anticipated to result in less increase to future groundwater levels as compared to without the Spp subsurface barrier which is really limiting groundwater intrusion from the bay. \nYerba Buena SX80: the increase in glomadar levels over more than half of the western portion of the airport\, considered to be less than one foot. \nYerba Buena SX80: Then we can see that the influence of the sea level rise on groundwater is limited to westward\, due to the attenuation from the bay\, and also the existing storm drainage system that is providing some control \nYerba Buena SX80: the estimated water infiltration increase into the storm drainage system\, which is estimated to be less than 50 Gpm. Is negligible compared to the capacity of this system that is really designed to handle to handle big storm events \nYerba Buena SX80: based on this evaluation\, it is recommended that to monitor the groundwater elevation\, and also the infiltration of groundwater into the storm drain system to refine the understanding and also detect changes that may warrant some adaptive measures. \nYerba Buena SX80: And I think that’s that. \nYerba Buena SX80: Did. \nYerba Buena SX80: I didn’t\, really. I read this this report\, and I didn’t really understand how \nYerba Buena SX80: the 50 gallons per minute\, how the infiltration \nYerba Buena SX80: in current conditions in the storm drain was assumed. Is it? Is it assuming a certain amount of like cracks in the pipes\, and a certain amount of head on the pipe based on its elevation. Or how does that work? Yeah. So how? How this is? If you go back to 3 slides before just to see the the drains. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, so \nYerba Buena SX80: basically how this is set up. We don’t have a lot of detailed information on the on the condition of the storm drain system. So here it’s assumed that \nYerba Buena SX80: all of the trains have the same the same characteristics and the same conditions. And we assume\, based on the information that we had\, that the drains are 6 feet 6 feet below the ground surface\, and then we assume that they have a certain conductance\, or they have a certain \nYerba Buena SX80: leak ends\, and it’s the same for all of the drains. What is probably the case\, that some of them are more leaky\, and some of them may be less leaky. But here it’s assumed that it’s an average condition\, and then we are looking at when \nYerba Buena SX80: the groundwater is simulated to be above the elevation of the drain\, then the water is infiltrating into the drain\, and how much is infiltrating. Depend on how leaky this drain is. But this this process will occur everywhere where we have those green lines and where the groundwater elevation is above the bottom of the drain. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Just out of curiosity. \nYerba Buena SX80: How? \nYerba Buena SX80: What area is subject to recharge from rainfall? I mean\, you got a lot of pavement. \nYerba Buena SX80: and the way I see it is\, the storm drains actually will feed the groundwater rather than the other way around in many situations. Isn’t that the case? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. And here we applied research recharge kind of \nYerba Buena SX80: uniformly over the entire area\, and this recharge would take into account both recharge from precipitation\, and also any \nYerba Buena SX80: and any leakans from from the drain. \nYerba Buena SX80: And and here we that’s why we looked at 3 cases\, the case where very\, very low recharge only half an inch per year\, and then a case with higher recharge\, 3 and a half inches per per year\, and that would that would account both for again precipitation and leakage. \nYerba Buena SX80: So you were looking at it on an annual basis. You didn’t consider a little storm in middle of winter where everything’s saturated. Yeah\, that’s correct. This is looking at \nYerba Buena SX80: steady state conditions and then \nYerba Buena SX80: go ahead. I was just going to follow up on that. So the the calibration that was done for the combination of drain\, conductance\, and recharge shares was calibrated to like the Sfei Groundwater data set\, which is based on like the highest observed water levels in a series of wells in that local area. \nYerba Buena SX80: The length varies\, but it’s something like 20 ish years depending on which particular well record. So the the conditions that it was calibrated to was calibrated to the wet state conditions. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think that may answer\, perhaps part of my question. I’m out of curiosity. \nYerba Buena SX80: You got so many borings\, and and probably even monitoring wells. What is the elevation of the groundwater for summer and for wet weather out at the airport? Is it significantly below the pavement elevations\, Bob\, do you want to take this one? Or since you’ve been? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, we. We have installed some odometers\, and they’ve been monitored now for a couple of years. \nYerba Buena SX80: What what we find is that? \nYerba Buena SX80: typically\, the groundwater levels are essentially at mean sea level. \nYerba Buena SX80: and \nYerba Buena SX80: on on in in the runways. And and what have you? However\, we we do have good evidence of local conditions where you can have \nYerba Buena SX80: significant\, particularly in areas that are not paved where you can have significant seasonal fluctuations in in groundwater level \nYerba Buena SX80: and \nYerba Buena SX80: and and we we have seen situations \nYerba Buena SX80: which are near the storm systems stormwater systems which really suggests that locally there\, there is some \nYerba Buena SX80: connection and and infiltration into the stormwater system that’s lowering the \nYerba Buena SX80: the the water \nYerba Buena SX80: table. But \nYerba Buena SX80: I I guess the my general assessment is a feeling that \nYerba Buena SX80: it it it’s a the storm motor system is one that wasn’t designed to be a leaky system. It it happens to leak some in some places. And and you know. So \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s the the water balance that’s being done is is an interesting exercise\, but it’s it’s it’s probably\, you know\, just in the long run\, or in particular\, quite quite more complicated than \nYerba Buena SX80: than that. And \nYerba Buena SX80: and maybe a quick \nYerba Buena SX80: assessment would be just how often are the strong drain pumps running? \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean\, they’re probably not running all year round\, right? I mean\, probably just in the winters. \nYerba Buena SX80: And so that could be our answer. \nYerba Buena SX80: Again. They I’ve been out there. They do run occasionally in the summer dry season though. Maybe one of the 7 pumps together\, one of them will go off and drain out a little bit\, but they are running year round. Obviously they’re designed for the winter months. \nYerba Buena SX80: and that’s where you see the largest amount of use. So if they’re operating year round\, there is groundwater infilled\, so they are\, they are draining. So the groundwater is pretty close to the \nYerba Buena SX80: pavement\, elevations. \nYerba Buena SX80: to the\, to the drain\, to the drain elevation which\, based on information that we had from the storm drains. It was around 6 feet below ground surface on on average \nYerba Buena SX80: and just wanted to add on the \nYerba Buena SX80: the depths to groundwater around Sfo. It’s and we have it in the memo. It’s between 4 4 and 14 feet below ground surface. \nYerba Buena SX80: January. \nYerba Buena SX80: but \nYerba Buena SX80: ultimately \nYerba Buena SX80: the groundwater level is going to be the bay level. \nYerba Buena SX80: right? I mean\, this whole barrier business is just for instances where there’s a storm surge that yes\, there is a you know. I mean\, it’s it’s very much is low hydraulic contractivity. It’s not gonna react instantaneously on on the on the airport side. \nYerba Buena SX80: But ultimately your model considers the groundwater to be 3 feet higher than the sea level of today. Right? \nYerba Buena SX80: If we go back to the previous slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah. So here\, that’s where we we are seeing on the left hand side. If the subsurface barrier is not present\, then you would expect the groundwater level to be \nYerba Buena SX80: 3 feet higher than today\, really\, along the in this red area\, along the edge of the along the shoreline. And then this this value would decrease as you go westward towards the blue area\, and that would be the \nYerba Buena SX80: increase in groundwater as compared to the groundwater elevation that we see today. \nYerba Buena SX80: and some of this \nYerba Buena SX80: some of the difference of why it doesn’t increase everywhere by 3 and a half feet\, which is a increase in the along the bay is due to the presence of the storm drainage system that is controlling. How much water the storm drain is a sink. So it’s going to. \nYerba Buena SX80: Whatever your pump is. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s going to be at that level. But ultimately it seems like that system needs to be working 24\, 7 \nYerba Buena SX80: to keep it at that level. So so this gets kind of the next point that Jen was referring to before about how much would it have to be referring. So this was this idea of quantifying the amounts. \nYerba Buena SX80: So you’ll see. The the 500 Gpm. That I was quoting before is from the case of sensitivity. 3. Which is the highest recharge and drain conductance. So I was rounding up the 460\, so that the model is saying that \nYerba Buena SX80: for the highest cases of recharge that you need to reproduce observed groundwater levels. \nYerba Buena SX80: The recharge. The rate flowing through the storm drain system today \nYerba Buena SX80: with just due to groundwater is about 500 Gpm. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then it’s saying that these are the increases. Without the Spp it would increase up to about 620 to say\, take that case\, but if you build the Spp\, then it’s only going to increase \nYerba Buena SX80: by about 10\, because you have that cutoff wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: So yes\, it would mean that the storm drain system is currently playing a role in the groundwater elevations there. \nYerba Buena SX80: The rates at which it’s inflowing all the time. In 24\, 7\, but the inflow rates are relatively low on the order of 500 Gpm. Per day for current conditions. If you build the Spp slightly higher. But this cutoff well is relatively effective. So the relative change in inflow to the system just due to groundwater and the higher bay water levels is pretty small in a time. Frame. Yes\, in in like today. Versus tomorrow. Yes\, but \nYerba Buena SX80: in 80 years\, 50 years\, 100 years\, it’s going to be at the level of the bay. Yes\, I’m not following this business of cutoff. It’s not a cut off. \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean. Well\, if if you have a cutoff\, but you have a very slow infiltration rate\, and you’re removing it from the other side. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, that’s what I’m saying. So it wants to come up to the level that is going. It’s the increase that is being considered. \nYerba Buena SX80: And if your pump is at a level that this water reaches it\, it has to pump 24\, 7\, basically\, because you’re you’re not going to drain the San Francisco Bay\, are you? No\, you’re not. But right. But the they currently already they don’t pump 24\, 7\, because the wet well holds more than 500 gallons right between the accumulated wet wells of all of them. \nYerba Buena SX80: So the pumps don’t go on all the time. They go on to accommodate the present day in the extreme case\, roughly\, 500 Gpm. The pumps occasionally turn on\, even throughout the dry period. \nYerba Buena SX80: If you build also the cutoff wall\, the relative change of that\, even with sea level\, rise in the high rails\, we relatively small\, so the pumps may need to turn on somewhat more frequently \nYerba Buena SX80: to accommodate that additional inflow. But the amount is going is the increase with the Spp. Is only 10 Gpm. From 460 gpm\, so they’re managing it now\, with occasional pumping throughout the year \nYerba Buena SX80: by building the Spp. And by cutting off the inflow from the bay. They will have to manage slightly more\, but only 10 gpm. More. \nYerba Buena SX80: I have a hard time. \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, I mean I I the way I’m understanding. Ramin’s point is that \nYerba Buena SX80: you are not fully cutting off the flow. Right? There is seepage around the embedment. You are reducing the energy that is pushing the water out\, but the water is still going to come right. You’re just slowing it down. \nYerba Buena SX80: If you don’t have the \nYerba Buena SX80: the the wall \nYerba Buena SX80: right. I mean the flow rate into the storm drain system is going to be faster. \nYerba Buena SX80: right? But how much faster? Right? And not much. I mean\, I don’t know. I think I think you need to think about this. The system we’re dealing with here is we’ve got bay mud underneath. You’ve got pavement on the top. You’ve got a cutoff through the fill that’s going in there\, that yeah? Sure\, the cutoff can be a little leaky. \nYerba Buena SX80: The indications from the modeling are that \nYerba Buena SX80: that the storm drain system is having an impact\, whether it’s 10 Gpm. Or an order of magnitude higher or whatever there\, there will be some additional need down the road\, and we’ve recommended that there be monitoring of the system in order to see. But there doesn’t appear to be a critical. \nYerba Buena SX80: You know that that a critical thing where you need to go fix this right now or this\, you know where the or the airport’s going to go underwater. We have a system that is carrying groundwater \nYerba Buena SX80: out of there right now. The change seems to be relatively mild. \nYerba Buena SX80: And so we’ve said\, we think you need to monitor this system as we as we go along and adjust if you need to. \nYerba Buena SX80: if if it if you see something different. But yeah\, so you’re going to need to to pump more sure. But how much more we got bay mud underneath\, and we got. We’ve got sheet piles through the fill\, and we’ve got pavement. We’ve got all these things. There’s it’s it’s a monitorable system\, I think. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, I mean\, I think you know\, maybe to Rameen’s point. There. You know just what is the elevation of the airport \nYerba Buena SX80: tarmac and most other places \nYerba Buena SX80: compared to the future ground level right compared to the future bay water level. And you said\, it’s about mean sea level \nYerba Buena SX80: is about where the groundwater \nYerba Buena SX80: is that? Yeah? 3 feet to it. Are you above that? I think you are \nYerba Buena SX80: on the pavement elevations above plus 6 around the airport. Most places majority of them are. Yes\, there’s a couple of low\, lying\, grassy areas. But yeah. And and again\, I think in theory\, if you turn the pumps off today and never had a pump\, you’re correct. The groundwater will eventually reach a stable point. \nYerba Buena SX80: But the fact is\, they’re gonna maintain the pumps. We’re gonna install the sheets\, and it’s a way of managing \nYerba Buena SX80: that increasing ground or sea level rise and the increase in water elevation in the bay. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s very similar to. Again\, if you go to New Orleans they have pumps working all the time because they’re already below water. That’s how they often will manage this problem. It’s just eventually Sfo will have to be slightly similar. But they have an existing pump system that’s proven that \nYerba Buena SX80: it it seems to be pretty effective\, but needs monitoring. Yeah. But you’ve gone through your fema studies\, and the barrier is not \nYerba Buena SX80: a seepage barrier? Is it being designed as seepage control barrier with certain amounts of pumping? \nYerba Buena SX80: And is that \nYerba Buena SX80: baked into your design criteria? Again\, the as you mentioned runways. The critical infrastructure is all above. Even when you start looking at sea level rise. But \nYerba Buena SX80: to assist with this\, we’ve driven the sheets lower to act as an effective way to help mitigate this \nYerba Buena SX80: in the future. \nYerba Buena SX80: Because if we stop the sheets in the fill\, the flow rates as presented are much higher. So that’s why the recommendation to go into the young bay months \nYerba Buena SX80: here\, I just wanted to add on\, why those flow are are much are very low is because groundwater flow is is very low. The gradient is very\, very flat\, and the hydraulic conductivity of both the field and \nYerba Buena SX80: really the young Bay mud\, where groundwater from the bay\, with the present of the of the subsurface by air\, has to go through the young bay mud. And so that’s creating a very low\, a very small inflow\, and that’s it needs to be continuous. But those continuous pumping would be very\, very low magnitude \nYerba Buena SX80: if I may\, but your evaluation here? \nYerba Buena SX80: Does it have time element in it? Because ultimately\, again. \nYerba Buena SX80: if you say the groundwater is mean\, sea level\, mean sea level is where the \nYerba Buena SX80: level of the bay is on average. So if in 50 years it’s going to be 3 feet higher\, it’s going to be 3 feet higher on the on the everywhere. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I mean. \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s where I I’m not following the yeah\, I think if yeah\, go ahead. \nYerba Buena SX80: there are currently areas around the bay which are below mean sea level and are dry for a substantial portion of the year. A lot of those are either managed by local \nYerba Buena SX80: stormwater systems nearby\, or they’re managed by. There’s enough evaporation that you don’t see groundwater building up\, because you basically can remove the water faster than an inflows. \nYerba Buena SX80: And so this is just a large case like that of the other factors that are removing the water from the basin that is Sfo. And and the more depressed basin it will become relative with sea level rise \nYerba Buena SX80: is you’re able to remove the water faster than it accumulates. If if all the pumps went off and and you had an extended period\, you would lose it. But \nYerba Buena SX80: I wasn’t. I’m not talking about that. All I’m saying is \nYerba Buena SX80: in your evaluation \nYerba Buena SX80: is\, does it consider \nYerba Buena SX80: that the \nYerba Buena SX80: level of the groundwater \nYerba Buena SX80: at 50 years from now is 3 feet higher than what you consider today. \nYerba Buena SX80: So it is 3 feet higher at the along the show\, and then there is a grade. There will be a gradient inward based on. So it’s \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s currently. \nYerba Buena SX80: let’s say it’s currently at \nYerba Buena SX80: 0 mean sea level. And then it’s gonna raise 3 feet along the floor. The show. And that’s gonna create a gradient. And that’s what we are seeing in this \nYerba Buena SX80: in this figure. And here I want to point. There is no time element\, because all of those are steady state. So it’s really assuming that it’s \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s continuous\, and it’s for an indefinite amount of time. And so that creates this gradient. And then this gradient is needs to be \nYerba Buena SX80: high enough so that water \nYerba Buena SX80: water would infiltrate into the into the Bay mode\, and it would be at at steady state and at equilibrium. \nYerba Buena SX80: Was \nYerba Buena SX80: with the inland portion \nYerba Buena SX80: is that because the groundwater and ground surface elevation is higher on the land side. \nYerba Buena SX80: as you get farther away from the bay. \nYerba Buena SX80: because this is\, if I understand this correctly. These are deaths\, not elevation correct. \nYerba Buena SX80: So these are. These are water level increases. \nYerba Buena SX80: So it’s so level. So it but doesn’t \nYerba Buena SX80: connect to an elevation. There. There isn’t\, I mean\, there isn’t a groundwater set groundwater within the airport\, right as a boundary condition for the model. It’s you’ve got the bay on the outside\, which is set 3 and a half feet higher. \nYerba Buena SX80: and you’ve got \nYerba Buena SX80: a boundary condition on the on\, you know\, from the upland flow from west to east. I don’t know the specifics of that\, but once you get into the airport\, you have this pervasive train network \nYerba Buena SX80: right? And so that’s so. So it’s so. That’s so. What’s happening. I believe I’m not the modeler. But I talked to Julie a lot about this \nYerba Buena SX80: is that is\, that when you’re coming from from west to east towards towards the airport. \nYerba Buena SX80: It doesn’t take much capacity in the drain system to handle that amount of flow right when you’re coming from east to west. You’ve got that 3 and a half foot higher at the bay. \nYerba Buena SX80: but is now\, you know\, is now flowing well\, even without the the cutoff wall in there it dies down quickly\, because it comes in at a certain rate through the permeability of the soil\, and it gets into the drainage system. \nYerba Buena SX80: And that’s so\, so the drainage system picks it up. But it doesn’t pick it up as quickly because you know. But but if you have the sheet file walls in there that limits\, how much can come in from the bay? So that’s what you’re seeing is\, that is is where the water is getting into the to the drainage system\, and the drainage system has so much more capacity than the amount of flow that’s coming in. \nYerba Buena SX80: I have a problem with defining it as a flow. \nYerba Buena SX80: When your groundwater level is here and your drain is down here\, it has to bring it down to that level continuously\, because that’s the head \nYerba Buena SX80: that it’s not a flow. It’s not like a. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know. Damn cut off kind of a thing that you have a head\, and you’re talking about flow. This is \nYerba Buena SX80: everything going up so it has to pump \nYerba Buena SX80: to get it down to whatever that the pump level is right. \nYerba Buena SX80: can I interject? Sure? I I think I I understand your point. \nYerba Buena SX80: and and I completely agree with you. If there were no drains whatsoever. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: if the bay raises 3 feet. \nYerba Buena SX80: the ground everywhere was raised. There is no question. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think\, what they’re what they’re saying\, and please correct me if I’m wrong it was a they are including. \nYerba Buena SX80: They are not fixing a boundary condition \nYerba Buena SX80: on the west side. They’re not saying that the the elevation stays at 0. \nYerba Buena SX80: They are. They are mauling the entire basic. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. They are raising the water level. And with the current conditions. Which again\, one of the things that you may ask is\, are the recharges for the current conditions remain the same for these next 60 years? And that may not be the case. That’s a different story. But let’s assume that it is the case. They are not fixing the boundary condition with the West. They’re having the flow. \nYerba Buena SX80: They’re having this\, and they have the drainage condition. They have the drainage and those strains. The existence of those drains is enough to keep that level at that elevation. \nYerba Buena SX80: That that’s what I understand. If those things were not there\, I have to. If they were giving a different answer. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know I will strangle them myself. So the level will be completely the same. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. And we are talking about flow\, because basically\, what is happening is that the drainage system is slightly decreasing. The groundwater elevation within the Sfo\, and that creates a gradient between what is in the bay and what is in Sfo. And this gradient is equilibrating when the gradient is high is high enough so that the inflow into the bay correspond to how much\, then\, is \nYerba Buena SX80: coming out of the drainage system\, and that’s where we reach this equilibrium between with the groundwater elevation \nYerba Buena SX80: within the Sfo. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, since I’m the modeler here\, let me let me come back to this thing. I’m not worried about the Bay mud. I’m sorry that’s a red Herring Bay mud has low hydraulic conductivity. Yes\, at steady state it’s gonna bring in certain amount of water. What I’m interested in is the boundary condition on the west. Okay from basically San Bruno. \nYerba Buena SX80: because\, as was mentioned there\, the water level is going to rise with the the base level basically will be the bay so 3 feet higher. So your recharge boundary is going to have 3 feet higher head at that point. How much water are you? Were you able to calibrate it for how much water you’re getting across that western boundary? \nYerba Buena SX80: I know we we didn’t change what was coming across the western boundary. Okay. But there\, there\, that water level has to respond to the sea level in all of Millbrae and San Bruno just to check. I think I brought the map with the I believe there is a fixed boundary condition along the west side\, where the purple line is\, and I think it was something on the order of like 10 feet based on local well data. So \nYerba Buena SX80: across the airport you have a rough gradient of 10 feet on the west to 3 feet at the bay\, so that you already have a gradient. It has a gradient\, and it has flow. So if you took every\, you know\, just a very simple model\, you’d have it wedging out to the bay right? And the stormwater system currently pulls it down a little bit \nYerba Buena SX80: effectively\, right? Right? And now you’re gonna raise the bay 6\, you know\, from about 3\, 3 and a half feet to 6 feet. \nYerba Buena SX80: but you still keep the inland boundary at 10 feet\, which is\, that’s what I have a problem with\, because the inland boundary will go up as well. That’s what people don’t understand your groundwater overall. The regional groundwater is going to go up as the bay goes up\, and I think that’s probably where \nYerba Buena SX80: where Ramin was having a problem is that you know you’re raising the regional water table. You have to think about that. I’m not. I’m not worried that the strong drain is not strong enough\, that I’m not worried. \nYerba Buena SX80: But if you’re thinking about modeling the original response\, you also have to consider the regional response of the water. Yeah. So there has been. Regional work has been done. The beef is at all work. It’s part of the cosmos modeling. And we’ve looked at that\, and that has been like a water-based scale that goes up to the watersheds. And we’ve looked at those in terms of differencing \nYerba Buena SX80: the amount of change that occurs\, and what you see when you do the difference in those elevations\, because I think there’s some issues with that groundwater model in terms of its absolute amounts. You see the same kind of pattern that we’re seeing here\, that the ring of rise is very much constrained to\, only like within a thousand feet or so of the bay. \nYerba Buena SX80: So raising. And so that’s a full Usgs\, you know you could. So so it’s I think\, if you’re upslope enough. Right? It doesn’t matter what the bay \nYerba Buena SX80: changes. \nYerba Buena SX80: Like\, I understood\, yeah\, I understand. But here we are\, Bayshore Freeway. We are not upslope. Okay? And so the point is that there the water level is going to be higher. Okay? I mean\, Caltrans is having problems where the drains are blowing up in major storms\, because wherever they have an underpass they don’t have enough capacity because nobody thought about it. \nYerba Buena SX80: So it is a standing problem. You know. We had orchards there. A long time ago people were using groundwater. We no longer use groundwater. All I’m saying is that when you do this I’m not worried from everything you say you have the capacity. \nYerba Buena SX80: But if you’re building a model like this\, you do have to consider the regional response locally. You cannot use the Usgs. I’m sorry I love Usgs\, but their regional models are just that they’re regional. They don’t really tell you what’s happening locally\, Nick. It won’t go up 3 and a half feet\, though. Right? Go up a foot 9 inches. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. I mean\, is there some number that you suggest that they increase the west boundary by. Well\, I think it’s just matter. As I said\, I think the capacity you have shown\, because the hydraulic conductivity of the fill is not infinite\, and you know you consider that. But I would certainly consider \nYerba Buena SX80: looking at what happens if the water level goes up on the you know\, on the San Bruno\, the you know\, on the west side\, and what it does to the overall. You say that there is a basically a 7 foot gradient right now. \nYerba Buena SX80: what if the gradient stays the same? What I gather is in that model? You? You assume that the gradient decreases because the sea level comes up. But actually\, what if you just assume that the gradient stays the same? \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s that’s all I’m saying. \nYerba Buena SX80: And if there’s a gradient from the west towards this new wall\, wouldn’t it pile up behind the wall as well it could conceptually\, if there were no conceptually. But the drain is already doing its business. Yeah. So yes\, it would if there is no drainage. \nYerba Buena SX80: The point is that there’s a huge network of French drains\, essentially\, that are keeping it from rising above the bottom of the French drains. Yeah\, I mean\, it’s big. I mean\, the French drains are leaky storm drains which are not supposed to leak\, but they do\, and that I mean\, that’s the assumption. And that’s \nYerba Buena SX80: observed\, standard practice. It’s the way these pipes work. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. And it’s just what I thought we can. \nYerba Buena SX80: that definitely can be a sensitivity case to to look at that\, but wanted to point out that because the the gradient is very flat and that’s consistent with what is what is observed. The the flow from the west side is is also very\, is very small\, and and a lot of the \nYerba Buena SX80: the inflow\, release from the assume arrow\, recharge\, and then from \nYerba Buena SX80: and then we still have arise from the flow from from the bay\, so would it be a simple sensitivity. Analysis just to like Nick suggested. Raise the grade\, keep the gradient the same. So you’re raising the west side 3 and a half feet. \nYerba Buena SX80: and instead of less than 50 gallons a minute\, it’s gonna be less than 70 gallons a minute\, or something like that. \nYerba Buena SX80: or still less than 50\, probably. Still. \nYerba Buena SX80: I guess I would just note that \nYerba Buena SX80: based on what we’re seeing now\, with the 3 and a half foot rise against on the on the base Bay side. If we if we raise things a little bit on the west side. \nYerba Buena SX80: we might see a little bit of an effect on the west side\, but pretty far away from the wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, and it’ll be picked up by those 1st drains\, and it’s it’s gonna have a pretty minor effect on the overall. So \nYerba Buena SX80: oh\, maybe I’ll just say that. \nYerba Buena SX80: When I was part of the what is it? The San Francisco sea level rise and flood Hazards committee \nYerba Buena SX80: groundwater inundation was a phenomenon that we were looking at\, and I wish Chris May was here because she was leading that \nYerba Buena SX80: so I would. \nYerba Buena SX80: I\, I think\, recommend that you do look at this as a sensitivity study. \nYerba Buena SX80: and I don’t know what the con \nYerba Buena SX80: conductivity\, or whatever that the the term is that brings the water in on the the west border or the boundary condition. \nYerba Buena SX80: But I but I think it is worth. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, satisfying the the Board’s curiosity. Here \nYerba Buena SX80: 3 and a half foot rise on the West End would be an upper bound that one could have possibly imagined. I think right? \nYerba Buena SX80: And so it’s gonna be a 9 inches foot. I don’t know. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think you can do it on your iphone. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: okay\, we are at 4 30. \nYerba Buena SX80: And I don’t think there’s a plan B for for us \nYerba Buena SX80: and going past 5. Right? Jen. \nYerba Buena SX80: okay\, can we? What do we have left? \nYerba Buena SX80: We? We have 2\, we have subsidence. And the seismic monitoring. \nYerba Buena SX80: the presentation for both of those we think are relatively quick. 4 to 6 min. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, we. We still have to do public comment to make this a meeting. Right? So \nYerba Buena SX80: subscience is the one that’s come up the most. \nYerba Buena SX80: or has come up before the the \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean we can do it\, whichever order you want if we are going to cut off. No\, I think subsidence would be the the one to get to next. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, you get to hear from me again. This is Chris Hunt\, Chris Hunt\, with Geosyntech. I’m a principal geotechnical engineer in the Oakland in the Oakland office. \nYerba Buena SX80: so the question was\, what is the expected amount of land subsidence that could cause the proposed wall to sink over the life of the project. The way the approach really took at this was just kind of what is the amount of subsidence that the that we are seeing at the airport. \nYerba Buena SX80: And what will be project out to this to 2085. \nYerba Buena SX80: We didn’t want to focus on Reach 7 where they’re doing new construction\, new design. And they’re they’re handling all that. It’s it’s we just focused on. Kind of what do we project for the future settlement at the airport. \nYerba Buena SX80: You know\, the fills are over 50 years old\, and the last major fill was over 50 years old. So so there’s there’s there’s 3 sources of data. There’s some satellite. There’s 1. There’s a base station shown in blue on there which has satellite data. \nYerba Buena SX80: There are set. There’s a there’s a whole series of benchmarks around the airport\, and we received data from a few different years. We focused in on \nYerba Buena SX80: the 2012 and 2015 sets of survey data and then towel. Recently did a ground validation survey at the end of 2023\, with with points all over the airport. \nYerba Buena SX80: And we we use that data at the at those benchmark locations. So we have one base station with a good\, a really good data set. And we have\, we have a few years of data at the 5 red benchmark locations. So if you go to the next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: so so all those those black circles on there\, that’s the satellite kind of GPS data. \nYerba Buena SX80: And what it shows. This is a\, this is a a linear timescale that that we’re showing here. \nYerba Buena SX80: But but between 2011\, and the end of 2022. So right about the right\, about right\, about the start of 2023\, \nYerba Buena SX80: we had about 3.3 and a quarter inches of settlement that occurred. \nYerba Buena SX80: We fit a a log linear. \nYerba Buena SX80: best fit line through that through that data\, because this is\, it’s 50 years since they’ve had any settlement\, any any and any real fill placement. So this is secondary compression\, which is an exponential decay \nYerba Buena SX80: process. So the if we look at that as a just as a linear. In the last few years\, between between 2014 and 2220\, 22. It’s been going about point 2 little over point 2 inches a year. \nYerba Buena SX80: But if we do that log linear fit to that\, and we forecast it out to 2085\, we get out to about 6 inches total\, but that’s only about 2 and a half\, 2.7 inches over. Then\, you know\, out to 2085. Chris\, I have a quick question. Is that projection out 60 years \nYerba Buena SX80: just based on this curve? Fit \nYerba Buena SX80: log\, linear line? Or is that based on? If you just extend the T in your secondary compression calculation\, it’s it’s the it’s the fit. It’s the it’s the linear. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s the linear extension out. So if you put T equals 60 more years. \nYerba Buena SX80: does it look about like this also? \nYerba Buena SX80: Oh\, well\, you’re going to get a look\, you mean\, am I gonna get more settlement\, or or what do you? What do you mean \nYerba Buena SX80: if I have a different T. \nYerba Buena SX80: So this is based on a curve fit. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think you also at some point talked about using an alpha value\, secondary compression value\, and which I have\, which I have in 2 slides. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: so this is the one. This is the base station GPS data which we get. We get the A forecast of about about another 3 inches out to 2085. We go to the next slide. We have the survey data \nYerba Buena SX80: where we have measured settlement. From the 1st data point we had was 2012\, and the last one was 2023. \nYerba Buena SX80: So we’ve had one to 3 and a half inches of settlement between those between those 2 dates. If we project each one of those out following that\, you know\, giving each one of them a log linear fit out there. We we get about \nYerba Buena SX80: another \nYerba Buena SX80: 3.1 1.4 to 3.7 inches between the different benchmarks over those next next 6 years I’ll just point out that the range. That linear fit over the last few years is 0 point 1 2 inches per year and point 3 2 inches 2.3 2 inches per year\, with an average of 0 point 2 1 so very similar to what the satellite data was showing us\, that point about 0 point 2 inches per year. \nYerba Buena SX80: but the exponential decay only gets us another 4 inches or so out another 60 years. If we look the next slide\, we look at the kind of fundamental principles and some lab data\, we\, we turned each one of those forecasts into a strain rate based on the thickness of the bay mud. At each one of those benchmark locations. \nYerba Buena SX80: And what you see in that table. 2. So this C. Epsilon\, Alpha number as geotechs all know. That’s basically a strain\, a strain rate in in log time\, space\, but that range in in table\, in table\, 2 in the bottom\, right corner of table 2 shows that \nYerba Buena SX80: that those strain rates are 0 point 0 0 4 to 0 point 0 0 1 with a mean of point 0 0 7. As those C. Epsilon alpha. If we go to that Adx study that Bob was talking about earlier\, where they looked at soil properties\, they did. They did a lot of lab tests. And if we look at the C alpha values that they measured in the lab from 0 point 0 1 to 0 point 0 3\, and the equivalent void ratios from 1.1 to 1.8\, all within the stress range of interest for the bay mud\, we get a very similar answer. We get \nYerba Buena SX80: C. Epsilon\, Alpha\, 0 point 0 0 4 to 0 point 0 1 2. With a best estimate of 0 point 0 0 8\, which gives us so we’re saying that the survey data and the geotechnical data lab data is telling us the same rates of strain out here. So we thought we thought that was good confirmation. So I think the last slide after that just kind of summing it up. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’ve got consistent between survey and and geotech tests. We’ve got recent rates of settlement going to be at the point 1 2 to 0 point 3 2\, with a mean of 0 point 2 1 inches per year\, but these are going to reduce over the long term. We forecast that out\, and along the perimeter we see one and a half to 4 inches of settlement through 2085\, \nYerba Buena SX80: you know. Obviously\, this needs to be considered. That\, there’s gonna be a few more inches of settlement out there\, and in places where you’re actually gonna add new load\, add\, fill. Do other things like that. You need to. You need to do the actual analysis. And that would be part of that design build process. \nYerba Buena SX80: But it’s it’s pretty. It’s a pretty limited amount of settlement for a thick bay mud site\, and it’s because we haven’t put any major fill out there for over 50 years. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: I understand there was some work along the perimeter \nYerba Buena SX80: of the airport\, right? So going back. So could this be a relic of some of the construction work in terms of raising. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, depending on how close your your base station is to the perimeter where work was done. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s the I mean. So so the \nYerba Buena SX80: geotechnical settlement you have. Primary settlement and secondary settlement and primary is the kind of the it’s not always short term. It depends on how thick that layer of bay mud is\, but you have more settlement early on in response to a load\, and then you get this long\, exponential decay\, which is what we’re what we’re seeing here\, and that that satellite data \nYerba Buena SX80: matched really nicely with this concept of kind of that\, that exponential decay. So we just we think it’s just secondary compression. And it’s just going to go on. It’s just going to keep getting lower and lower and lower over over time. It’s just a log\, linear. \nYerba Buena SX80: straight\, straight relationship. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hi\, Dilip\, can you clarify the question about what work was done. I mean\, I’m starting to see 3 inches of settlement that occurred between 2011 and 2022. There was no fill place in the airport at all. Yeah\, I think the most recent set of work that was on our perimeter. Yeah\, I don’t think there’s any work. \nYerba Buena SX80: The sheet piles were installed\, probably in the nineties. That was it. The vinyl sheet piles that we have. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, but I don’t think there’s any \nYerba Buena SX80: work on the perimeter. There were emergency repairs done. But you know that was at the edge of the the 19th \nYerba Buena SX80: runaways. That was it. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? \nYerba Buena SX80: Any other \nYerba Buena SX80: good source of science? I think we’re good to go. Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: for this last one\, can I? Maybe it’s a last\, but not here. \nYerba Buena SX80: Satellite data. You know. I’m I’m separating subsidence from vertical land motion. \nYerba Buena SX80: You know there have been some studies\, I think lately that we have seen where they’ve tried to \nYerba Buena SX80: isolate and understand what’s the vertical land motion \nYerba Buena SX80: separate from\, you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: consolidation due to \nYerba Buena SX80: due to due to fill \nYerba Buena SX80: the satellite picks up all of that also. Right? \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, so I didn’t visit the site. But my understanding is that is a \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s. It’s a base station with elevation collected on a daily or at least weekly\, I think\, with every day. Same point. How’s that elevation changing based on? \nYerba Buena SX80: I think it’s Gnss. Which I think is also the same same\, essentially a generic name for GPS in this case\, probably. But I’m not. I’m not a surveyor\, so it’s capturing the vertical settlement of that base at that base station location. At whatever the point where it’s measuring\, it is right? So it’s ectonic activity plus secondary compression. Right? That’s what I was trying. Well\, it’s whatever is called yeah. All vertical movement would be captured in that. Yes. \nYerba Buena SX80: I I would just like to throw one thing in\, and we don’t need to discuss it at all. But \nYerba Buena SX80: you got 10 or 12 years of data and extrapolating it \nYerba Buena SX80: 60 more years. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s a long extrapolation. If I look at the the your satellite data. \nYerba Buena SX80: I would be happier with a slightly \nYerba Buena SX80: do do a different logarithmic curve. That \nYerba Buena SX80: gives it more settlement\, I think. Just \nYerba Buena SX80: eyeball curd fitting it. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m not sure. I trust these numbers. I’m not sure that it matters much\, but just \nYerba Buena SX80: the the memo has it in in in semi log space. You can see what the curve fit is. Sure you could. You could\, I mean\, if you went \nYerba Buena SX80: for the high end at the at the you know in in the\, in the early stages\, and a low end you could come up with a with a longer line\, I guess. \nYerba Buena SX80: When we looked at the different benchmarks\, and it all came into the same general area. It was still a matter of a few inches. \nYerba Buena SX80: So\, Chris\, do you have a plot where you superimpose your \nYerba Buena SX80: using the \nYerba Buena SX80: empirical approach to the secondary settlement. \nYerba Buena SX80: to the \nYerba Buena SX80: satellite data that \nYerba Buena SX80: well\, so what I what I had was those tables\, where I looked at the thickness of the bay mud at the base station\, and used that to come up with the strain rate and the strain rates were about the same. I didn’t. I didn’t then try to plot that. Oh\, yeah\, okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’ll just say that I think the satellite data. There’s 2 sets. There’s the GPS satellite data\, right? And I think people are also referring to some more recent insar satellite data that’s been used to detect elevations. And I’ll just say that \nYerba Buena SX80: that information\, I think\, is regional. I haven’t seen it locally validated at the airport\, which you would do by ground truthing it with local elevation. So basically\, instead of the satellite data\, that’s regional data. If you wanted to ground truth that at the airport you would go find the base stations. \nYerba Buena SX80: the benchmarks\, and those surveys like we’ve done here. And you’d find the GPS data. If you have that collected daily\, and you’d compare that to the satellite data from the insar data. So you know\, we know that there’s other data set out there. But this was to try to \nYerba Buena SX80: provide local \nYerba Buena SX80: measurements from what was collected locally. Not not sort of a regional\, remote\, sensing approach. \nYerba Buena SX80: it seems 3 inches in 11 years. That’s a lot for secondary\, it seems to me \nYerba Buena SX80: any lights you can share shed on that. It. \nYerba Buena SX80: It was a it it as a geotechnical engineer. I thought this was an amazing data set to have. No\, no\, this is a great \nYerba Buena SX80: field level consolidation test. That’s good. But it seems\, after 50 years. For 11 years\, 3 inches. That’s if you if you go to table. \nYerba Buena SX80: so that last the table in there. So at the base station \nYerba Buena SX80: we estimated 35 feet of of young bay mud under there. \nYerba Buena SX80: So it’s a pretty small relative to the thickness of the bay mud. But yeah\, I mean\, it’s certainly not something that a normal structural engineer would want to design a new building on with 3 inches of. \nYerba Buena SX80: But that’s I mean. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: But but if this is\, in fact\, some residual primary consolidation or tail end of primary consolidation. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s gonna the the rate will decay even faster than if this is actually secondary. So this is\, I really don’t think it’s primary from what? From what we’re looking at\, though. \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean. \nYerba Buena SX80: I just don’t know what the driver would be. I’m saying if it were\, then your calculation becomes a conservative one. Yeah\, yeah. Okay\, yes\, I would just say\, going back fundamentally to the flood wall as a structure\, these settlements are not a concern. There’s\, and again\, the vertical settlement. It should slide right by the sheet. \nYerba Buena SX80: We have plenty of extra height on it with the Fema fema free board. So ultimately. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, additional settlements. Long term is not going to impact the flood protection of the project. Yeah\, I was going to. Actually\, when when did it. Final comment\, I guess\, on this. I think that the \nYerba Buena SX80: the subsidence \nYerba Buena SX80: report that you submitted \nYerba Buena SX80: alludes to\, and Chris mentioned that you you were paying attention to everything except for 7\, which is where new fill is going to be placed\, which is where primary will be initiated. \nYerba Buena SX80: Just to make sure that you know\, we think that \nYerba Buena SX80: primary needs to be looked at. \nYerba Buena SX80: And there we have a much different approach. Again\, we’re gonna address the settlements directly in the construction. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: and it will make a little bit of a difference in needing to over Bill. And you’re doing. I know you’re doing some surcharge\, and I think wicking also \nYerba Buena SX80: correct cause. We identified that as a definitely an issue. So. \nYerba Buena SX80: James\, just a clarification\, since I’m not a geotechnical engineer on your comment? \nYerba Buena SX80: As the soil settles\, does the wall height settle with it? Or is the soil settling again? We’d have to study again where in the soil column. If it’s going to have some down drag\, or if the whole soil mass is settling\, if the whole mass is going down the expectation\, the wall might come down a little bit\, but again given the wall height. Given the Freemore fema free board. Given some of these uncertainties on sea level rise\, it’s all within \nYerba Buena SX80: kind of \nYerba Buena SX80: acceptable levels. If we’re losing a couple inches on top plus\, there is some future adaptation. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, extensions of the wall. Again\, as much as I wouldn’t like to at the end of the service life. If you had to put a concrete cap on this\, you could and gain another\, you know easily a foot to 2 feet of wall height\, if necessary\, in the future. \nYerba Buena SX80: I again\, from a structural capacity of putting a lollipop concrete block on there from a seismic. \nYerba Buena SX80: I will sleep very well. It’s not a problem. It’s not again. As long as you don’t pile up a bunch of soil and has become a retaining wall. Then that’d be a different story \nYerba Buena SX80: understood. But where we’re at on the DC ratios\, I’m just not sweating it like it’s I’ve I’ve designed walls for retaining much larger loads than this. And you know there\, this is pretty much holding back air most of the time. So \nYerba Buena SX80: okay\, let let\, can we do the seismic instrumentation in \nYerba Buena SX80: 5 min? I think so\, Jackie\, you ready. \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): Yes\, I can. So hi everyone. My name is Jackie Almond. I’m a senior geotechnical engineer with Geosyntech. \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): I’m here to talk about the strong motion instrumentation\, and specifically the Ecrb comment number 12\, which is shown in the upper right hand. Here it’s really a 2 part comment. The 1st part is to check in with the California strong motion instrumentation program manager. \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): And the second part of the comment is to provide a draft seismic instrumentation plan\, and that’s to provide a seismograph to be incorporated into the State seismic instrumentation network. So earlier this year in May\, the project design team met with the Cgs Csnp program manager \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): and 2 other Cgs technical leads. \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): We started the meeting by providing and giving a brief description of the Sfo Spp. And then Cgs stepped through and summarized the instrumentation requirement itself and the process\, and also provided Bcdc’s written steps for required instrumentation projects\, and those written steps are shown over on on the right hand side there. \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): Really\, the takeaway from this meeting is that the instrumentation planning process is a collaborative effort between the design team\, Bcdc. Cgs\, and also Cgs’s strong motion Instrumentation Advisory Council. There’s my Act subcommittee. \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): So if you go to the next slide\, we’ll look at some things that we’ve done since that meeting. \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): Sfo. Provided Cgs with pertinent Spp design drawings and documents\, and that’s really in support of Cgs’s review process \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): in response to comment number 12\, we prepared a memorandum with recommendations for a strong motion instrumentation plan. It included the things that are bulleted here. I’ll really only have time to talk about the station location\, but the memo also includes things like the foundation and enclosure layouts\, equipment requirements\, some power supply and communication needs. And then also some site specific information related to site access and points of contacts as well. \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): The recommendations in that memorandum were developed to meet the instrumentation requirement for the Sfo Spp. \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): And were built with consideration of the Bcdc. Instrumentation process that was shown on the previous slide. The State’s instrumentation specifications and state of practice guidelines for strong motion stations. \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): So if we move to the next slide\, I’ll just briefly cover our strong motion station location\, selection criteria. We’re trying to balance a lot of different things in selecting a location. Those are listed here in the memo. We’ve got the location identified shown on the right hand side as our the approximate station location between reaches 4 and 5. \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): The criteria that we’re that we’re trying to meet really are considering airport runway and operations activity. Thinking about site access and restricted entry access points wanting to avoid those those points for off site personnel\, getting on to the site and accessing the strong motion station. \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): We also want a location that’s a distance away from existing buildings and existing infrastructure. \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): And then we also wanted to pick a location where not only we have subsurface geologic information\, but the subsurface geology is in line with the goals of the Cgs season program. \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): So with all those things considered\, we’ve laid out this proposed location. \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): So on to the next slide. We just have a few next steps and sort of our path forward in this process. \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): Cgs recently presented candidate locations via email and has requested review and feedback regarding their proposed locations. The design team will meet with Cgs to discuss those locations and also other elements of the strong motion instrumentation plan \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): and then the design team will continue our collaboration with Bcdc. Cgs and their Smiac Subcommittee in order to develop a strong motion instrumentation plan as part of the Sfo Spp. \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): And that’s it. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Any comments from from the board. Yep\, I do have a comment. You had a red star there on the on the\, on\, the\, on the drawing where you proposed to put it. \nYerba Buena SX80: You have a you have a boat ramp on one side\, you have an approach to the Coast Guard facility\, which at 1 point is going to be upgraded\, which means piles are in the ground. That is a terrible location\, and and I see it all the time that we put these strong motion stations \nYerba Buena SX80: in a place where there are adjacent structures that totally interfere with the ground response. Why couldn’t you pick anywhere along the whole thing where there is nothing adjacent except the wall that’s coming in? \nYerba Buena SX80: You know. I just like to raise it up there. I look at these stations. You know we have them in California all over the place where are in locations that are completely impossible to analyze after the earthquake because of the adjacent structures\, and and we do it all the time. And with all the consultation with Usgs\, Cgs\, everybody sitting there\, and we stick them into\, you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yes\, that is easily accessible. But these days\, with satellite communication\, and whatever else you don’t really need to be there in person to get the data\, so I would strongly urge you. Please take a look at where you not next to adjacent infrastructure. \nYerba Buena SX80: anyway. Thank you. \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): I mean\, I think you’d be. You’d be hard pressed to find a location at the airport that wasn’t next to existing infrastructure or existing activity\, daily activity. So in the proposed area is shown sort of in the inset in the middle of the of the slide there. And there’s the kind of yellow dash area\, really\, that would probably come back some. We wouldn’t really want to put it quite close to the ramp\, and also the the outfall pipes. So something quite farther away from that but again. \nYerba Buena SX80: I miss. Sorry I misunderstood. Okay\, I saw your arrow and I thought it was\, gonna Be right there. Okay\, never mind. \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): Oh\, no\, sorry. Yeah\, it’s it’s really that kind of area. It’ll be a collaborative process with Cgs. But we certainly want to pick a location that is far away from existing infrastructure. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. Okay\, sorry. I missed. As I said\, I looked at the arrow\, and I just couldn’t believe it. So thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you\, Nick? \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: going to assume there are no more comments. \nYerba Buena SX80: So let’s \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you very much for your presentations. It’s been really great. \nYerba Buena SX80: we have to go to public comment before conducting ecrb discussion. \nYerba Buena SX80: So for members of the public\, if you would like to speak today\, we request that you only provide comments or questions specific to the presentations given today. \nYerba Buena SX80: If you would like to speak\, we will need you to do one in. Do so in one of 3 ways. \nYerba Buena SX80: If you are here in person. \nYerba Buena SX80: please raise your hand so we can call on you. \nYerba Buena SX80: and we’ll at which time will. You may come forward to the lectern. \nYerba Buena SX80: If you’re attending on the Zoom Platform on your computer\, please raise your virtual hand in zoom. \nYerba Buena SX80: You may be you may do this by clicking on the hand at the bottom of your screen. If you are attending via phone\, you must press Star 9 \nYerba Buena SX80: on your keypad to raise your hand to make a comment\, and star 6 to unmute or mute yourself. \nYerba Buena SX80: We will call on individuals who have raised their hands in order \nYerba Buena SX80: in the order they are raised during the public comment period. Starting with anyone present in person when called upon\, you will be unmuted so that you can share your comments. Please state your name and affiliation at the beginning of your remarks. \nYerba Buena SX80: Normally\, we give folks 3 min to make comments this time. I’m going to make it 1 min per speaker. \nYerba Buena SX80: For your comments as in any public meeting\, please keep your comments respectful. \nYerba Buena SX80: We are here to listen to everyone who wishes to address the meeting. \nYerba Buena SX80: but\, as always\, we ask that everyone act in a civil manner. Hate speech\, threats made directly or indirectly\, and abusive. Language will not be tolerated\, and anyone who fails to follow these guidelines or exceeds the established 1 min limit without permission will be muted. \nYerba Buena SX80: Margie\, are there any hands \nYerba Buena SX80: raised. \nYerba Buena SX80: No\, we have no public comments. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. Now\, let’s return to board discussion. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think we’ve been pretty \nYerba Buena SX80: comprehensive in our comments during \nYerba Buena SX80: the presentations\, but if somebody has a a concern \nYerba Buena SX80: that they would like to raise right now\, I’d like I’d like to hear it. \nYerba Buena SX80: I made there. There is only 1 1 concern which I raised earlier\, which was the issue of continuity \nYerba Buena SX80: in this design build process. And is it possible to put a condition that the current \nYerba Buena SX80: team that has done the analysis be then retained as a as a reviewer for future steps. So we we are assured that there is continuity in the in the thought process behind it. Is that something that we can do? \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t think we’ve mandated. They hire. \nYerba Buena SX80: we can. I think we can mandate who they hire retainer\, or when they get fed up with them and replace them\, needs to be design continuity. In some matters\, such as retaining the same team. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, you don’t wanna shut out some of these other engineering firms that \nYerba Buena SX80: But yeah\, I I agree\, Nick\, I think \nYerba Buena SX80: You know\, the way I would approach it is that\, you know. And like like this\, you know\, there’s a basis of design. There’s criteria that is very clearly \nYerba Buena SX80: delineated. And you know that that helps provide the continuity. \nYerba Buena SX80: But yeah\, I don’t know. I don’t think we can. We can dictate. \nYerba Buena SX80: who who the applicant hires \nYerba Buena SX80: who is hired? \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, we would. So I think we suggest peer review of of \nYerba Buena SX80: engineer records. Design. Okay? \nYerba Buena SX80: For for consistency with the original analysis. \nYerba Buena SX80: So \nYerba Buena SX80: okay\, just a quick comment. Well\, I mean\, I was trying to follow Jen’s. You know the advice on the questions that we\, as the Ecrb should answer. So I’ve been listening to the presentations. The only thing that I haven’t heard much about is impact on adjacent \nYerba Buena SX80: existing structures \nYerba Buena SX80: are there any existing structures that \nYerba Buena SX80: the proposed construction the Svp is going to impact? \nYerba Buena SX80: And has that been \nYerba Buena SX80: sort of been incorporated into? \nYerba Buena SX80: You are thinking. \nYerba Buena SX80: not not directly. Again\, we’ve we’ve established and selected a location for this alignment that would have least impacts to existing infrastructure as as possible. Again\, the majority of it is within Sfo’s property. \nYerba Buena SX80: And I’ve attempted to limit the impacts\, obviously from a cost perspective\, if we have to take a lot of things out. Really\, the biggest impacts is the existing flood protection systems there. Essentially\, this is going to be replacing it. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’ll just add there was one \nYerba Buena SX80: we didn’t cover all the 12 ecrb questions before\, partly\, as you saw for time\, we had to select some one of the ones that did come up that was related to the offsite impacts was the potential for wave reflection. So we referred to the coastal hydraulics report. So I’ll just briefly just \nYerba Buena SX80: and so there was a concern about way reflection. So again\, I just wanted to \nYerba Buena SX80: show what was done for that. So a reminder again\, as you saw the Cross section today is most of the time. The waves aren’t even reaching the sheet pile wall. And they’re basically just dissipating on the rock slope in front of it. And so we don’t really see that as a wave reflection issue as part of the coastal hydraulics assessment\, we used Xpeach\, which is a non hydrostatic model which allows you to understand the wave dynamics in more detail than a normal \nYerba Buena SX80: phase average model. So these are just some sample results here on the side. This is for reach 7. So that’s the case where you were\, you know\, you would be building out the perimeter dike. So that’s why you moved from the upper panel which is existing conditions to building out into the bay. \nYerba Buena SX80: And so for this case\, this is for the 100 year water level \nYerba Buena SX80: under current conditions. And you can see. And in the this is the shear stresses\, we’re basically using the bottom axis as the shear stresses. So as you would expect they’re occurring where the waves break at the shoreline. So they’re basically on the rock slope protection that doesn’t change. \nYerba Buena SX80: If you look in sort of a more detailed\, you know\, from the toe outward. And you consider what the changes. Again\, this is using bed shear stress as a surrogate \nYerba Buena SX80: for that. That’s what we were looking at before was more focused on localized impacts to the bed. You can see between the existing\, the sort of fainter\, lighter weight red line versus the Width project line. You know\, they change in variation because it’s non-hydrostatic models. They bounce off in different ways. But you know\, didn’t really see any change in the mean in the sort of couple 100 feet in that area. So we don’t think that wave impacts are going to be an issue. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thanks. Thanks. Geema. Jen. \nYerba Buena SX80: do you know\, normally\, I think we ask you to summarize questions and conditions. But you know\, given our time constraints\, I’m assuming you’re just \nYerba Buena SX80: gonna pass out to the board \nYerba Buena SX80: for review some of the major points or questions or further actions. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yes\, I think you know\, if there aren’t really any lingering \nYerba Buena SX80: questions about \nYerba Buena SX80: the stability of the wall. And it seems like \nYerba Buena SX80: there’s quite a lot of monitoring planned\, and we can. Bcdc. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’ll be requesting information on that. There was the issue about the coercive of the soils\, which I think we can request that in a sort of a plan review process as well. \nYerba Buena SX80: there’s 1 question about \nYerba Buena SX80: how much flooding would occur in a power outage \nYerba Buena SX80: and also sort of what’s the long term plan for the storm drain\, pumping system? \nYerba Buena SX80: and if those aren’t urgent issues\, those could also be handled in the future as permit conditions as well. \nYerba Buena SX80: do I? I see nodding heads here. Perhaps we \nYerba Buena SX80: just take a very quick boat \nYerba Buena SX80: on \nYerba Buena SX80: on those permit conditions. \nYerba Buena SX80: do I? And so I guess the motion is. And the big question is\, should they come back for anything? \nYerba Buena SX80: thoughts I I we’re gonna I guess that’s something we have to discuss. Are there any thoughts about \nYerba Buena SX80: whether or not the airport comes back? \nYerba Buena SX80: It seems to me that we’ve expressed our \nYerba Buena SX80: engineering criteria concerns\, and they’ve been responded to in a way that seems\, I think\, adequate \nYerba Buena SX80: to me\, and there’s some ongoing responsibilities and work that needs to be done. And I think you know some of the corrosion thing things that you mentioned. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’d like to make sure there’s some continuity between \nYerba Buena SX80: the design team and the design build team \nYerba Buena SX80: to make sure that all these \nYerba Buena SX80: design criteria that we’ve been talking about get implemented on into the future. \nYerba Buena SX80: Otherwise I don’t think \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t see a reason we need to have them come back to us again. \nYerba Buena SX80: plus things change a lot. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, I see nodding heads. \nYerba Buena SX80: so the motion is to not ask the airport to come back based on the presentation today. \nYerba Buena SX80: Second. Well\, I think the motion is actually slightly different. The motion is that we don’t need to see them again. But we’ll we’d like to make sure that Jen continues to carry through. To be sure that \nYerba Buena SX80: design considerations that have been discussed here are carried through the design build process. Okay\, thank you. Jim. Yeah. Second. \nYerba Buena SX80: all in favor. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, unanimous. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think that is. \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s \nYerba Buena SX80: So let’s have a. Is there a motion to adjourn? \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, all right. All in favor. All right. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. Everybody. \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/september-25-2024-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240911T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240911T170000 DTSTAMP:20240917T200817Z CREATED:20240726T163055Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240917T200817Z UID:10000190-1726059600-1726074000@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:September 11\, 2024 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Engineering Criteria Review Board (ECRB) meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format. 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. \nPrimary Physical Location \nMetro Center375 Beale Street\, Temazcal 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/83392573066?pwd=aw8DAOGta5yvr8nqr0OepxtY5KlHgh.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055(816) 423 4282 Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID833 9257 3066 \nPasscode331214 \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 and Meeting Procedure Review (5 minutes)\nStaff Updates (5 minutes)\nItem of Discussion: Cargill’s Solar Sea Salt System Maintenance and Operations Project – Berm Stability (BCDC Permit Amendment Application 2021.003.00). (150 minutes)The Board will review geotechnical and coastal engineering reports and data from Cargill on berm stability and safety\, addressing issues raised by the ECRB in their first and second meetings with the Applicant on November 16\, 2022 and August 30\, 2023. These documents are related to the Cargill’s application to the Commission for the “Solar Sea Salt System Maintenance and Operations Project” (O&M Project)\, BCDC Permit Application No. 2021.003.00\, to continue maintenance and operational activities at Cargill’s solar salt facilities located in Newark\, Fremont and Redwood City over a ten-year authorization period. The Board will advise BCDC staff and the Applicant as to additional studies\, analyses\, or actions to be undertaken\, if recommended\, to minimize the risk and consequences to the berm stability due to a seismic event\, overtopping\, erosion\, or sea level rise. The public may comment on the presentation at its conclusion.(Sam Fielding) [415/352-3665; sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation A (AECOM slides)  //  Presentation B (Anchor slides) \nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Recording & Transcript\n \n \n\nTranscript\n\nJenn Hyman\, BCDC: muted. Can everybody mute? \nJenn Hyman\, BCDC: the script that we have? It’s fine fine! \nJenn Hyman\, BCDC: Oh\, I know. Sorry! That’s me. \nTemazcal Room: We can go ahead and start right. Rod \nTemazcal Room: the microphones. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. Good afternoon. Welcome to this hybrid in person and online Ecrb meeting. \nTemazcal Room: My name is Rod Iwashta. I am the chair of the Ecrb\, and I have a few announcements. \nTemazcal Room: Our 1st order of business is to call the roll board. Members\, please \nTemazcal Room: unmute yourselves to respond and then mute yourselves again after responding. Jen\, please call the roll \nTemazcal Room: okay\, and actually make sure to \nTemazcal Room: microphones for \nTemazcal Room: for speaking and pushing the buttons to turn it on and off. \nTemazcal Room: rod you want to share here. \nTemazcal Room: Jim French vice chair. Sure. \nTemazcal Room: Bob Natalia. \nTemazcal Room: Here. \nTemazcal Room: Jima Kasali. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: Chris may \nTemazcal Room: here \nTemazcal Room: Rameen Gosarky. \nTemazcal Room: Here. \nTemazcal Room: Nick Sitar. \nTemazcal Room: Present. \nTemazcal Room: Gail Johnson. Hello. \nTemazcal Room: Patrick Ryan. \nTemazcal Room: Here. \nTemazcal Room: Cherry Washta. We have a forum of at least 5 present. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, thank you. Jen. We have a quorum present. So we are duly constituted to conduct business. \nTemazcal Room: we may have some alternate board members who may be participating as members of the public. \nTemazcal Room: Names I see listed are Thalia\, Travaceru\, Philip Trevetti. \nTemazcal Room: Justin Van Diever\, and Bill Tremaine and I now call the meeting to order. \nTemazcal Room: I wanna \nTemazcal Room: Carrie Washer Robert Batali would like to speak. He has his hand raised. \nTemazcal Room: I’m sorry I didn’t know how I had my hand raised. I was trying to figure out how to get myself on the \nTemazcal Room: video on Zoom\, oh\, yeah. Okay. \nTemazcal Room: okay\, okay. Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. I want to start with some instructions\, and how we can best participate \nTemazcal Room: in this meeting\, so that it runs as smoothly as possible. \nTemazcal Room: First\, st everyone\, when you are not involved in the active discussion. Please make sure \nTemazcal Room: you have your microphones or phones muted to avoid background noise \nTemazcal Room: for board members. If you have a camera\, please make sure that it is on during the meeting. So everyone online can see you. \nTemazcal Room: Every now and then I may refer to the meeting host Margie\, who is working behind the scenes \nTemazcal Room: to ensure that the technology moves the meeting forward smoothly and consistently. \nTemazcal Room: And \nTemazcal Room: please be patient with us if it’s needed. \nTemazcal Room: Ex parte communications \nTemazcal Room: as set forth in the Bcdc’s regulations. A member of the Ecrb. \nTemazcal Room: Shall not have any oral or written communication regarding a proposed \nTemazcal Room: project or other matter that has been noticed \nTemazcal Room: to be considered at an Ecrb meeting with a project proponent permit applicant\, prospective applicant \nTemazcal Room: or member of the public\, except on the record during an Ecrb meeting \nTemazcal Room: Board members\, in case you have inadvertently forgotten to provide \nTemazcal Room: the staff with a notice on any written or oral ex parte communications. \nTemazcal Room: I invite you to report on any such communications at this point by raising your hand and unmuting yourself. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, I don’t see any. \nTemazcal Room: for the record. No hands have been raised. \nTemazcal Room: And \nTemazcal Room: Jen\, are you going to talk about the timing of this\, the room and and all of that? Okay. \nTemazcal Room: then let’s have a staff update \nTemazcal Room: from senior engineer and board. Secretary\, Jen Hyman. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you\, Cherry Washta. \nTemazcal Room: I would like to provide an update on upcoming meetings \nTemazcal Room: on September 25\, th the Ecrb will have a second meeting with the Representatives from the San Francisco International Airport on their shoreline protection project. \nTemazcal Room: On October 23\, rd the Ecrb will review and discuss the updated regional shoreline adaptation plan or Rsap guidelines. \nTemazcal Room: At the end of that meeting\, Bcdc. Council\, Michael Ng. Will give a legal training to Ecr Ecrb members on regulations and policies of the Ecrb \nTemazcal Room: and board members. I would like to \nTemazcal Room: let everyone know and app permit applicants today that we building management asked us to vacate the room at 5 o’clock sharp\, because\, that’s the end of their workday\, and we’re getting their assistance in running this meeting\, and they have to leave so hopefully\, we can try to\, if possible\, wind the meeting up by around 4 30 today. \nTemazcal Room: yeah\, if need be. If we have to go beyond 5 o’clock\, then we’ll \nTemazcal Room: probably all just log into zoom without any of the screens or anything. \nTemazcal Room: if if need be. \nTemazcal Room: Those are all my announcements\, Cherry Rashta. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, thank you\, Jan. \nTemazcal Room: Before we move on to the presentation. Are there any announcements from board members. \nTemazcal Room: Okay? Seeing none. Let’s let’s move on \nTemazcal Room: to agenda. Item\, 3 \nTemazcal Room: Cargills\, solar sea salt system\, maintenance and operations project firm stability. \nTemazcal Room: So the main agenda item related to the permit application for Cargill Cargills. \nTemazcal Room: solar sea salt maintenance or system\, maintenance and operations. Our discussion will focus on the stability of the berms surrounding the mixed sea. Salt or Mss. Ponds. \nTemazcal Room: p. 12\, p. 2\, 12\, and p. 2\, 13. \nTemazcal Room: Mixed tea salts are also referred to as Bittern \nTemazcal Room: Jen\, the Board Secretary and Senior engineer for Bcdc. Has a slide presentation for us \nTemazcal Room: with an introduction and a bit of background \nTemazcal Room: since is. This is this is the 3rd meeting on this topic \nTemazcal Room: during the presentation. It is fine for board members to ask clarifying questions. \nTemazcal Room: I would like to ask board members and presenters to please turn on your cameras for any discussion \nTemazcal Room: during or after the presentation. \nTemazcal Room: and I will now turn it over to Jen to begin her presentation. \nTemazcal Room: I’m just going to give some brief introductory slides on the Project \nTemazcal Room: and the Permit history and the history of the Ecrb meetings for this project. \nTemazcal Room: Cargill salts\, current maintenance and operation activities are regulated by Vcdc. By a 10 year permit \nTemazcal Room: that was issued by Bcdc. In 1\,995. \nTemazcal Room: This permit has been extended numerous times. \nTemazcal Room: Cargill has applied to renew the 10 year Permit and staff plan to present the new permit to the Commission. In December of this year \nTemazcal Room: Bcdc. Has prepared a draft environmental assessment \nTemazcal Room: to comply with Ceqa assessing the potential impacts from Cargill’s maintenance and operational activities. \nTemazcal Room: The draft Ea is currently out for the 30 day public comment period right now. \nTemazcal Room: and that comment period will be ending on September 21\, st \nTemazcal Room: the Ea can be accessed at the Bcd Bcdc. Website. \nTemazcal Room: The link is provided in the slide. But there’s also a link on Bcdc’s homepage. \nTemazcal Room: The Engineering Criteria Review Board’s review \nTemazcal Room: has been. \nTemazcal Room: and today we’ll focus on the stability and safety of the earth and berm surrounding ponds. P. 212 and p. 213. At Cargill’s Newark plant number 2. \nTemazcal Room: These ponds store mixed sea salts\, which \nTemazcal Room: we you will hear the acronym Mss. For these mixed sea salts \nTemazcal Room: due to its high salinity\, and the fact that its Ionic balance differs from bay water. \nTemazcal Room: Mss. \nTemazcal Room: Could contribute to potential environmental impacts if overtopping scour and erosion caused a release of brine to the bay. \nTemazcal Room: Important to note\, however\, that once Mss. Is diluted with seawater. \nTemazcal Room: it no longer exhibits toxicity. \nTemazcal Room: The static and seismic stability of the berms is also a concern. \nTemazcal Room: The Ecrb’s engineering review today has prompted some draft permit conditions\, and Bcdc. Is in the process of drafting \nTemazcal Room: the updated permit. Right now. \nTemazcal Room: these are some examples. \nTemazcal Room: Argill will be raising the berms around the Mss. Ponds to an elevation of 11.5 feet. \nTemazcal Room: nabbed 88 by the end of the 10 year permit period. \nTemazcal Room: Cargill has also proposed to raise the external berm at Pond\, p. 212 to 11.5 feet at a slightly earlier date. Because that’s the berm \nTemazcal Room: of all the of the of the 2 ponds that is facing the bay. \nTemazcal Room: They’re proposing to do that earlier by 2029 \nTemazcal Room: cargo will track and report potential seepage from the Mss. Ponds annually. \nTemazcal Room: The permit \nTemazcal Room: will present the Ecrb’s concluding assessment of the Mss. Burn safety to the Commission. \nTemazcal Room: The other \nTemazcal Room: function that Ep\, the Ecrb’s input has had on the permit is Cargill’s technical reports that were requested by the Ecrb have informed portions of the environmental assessment. \nTemazcal Room: This map shows a location of the Mss. Ponds\, p. 2\, 12 and p. 2\, 13\, \nTemazcal Room: close to Newark. \nTemazcal Room: and along the shores of San Francisco’s South Bay\, south of the Dumbarton Bridge. \nTemazcal Room: The Ecrb meetings on the topic of stability of the mixed sea. Salt Pond berms \nTemazcal Room: were previously held\, first\, st on November 16\, th 2022\, \nTemazcal Room: and a second meeting was held on August 30\, th 2023. \nTemazcal Room: The remaining issues to discuss today are as follows. \nTemazcal Room: updated sea level rise\, risk assessment focusing on wave run up and wave induced firm erosion \nTemazcal Room: results from the geotechnical investigation of the berms \nTemazcal Room: using Cone penetrometer testing. \nTemazcal Room: also known as Cpt. \nTemazcal Room: that was performed just this summer. \nTemazcal Room: Updated stability analyses for the Mss. Berms based on the new geotechnical data. \nTemazcal Room: including \nTemazcal Room: post slope and non-circular failure surfaces. \nTemazcal Room: seismic and funny scenario \nTemazcal Room: firm keying and layering scenarios. \nTemazcal Room: firm displacement and settlement\, analysis \nTemazcal Room: a consideration of settlement \nTemazcal Room: of the Nss. Palm berms \nTemazcal Room: and questions regarding seepage of the Mss. Out through the berms. \nTemazcal Room: Those were all the results \nTemazcal Room: that all the comments that the Ecrb had made \nTemazcal Room: on the issues at the last meeting. \nTemazcal Room: So \nTemazcal Room: I’ve put together these questions for the Board to consider for this 3rd meeting. \nTemazcal Room: Number one is Cargill’s plan to maintain the berms to a crest elevation of 11.5 feet. \nTemazcal Room: plus inspections and maintenance adequate to address the risk posed by sea level rise and and waves \nTemazcal Room: did the field investigation adequately characterize the subsurface. Geology and geotechnical parameters \nTemazcal Room: are the scenarios and criteria in the static and seismic berm stability analysis adequate for assessing the risk of berm failure at the Mss. Ponds \nTemazcal Room: do the updated static and seismic stability calculations for the berms adequately characterize and model the berm stability. \nTemazcal Room: including any berm raising \nTemazcal Room: possible subsidence and sea level rise predicted for 2030\, and 2040 \nTemazcal Room: for the stability analyses that indicate areas where the berms do not meet. The 1.1 factor of safety are the risks adequately addressed? \nTemazcal Room: Does the presentation on Mss. Seepage and Berm coring adequately address the concerns and comments from the Ecrb? \nTemazcal Room: Do the do the results of the updated berm stability\, modeling\, utilize adequately conservative assumptions and meet adequate levels of safety\, so that an ecological and human health risk analysis is not needed. \nTemazcal Room: This was a statement made by Cargill in the second Ecrb meeting. \nTemazcal Room: responding to the Ecrb’s request in the 1st meeting to provide a risk assessment. \nTemazcal Room: And lastly\, does the Board have any other concerns regarding burn stability that have not been addressed. \nTemazcal Room: and that’s the end of my \nTemazcal Room: presentation. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, thank you\, Jen. \nTemazcal Room: Now Jeremy Mull\, of Aecom will make a presentation on behalf of Cargill. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Hey\, everybody! Can you hear me? Okay. \nTemazcal Room: Yes. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Okay\, great. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): I’m gonna share my screen. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): And someone confirm that they’re they can see a Powerpoint presentation up on the screen. \nTemazcal Room: Yes. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Okay\, great\, thank you. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): My name is Jeremy Mull. I’m a coastal engineer with acom. Thank you. Everybody for attending and listening. Today I’m going to give a brief presentation on the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): The wave run up \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and overtopping analysis that we perform for Cargill. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): I’ll note that Justin Vannever was the coastal engineering lead for this project. But because he’s part of the the ecrb that I’m presenting. \nTemazcal Room: Excuse me\, Jeremy\, can you? Do you mind turning on your camera. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Not at all. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Can you guys see me now? \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yes\, okay\, thanks. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Okay. So just a a quick background on the project. I know some of this was outlined by Jen and her presentation. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): In 2\,020 and 2\,021\, Cargill prepared a sea level rise assessment \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): to support his long-term operations and the Bcdc. 10 year operations and maintenance permit renewal. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): This assessment included a mapping of the shoreline and the England berms\, including some assets of the site. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): An evaluation of sea level rise impacts for the year 2\,100 \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the identification of vulnerable berm segments. That could be \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): vulnerable to us\, overtopping from storm surge. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): vulnerability and risk assessment\, for you know\, some of the assets on Cargill side\, including operations and and the environment. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): And then a conceptual phase\, sea level rise\, adaptation\, approach. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): That included adaptation considerations. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Then\, in December 2022 Bcdc. Requested that Cardio evaluate. The impacts of wave run up and overtopping\, including future sea level\, rise on the bayfront berms. So those are the berms between the ponds and shoreline of San Francisco Bay\, and this was based on requests from the Ecrb. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): In August 2023\, Cargill presented preliminary wave run up methods and findings to Dcrb. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): worth noting that the the methodology and the results largely haven’t changed since this presentation. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): And then in 2023\, through 2024 we run up an overtopping analysis. Memo was prepared and then submitted \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): to the the Bcdc \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So these slides are just going to be a high\, level overview of the project. It’s my understanding that \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the presentation that was done previously had a pretty detailed overview of the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the methods and findings\, and then those are also included in a lot of detail in in the technical memo \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): so prior sea level rise assessments\, those focus on impacts of of high tides and combined the storm surge and more of a overtopping from the still water level of the berms. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): This assessment evaluated the potential for way run up and overtopping on those bayfront berms. For existing conditions\, and then future conditions with sea level rise under a no action scenario. And what that means is the analysis assumed that the berms would not be elevated from their their current elevations. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): we developed 2 kind of metrics to evaluate the impacts of waves. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): The 1st included the duration of the berm toe exceedance \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): by the total water level with a wave height greater than one foot\, and we calculated the average hours per year that this might occur. So this was kind of a proxy for the amount of time that the waves \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): excuse me that the berms would be exposed to significant wave energy in a year we then looked at the frequency of berm crest overtopping and we evaluated this\, based on the return period\, \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): for different storm events. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So these results are helping Cargill identify and prioritize maintenance \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): for the burn segments that may experience\, increased exposure \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): to wave impacts due to sea level rise. It also can help inform the development of a long term adaptation management plan for these Burns. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Okay\, so just a quick overview of the technical approach. This\, the approach is detailed or presented more detailed report. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): This slide just conceptually shows each of the steps in the technical analysis. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): starting with step\, one on the top left\, and then all finishing up \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): with the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the firm. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): sorry I have something on the screen\, the firm exposure metrics on the bottom. Right? So\, \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): starting in step one\, we applied a 1-dimensional transact based analysis. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Where transects are spaced. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): perpendicular \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): perpendicularly to the the berm\, we place transacts \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): based on segments of berm with different \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): exposures to wave energy. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Then all of our empirical equations to calculate over top and run up and overtopping were applied in in one dimension. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): In step 2. We extracted \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): cross shore profiles from topographic and bathymetric data\, and then identified the key features of the berms that were used in our our engineering calculations. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): In step 3. We assigned representative transects to each berm segment. So the berms \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): we’re divided into short segments. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and the results of the analysis were then compared to the elevations of each burn segment. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So each berm segment came with a representative transect. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): As it’s described in the report\, we rely primarily on \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): a a multi decatal wave and water level model that was used in a fema coastal flood. Study of San Francisco Bay. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Model was built by dhi and had waves and water levels\, I believe\, every 15 min for over 50 years. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So each transect was paired with a model output station. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): We then calculated \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the total water level at each of those time steps \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): for the entire hindcast and use statistical extreme value analysis \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): to come up with the conditions for storms for different return periods. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Finally\, with the results of the total water levels at each transect\, we map those spatially onto the the berm segments with different different elevations and presented those results as \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): as results. Maps. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Okay\, so just a quick like overview of what the total water level is this is just a conceptual slide and hopefully helps orient Orient people to the total water level because it drives a lot of flooding in San Francisco Bay\, so the total water level consists of several different components. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): It includes the astronomical tide sometimes referred to as predicted tide\, which ranges about 6 to 8 feet in the bay \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and includes storm surge\, which is composed of \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): yeah atmospheric pressure events\, winds\, atmospheric pressure effects\, wind setup\, and El Nino effects. It ranges on the order of like one to 3 feet in the bay. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): It also includes wave components like wave setup and wave wave run up. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and those range about 2 to 5 feet. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and then you add that all up and you get the total water level. Extreme total water\, total water level events on the Bay range from about 10 to 15 feet \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): any vd\, 88\, depending on the storm conditions you’re looking at. And each\, you know. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): areas exposure to wave energy and things like that. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): In the cartoon on the bottom. You can see how all these components add up. You see the tide. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): How time and storm surge add up to the still water level\, and then\, if a segment of the berm is exposed to wind waves\, those waves usually propagate up. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): propagate through the marsh\, and then \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): break \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): near\, or at the Bernto\, and the uprush \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): of water can come up the outward side of the berm\, and then potentially over top levee \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): so we did incorporate future sea level rise\, and that would be that was incorporated into the still water level in which we \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Then we ran all of our total water level calculations. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Okay\, so just an overview of some of the results. These figures are all \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): presented in the report. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): we’re focused on Pond 12 today. Which is shown in the upper left of all the figures. It’s highlighted in the 1st figure. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): The 1st figure is the baseline conditions\, which are \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): approximately from the year 2\,010\, and then the results. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): The different figures show the results for 6 inches\, 12 inches and 36 inches of sea level rise. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): We are using the sea level rise estimates from the Ocean Ocean Protection Council report. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): From 2\,024 you can see the timing of those different amounts of sea level rise in the bottom right there. This table. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): so \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): just as an example for 12 inches of sea level rise that could occur as early as the year 2\,050. If you’re looking at the intermediate high scenario\, it’s likely by 2\,055\, if you’re using the intermediate scenario. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So these the slides show the results for the berm toe exceedance. Remember\, this is the average number of hours per year that the total water level \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): would exceed the burnt tow with a wave height \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): of at least one foot. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So it’s kind of a measure of how often the outboard the bayfront firm is being impacted by waves. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Up in the upper left. You have the baseline conditions\, and you can see all. Jeremy. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah\, go ahead. \nTemazcal Room: Can I ask? This is Bob Battaglio. Hi\, Jeremy. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Hey! Bob! \nTemazcal Room: I’d like to ask a question. \nTemazcal Room: so \nTemazcal Room: I was a little surprised by this slide\, because if I understand it correctly. \nTemazcal Room: Under existing conditions the toe of the berm\, which is the base \nTemazcal Room: on the bay side. \nTemazcal Room: is exceeded by the total water level. \nTemazcal Room: Less than 1 HA year is\, am I interpreting this correctly? \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Mostly. So remember it’s 1 \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): hour per year\, combined with a wave height greater than one foot. \nTemazcal Room: Okay? \nTemazcal Room: So the toe of the berm is in places is fronted by Marsh\, which is around me. High water\, I mean higher high water. \nTemazcal Room: so just the still water level alone should exceed the tow \nTemazcal Room: of the lev of the levy like 8% of the time\, or something like that is that \nTemazcal Room: just just because of the tide\, not including non tidal residuals. So \nTemazcal Room: it just seems like this is. \nTemazcal Room: there should be waves \nTemazcal Room: during some of those 8% of the time. So \nTemazcal Room: it seems like the total water level would be \nTemazcal Room: higher. So I have a concern about that. I don’t know if you wanna \nTemazcal Room: address that now or. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah\, I mean\, I I guess I can just speak conceptually to that. It’s it’s it’s a good question. And I think \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): you have to. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): I imagine it’s through a combination of \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): high tides combined with \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): exposure. So waves approaching at the right angle to attack. You know the burn you kind of think about like \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): every firm has a little bit different. Exposure in this firm. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): you know\, is really only vulnerable to ways that are \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): coming in\, you know\, a bit from maybe the South Southwest here. So it would be those times when you have a combination\, the high tide. So the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): sorry advance the slide\, so the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the tide\, like you said\, is coming up above the berm toe\, but then that also has to coincide with a wind event\, where the wind’s approaching from the right direction to to generate those waves. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, so it sounds like the way you’re filtering it. The waves are not above one foot \nTemazcal Room: when the tide is above the marsh in her high water \nTemazcal Room: more than 1 HA year\, if I understand that correctly. And again\, that just seems \nTemazcal Room: less than I would expect. \nTemazcal Room: So I you know I just have a concern there. Can I? Ask you another question? \nTemazcal Room: How was the wind setup computed? Was it \nTemazcal Room: extracted at the offshore wave location. \nTemazcal Room: or was it \nTemazcal Room: recomputed\, based on the profile \nTemazcal Room: towards shore\, towards the tow. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Are you asking about the wave set. \nTemazcal Room: By the wind. The wind set up. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Okay. Sorry. \nTemazcal Room: Start with. The wind setup. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah\, it’s good question. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): I would have to go \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): back into the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): dhi methodology for the model. What? \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): I? So we didn’t \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): adjust \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the still water levels at all. We took them straight from the model output. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): They ran my \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): my 21 \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): about the the water level wave conditions. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): And so we extracted those from\, you know\, each each output station in the transects I would have to \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): not familiar enough with to say offhand exactly how they handled when set up in the model. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, no\, that’s okay. I I just I’ll make a point here that \nTemazcal Room: The wind setup increases with \nTemazcal Room: proximity to the shore\, because the wind blows the water on shore\, and as it gets shallower the return flow \nTemazcal Room: is suppressed. So you get a setup. \nTemazcal Room: So the wind setup profile is not horizontal\, it should actually increase as you get closer to the levee \nTemazcal Room: and your offshore way of reference point is not \nTemazcal Room: close to the total levee\, so I think the water depth would be higher. \nTemazcal Room: Then\, perhaps\, is being modeled\, which\, of course. \nTemazcal Room: allows larger waves to propagate \nTemazcal Room: landward to reach the toe. \nTemazcal Room: which may also be contributing to this very low \nTemazcal Room: wave total water level exceedance at the toe of the berm. I think I’ve made my point\, but I had. That’s that’s 1 of the concerns I have. And we can discuss more. \nTemazcal Room: In the discussion. \nTemazcal Room: Is is that okay? \nTemazcal Room: Okay? Thanks. Jeremy. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Sure. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): so let’s see\, we this slide. We’re looking at the berm tail exceedance. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and that’s the average number of hours per year\, where the total water level is exceeding the berm tail with a wave height greater than one foot. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So under baseline conditions\, you can see in the upper left. The levee is completely colored and green\, and that’s \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): for \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): entire berm. Sorry. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): And so that’s less than 1 h per year. The legends\, the color legends here. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): to interpret the different colors. You look at \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the 6 inch sea level Rise scenario\, which is what we’re considering to be the the 10 year sea level rise amount \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the berm is still mostly green with some yellow\, so that would bump the segment of berm up into the one to $12 per year. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): That it’s been impacted by these waves\, and then you can look at the results for the higher sea level rise scenarios of 12 inches and 36 inches sea level rise. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): The next thing we looked at was the frequency of crest overtopping by waves. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): And we looked at the approximate return period. Total water levels. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): That would result \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): in in overtopping. So these would be \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): from events as frequent as 2 years. So a total water level with 2 year term period \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): through 1050\, and then on up to \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): 100 years. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): I’m \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and same as before. Baseline conditions are shown here in the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): upper left\, and then \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): on 36 inches of sea level rise. Most extreme scenario shown here on the bottom right? So for baseline conditions. You can see here. Most of the the berm is shaded in orange\, which \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): indicates that it’s vulnerable to \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): overtopping from a storm with a roughly 10 to 50 year return period. There is a small segment in red which is more vulnerable to the light red\, so that’s vulnerable to \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): to 10 year. Total water level with 6 inches of sea level rise. More of the berm here is colored in red meaning. It’s more vulnerable. Obviously\, to to storms \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): with lower return periods. So it happened more frequently. \nTemazcal Room: Hey\, hey\, Jeremy? This is Bobby again. Sorry. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: Ha! The dynamic water level\, or the wave set up\, you know\, like the wind setup is \nTemazcal Room: sloping upwards towards shore. \nTemazcal Room: A lot of the same physics. \nTemazcal Room: The wave setup? Was it \nTemazcal Room: associated with \nTemazcal Room: the wave height at the toe of the levee\, or with the wave\, the largest wave breaking farther offshore. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): That’s a great question. And \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): it really I I guess it depends on the wave condition. So I’ll kind of walk you through what we did. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): We generally follow the the engineering guidance\, and that the Fema \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Pacific Islands. So \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): guidelines for the west coast\, and so for \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the 1st step in the run up calculation. We use the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the Bim equation\, the direct integration method equation to calculate both \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): wave setup \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and we run up \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and then we looked at the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the dynamic water level so that would be \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the still water level plus static wave set up\, and the dynamic wave set up. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and then\, if that exceeded the berm toe\, we switched to \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the tar equation\, which is a wave wave wrap equation for steep \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): coastal barriers. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): And then we did a check. So we use the the near shore wave height \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): shoaled to the depth of the toe. If that exceeded \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the depth limited wave height we would use the depth limited wave height\, until\, if it did it\, we would use that wave height to calculate \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): way round up with tall. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. So I I think that all sounds good. I’m I’m familiar with that methodology. It makes. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: So I mean\, I think the question is\, where was the what wave was used? At? What pansec location offshore \nTemazcal Room: to calculate the way it’s set up. \nTemazcal Room: The dynamic water level. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Sorry. So you’re are you asking what wave I was used in tall\, or what? What wave height. \nTemazcal Room: I know. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Extracted from the the model to start the calculations. \nTemazcal Room: No\, I think I understand that the wave height for the run up calculation using the paw equation \nTemazcal Room: was the maximum expected. \nTemazcal Room: That’s limited or otherwise wave height at the toe of the levee. \nTemazcal Room: But the question is. \nTemazcal Room: what wave height was used to compute \nTemazcal Room: the way it’s set up. \nTemazcal Room: which may be a wave that’s bigger farther offshore. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah\, I I think I get what you’re saying. So we use the near shore wave. I extracted from the the dhi model. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah\, so it wouldn’t be an offshore wave. And people are being a nearshore wave. \nTemazcal Room: So it’s the offshore. It’s at the extraction point. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Right. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Sure. \nTemazcal Room: Maybe. Can I? Ask one question as well\, Jeremy? \nTemazcal Room: I don’t know if it’s you\, but we’re using. You’re using overtopping \nTemazcal Room: as kind of the measurement metric for \nTemazcal Room: for the hazard. And can you maybe just explain what \nTemazcal Room: that that \nTemazcal Room: what that does to the the bittern? And \nTemazcal Room: ultimately\, I think we’re concerned about release \nTemazcal Room: of the bittern from into the bay\, right? And so \nTemazcal Room: is there like a sequence of that happens. \nTemazcal Room: That you know that that causes you to use the overtopping as \nTemazcal Room: the \nTemazcal Room: the measurement of the risk. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So I I think what you’re asking is like\, what’s the impact of wave over topping to the the the contents of the Mss. Fund. \nTemazcal Room: Yes\, what I mean. I assume that’s the hazard that we’re that we’re all concerned about\, right. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Right. So we so we considered. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): I I guess. We looked at Wave\, overtopping as really \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the the risk from like a flooding standpoint. And as I guess\, really\, for just a like a \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): a metric on how vulnerable upon \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): would be to \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): storm conditions and then future sea level rise. We didn’t do any \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): detailed analysis on\, like what the actual impacts of the overtopping would be. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, so my name is Matt Pitcher. I’m the operations guy for Cargill. So the overtopping can scour the top of the berms so it wouldn’t be. One wave wouldn’t do anything right. And one wave going into the pond is just a drop\, right\, you know. I mean. So there! There’s plenty of free board in the pond\, so it would take many waves \nTemazcal Room: scouring the top to erode the top of the berm\, so that then the level in the pond was higher than whatever got scoured\, so that that would be the risk. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, thank you. And and then it’s just the release of the bittern into the bay\, and I’m understanding that \nTemazcal Room: the dilution it dilutes. But there is still \nTemazcal Room: is there like a time\, hazard\, or or a hazard in \nTemazcal Room: a short period of time\, as the the matrix is released. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. So the the hazard would be. Yes\, the bitterin getting out of the pond and getting onto the vegetation\, or coming in contact with a aquatic species out there\, or or whatever but it dilutes. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, with all the water out there\, so it dilutes quickly. But it it all depends on how much of a release. It is right. \nTemazcal Room: The the majority of the Mss. Pond is a solid \nTemazcal Room: salt \nTemazcal Room: or different types of salts\, but there is a liquid component in it\, too. That’s in inside the matrix. And so that’s really what you’d be worried about is that liquid component because it would take a lot to dissolve the salt and then get \nTemazcal Room: that high of a concentration. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. I’d I’d like to follow up on that discussion. I I understand what you were saying that. \nTemazcal Room: The ponds are very big\, and so if there’s a couple of waves that come over\, it really doesn’t provide that much \nTemazcal Room: water volume\, and it doesn’t necessarily raise the water level that much\, yet \nTemazcal Room: I think I understand that the plan is to continue to \nTemazcal Room: increase the the amount of what is it? Mss. \nTemazcal Room: Whatever in these ponds\, so that the water level is going to go up over time. Right? Correct. We are still using the the ponds for the Mss. To to store the Mss. So so the water level is going to go up over time\, and then with sea level\, the amount of wave overtopping is going to increase over time. And so \nTemazcal Room: I think what Rod’s question is\, you know\, how does all this translate to the \nTemazcal Room: threshold? Criterion for \nTemazcal Room: the ponds not overflowing\, or \nTemazcal Room: you know\, it’s hard for us to have a feel for that. It doesn’t seem like that was analyzed. Yeah\, there’s a there’s. There’s \nTemazcal Room: feet of free board\, you know\, a couple of feet at least at the minimum inside the pond\, so it would take a large amount\, and your accumulation per year is \nTemazcal Room: less than a half inch. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, yeah. So I think it sounds like it’s apparent to you. I guess it’s just not apparent to us. But I appreciate. Thank you for the answer. I I understand. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, this is Chris. \nTemazcal Room: My understanding is the purpose of what Jeremy is presenting is less \nTemazcal Room: accumulation of bay water in the Mss. Ponds. But looking at the risk to these berms of being \nTemazcal Room: eroded or made less stable by the wave overtopping\, so it’s the risk of damage to these \nTemazcal Room: which would then allow for a larger release. \nTemazcal Room: So that’s why we’re looking at like the wave impacts. And the overtopping is that going to damage \nTemazcal Room: these burns and cause a larger release. \nTemazcal Room: Is that is that right? \nTemazcal Room: Yes\, that’s correct. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, yeah. I mean\, yeah\, to to get a large release of it. You would need a lot of scouring \nTemazcal Room: which would take \nTemazcal Room: it would take a lot of waves\, and all those waves would have to happen at a high tide \nTemazcal Room: with surge to to get there\, because you’ve got you’ve got a large amount. It’s hard to see in the picture\, but there’s a large amount of marsh in front of here\, so the marsh\, the only time the marsh gets covered would be like a king tide. \nTemazcal Room: so it would have to happen during a king tide. All the other high tides\, you know\, or the majority of the high tides during a year don’t even cover the marsh. \nTemazcal Room: so you’d have your waves would break up before they ever got through the mark. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, yeah\, I mean I. And then I understand that you’re looking at \nTemazcal Room: into the future with different rates of sea level rise right? So that the risk increases as you move forward in time. \nTemazcal Room: Correct? Yes. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. Sorry for the interruption. Please please continue. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): No\, no problem at all. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): I let’s see. I think that I had covered the results for the the baseline conditions. Here\, and then the 6 inch sea Level Rise scenario which we’re considering that the sea Level Rise scenario for the next 10 years. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): And see that \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): roughly. I mean\, there’s there’s different spots. But roughly\, we’re switching from \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): overtopping\, occurring from a \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): 10 to 50 year. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): return period total water level. Then to one with a \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the term period of 2 \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): to 10 years. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): so this slide has a little bit of the same information. But it’s just kind of more of a focus on on \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): or a summary of the results\, I guess\, for point 12. So we’re obviously focused on. Here’s 1 12. Here’s the the bayfront. Berm and \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So if you’re reading the report\, you’re curious what transects were used for this section. We looked at transacts. 2122. Well\, 21 through 24\, and they’re shown here in the snapshot \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): on the right. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): The existing Bay front crest elevations for this firm range generally from 11 to 12 feet. Any vd\, 88. See that in the picture and also in the report\, there’s a \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): color index here shows that the different elevations you’ve got some high spots\, some low spots. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): The majority of the pond. 12 burn crops are above the 100 year. Still water elevation\, which is roughly around 11 feet \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and DVD 88 \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and just a summary set for baseline conditions. Wave overtopping. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Generally occurs for a 10 year storm and greater \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and as a reference\, the 100 year \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): total water level is 11 to \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): 13 feet. Any vd\, 88 \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): just as a note\, we’ve been referring to storms in terms of return period. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): The 10 year storm is actually a 10\, a storm with a 10% \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): annual chance of occurrence. And so \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): on average\, we would expect it to occur once \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): every 10 years. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): so for future conditions\, that’s 6 inches of sea level rise\, wave overtopping roughly occurs\, and for a 5 year storm. So it’s more frequent. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): That has about a 20% annual chance of occurrence\, and under your total water level is \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): 12 to 13 feet. Any Bd 88. With that amount of sea level rise. \nTemazcal Room: Hey\, Jeremy? Sorry to interrupt again. This is Bob again. \nTemazcal Room: So you’re saying that the the levee crest elevations are somewhere around the 100 year. Still water level SW. EL. \nTemazcal Room: Of about 11 feet in Avd. \nTemazcal Room: So that means there’s really no free board. \nTemazcal Room: Essentially \nTemazcal Room: so with sea level rise. \nTemazcal Room: Wouldn’t it be possible that \nTemazcal Room: at that 100 year water level water would \nTemazcal Room: spilled over the levee. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah\, so that right now. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the the bird crests are above the 100 year. Still water level elevation\, the majority of them. It’s around 11 feet. So nothing. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): If if there was no raising of the firms\, yes\, there would be \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): potentially subject to to flooding \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): but a hundred years still water level. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So what happens. \nTemazcal Room: Okay? And then my other comment is\, it seems that the total water level 100 year listed there of 11 to 13 feet \nTemazcal Room: doesn’t seem to be \nTemazcal Room: that much higher than the 100. You’re still water level of 11 feet\, and I understand that the bigger winds and waves don’t happen necessarily during the 100\, you’re still water level. But still. \nTemazcal Room: or even so \nTemazcal Room: again\, the total water levels seem a little low to me. \nTemazcal Room: And I don’t know if that’s because of the wind setup computation or other computation. But \nTemazcal Room: And furthermore\, usually you would like to have free board unless \nTemazcal Room: there’s no consequence to\, I guess\, the overtopping in terms of \nTemazcal Room: the internal water levels or the levee erosion\, etc. So I know. \nTemazcal Room: So \nTemazcal Room: I think that’s still a concern that I have\, both in terms of the total water level\, seeming a little low to me. \nTemazcal Room: and also the implications of the apparent overtopping that will will occur. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah\, I I think\, it’s a it’s a good comment. And you know it. It could potentially be due to yeah\, the exposure like we talked about different orientation of the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): that \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): you know\, segments of berm. And then how much \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Windfash they’re exposed to. And then the frequency that you actually get big wind events time with those high still water levels that \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): we’re actually able to generate waves. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: Rod\, can I ask a question? Too? \nTemazcal Room: Sure. Yeah\, Jeremy\, this is Gail Johnson \nTemazcal Room: actually had a similar question to Rod about the \nTemazcal Room: what are the actual \nTemazcal Room: hazards associated with the overtopping? \nTemazcal Room: And Chris mentioned about erosion? \nTemazcal Room: maybe this is a question for Cargill. We saw photographs from Jen’s staff. Report of \nTemazcal Room: that. You trench in the center of the berm \nTemazcal Room: and put some kind of a slurry mix. \nTemazcal Room: And and you’ve created kind of a \nTemazcal Room: interior wall\, if you will. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. So it we’re just putting dirt in there. So it’s it’s just. It’s nothing\, nothing that. No\, it’s not. It’s not hardens it\, so to speak. No\, okay\, no. \nTemazcal Room: And but we are compacting it. And his \nTemazcal Room: oh\, sorry and historically\, when you have had \nTemazcal Room: overtopping in the past. \nTemazcal Room: is it? Has it been in the form of \nTemazcal Room: massive breaches or over extensive lengths? Or what what is it? What’s what’s the his history of \nTemazcal Room: of damage that’s occurred. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, from from single\, from single storms. Assuming you can do repairs. \nTemazcal Room: It’s been very minor. I I mean you can. You can tell where some water has gone over\, you know\, but it’s not. I mean\, we haven’t even lost. \nTemazcal Room: I wouldn’t even see an inch \nTemazcal Room: of material off the top of it. \nTemazcal Room: Just you can. You can just sort of see where the where the waves came over. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. Yeah. Cause I was\, I was having a hard time envisioning \nTemazcal Room: what would cause them. \nTemazcal Room: Ms. Has to \nTemazcal Room: come out of the levee. Because just water going in \nTemazcal Room: isn’t the hazard. As far as I can see\, that’s what that’s why\, I was a little confused. \nTemazcal Room: Thanks. \nTemazcal Room: My name is Don Brown. I’m the land resources manager for Cargill. So \nTemazcal Room: they asked me to cover this slide. \nTemazcal Room: What we’re going to do with this information that we received. It really allows us to. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, identify those specific areas for inspection and maintenance. \nTemazcal Room: and that allows us to \nTemazcal Room: work our maintenance plan to prioritize\, you know\, working on those. \nTemazcal Room: perhaps more vulnerable segments of of those firms. \nTemazcal Room: And and this is in addition to what we already do with regard to you know\, we’re we’re out there. \nTemazcal Room: you know. Matt’s team is out there inspecting the berms all the time\, especially after storms identifying any area that may need some additional maintenance \nTemazcal Room: and inspection. \nTemazcal Room: And again\, this the the study here was under what Jeremy explained as a \nTemazcal Room: no action scenario. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, we’re we’re planning on increasing the height of those berms. So we’ll increase it to 11.5. \nTemazcal Room: Nabbed \nTemazcal Room: 88 by 2034. \nTemazcal Room: We’ve worked with BC. Bcdc staff on on how we’re going to do that. \nTemazcal Room: We are going to prioritize the pond. 12 firms. \nTemazcal Room: We’ll have that \nTemazcal Room: up to that 11.5 by the end of 2029\, and\, in fact\, we’ve already started working on it. Matt’s team is out there already \nTemazcal Room: is is increased \nTemazcal Room: small segments of those berms \nTemazcal Room: already to that that height. So \nTemazcal Room: and and we’ll continue to. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, evaluate any impact that overtopping might have as far as scouring or having any impact to to the berms. \nTemazcal Room: So and anything that might anything that might impact firm stability. \nTemazcal Room: You know\, we’ll be closely monitoring. \nTemazcal Room: And and then during the next 10 year period\, we’ll have a longer term \nTemazcal Room: adaptation plan. How do we? How do we make sure that those those berms around those mixed sea salt palms \nTemazcal Room: remained \nTemazcal Room: stable and and safely \nTemazcal Room: hold that that Mss. \nTemazcal Room: Can I ask? Can I ask a question. Oh. \nTemazcal Room: oh\, you go ahead. \nTemazcal Room: So we should see a 5\, 6 inches of sea level rise by 2\,034. So it seems like you would be building a system that would be \nTemazcal Room: too short by 2\,034\, since we’re supposed to have\, it’s highly likely that we would have 11 inches of sea level rise by 2\,050 \nTemazcal Room: so it would seem like it would be more prudent to build now for a 2050 condition instead of building. Now \nTemazcal Room: for a condition that you’re going to start exceeding already by 2\,034 with that 100 year. Fill water \nTemazcal Room: something we’re going to look at in the next 10 year. Permit period the issue would be\, you start getting too high. You might have to build horizontally out in order to support the height. \nTemazcal Room: So one thing that we’ll be looking at the next 10 years is \nTemazcal Room: is really that long term adaptation plan. This is just a commitment we want to do to stay ahead of sea level rise. But \nTemazcal Room: we will. That will be part of a long term plan that we look at. How do you actually. \nTemazcal Room: make sure that those berms\, you know\, withstand again\, even higher sea level rise? \nTemazcal Room: I think you would need to start implementing your long term plan by 2\,029. So I\, yeah\, that that just concerns me. I guess. Yeah\, I I had a follow up. I had a similar question. So how was the 11.5 elevation \nTemazcal Room: that you’re going to raise the levies to? \nTemazcal Room: How was that selected? \nTemazcal Room: I was 11.5. \nTemazcal Room: It was just based on sea level rise projections\, on what \nTemazcal Room: you know\, as far as the vulnerability of having wave overtopping \nTemazcal Room: so that that was based on\, I guess. \nTemazcal Room: a projection from the existing condition which you consider to be \nTemazcal Room: okay. \nTemazcal Room: And then \nTemazcal Room: a certain amount of sea level rise like half a foot or something like that. \nTemazcal Room: I’m sorry. So it sounds like you’re using the existing condition\, plus \nTemazcal Room: something like half a foot of sea level rise. Is that? Or how? \nTemazcal Room: Yep. Yeah. So that \nTemazcal Room: I think that’s what we’re struggling with a little bit. What are the criteria for? The initial \nTemazcal Room: levee crest elevation rise. \nTemazcal Room: and \nTemazcal Room: it sounds like it might actually be limited by geotechnical factors rather than \nTemazcal Room: something that was developed\, based on the hydraulics\, the hydraulic exposure. You mentioned the concern that if you raised it higher than that now\, which is what Chris was suggesting. \nTemazcal Room: That that might be problematic\, necessarily problematic. But it’s something that we’re just not permitted to do in our our current maintenance. So it’s that’s why we want to spend the you know. \nTemazcal Room: during that 10 year permit period \nTemazcal Room: term. And you know\, if we want to\, if we need to build it even higher or raise them even higher\, how would you go about doing that because you know that we can raise it to 11.5 under. You know\, that’s part of our existing maintenance that we \nTemazcal Room: that we do every year. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): That is all that we have for this live presentation\, unless there’s any more questions. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, thank you\, Jeremy. \nTemazcal Room: Are there any \nTemazcal Room: further comments from the board? \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, Jen\, yes. \nTemazcal Room: I have a comment question. Do these analyses depend? Did they take into account the dampening \nTemazcal Room: effect from the tidal marshes that are there. \nTemazcal Room: so that if the tidal marshes\, for example\, either eroded or were not able to create\, to keep up with sea level rise. Would that change the outcome of the modeling. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So the answer to your 1st question is\, no\, that \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): on \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the analysis did not. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): did not account for the dampening of of the marsh\, except for the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): You know the elevation of the marsh\, so that \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the way we \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): calculated way to set up and run up is purely. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): purely based on \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): I guess\, depth and and elevations only. So it considered. Like the you know\, the the flooded depth of the the toe of the berm \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): which is impacted by the marsh elevations. But it didn’t account for \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): any any kind of like future \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): changes to the marsh. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): like the marsh\, potentially rising to keep pace with sea level\, rise. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): A marsh actually potentially dampening the waves a little bit to drag and friction \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): stuff like that. \nTemazcal Room: This is this is Chris again. \nTemazcal Room: When I look at figure one of your wave analysis. Memo. It looks like you are accounting\, at least in that figure for the dampening \nTemazcal Room: of the wave height. Under existing conditions. That’s what the figure shows. But I think then\, when you’re adding the 6 inches of sea level rise or \nTemazcal Room: higher. In your analysis\, I’m assuming you’re just keeping that marsh plain edits \nTemazcal Room: existing condition. So\, not accounting for the rise that it could have. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah\, that’s a good point. So that we’re accounting for the dampening that might occur. Due to shallow water of the marsh. So as the waves come in. You know they could potentially break \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): you know\, and the the shallow water and you get death limited waves at the tail of the firm. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and the marsh elevation is not changed for the with future sea level rise\, so it stays the same\, and we add sea level rise into the calculations. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): But there’s no dampening like to the marsh. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): or from the marsh grass. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): right like providing friction and stuff like that \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): that make any sense\, Chris. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. Got it? Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. Thank you\, Chris. Any any other questions from the board? \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: thank you\, Jeremy. You \nTemazcal Room: see next page of the script. \nTemazcal Room: Now Michael Whalen\, of Anchor Qea will make a presentation \nTemazcal Room: on behalf of Cargill. \nTemazcal Room: Hello! \nTemazcal Room: Yes. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, hello! My name is Michael Whalen. I am with the firm anchor. Qea. I’m a principal geotechnical engineer. I will be leading this \nTemazcal Room: presentation. \nTemazcal Room: should I \nTemazcal Room: log in and do it from my screen\, or is there a more? What would be the most practical way to go through the \nTemazcal Room: okay? I haven’t actually \nTemazcal Room: logged in. So let let me let me do that. \nTemazcal Room: and I’m I’m joined on the virtually by my colleagues\, Andrew Barrett and Cole bales. \nTemazcal Room: I’m a i’m Andrew performed a lot of the analyses under my direction. \nTemazcal Room: and Cole and I have been \nTemazcal Room: the folks to review it and put it all together. \nTemazcal Room: So let me \nTemazcal Room: let me get get myself logged in to this. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, I got. I got that. \nTemazcal Room: I have 45 slides. I do\, and I will. I do want to be conscious of time. And I know folks may have comments as I go. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: yep\, okay. I’m I’m getting. I’m getting in there. \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, yeah. \nTemazcal Room: just \nTemazcal Room: okay. \nTemazcal Room: And there’s me. \nTemazcal Room: okay? \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, join as panelists. Right? \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: there’s me. Okay. \nTemazcal Room: And then if I share my screen. \nTemazcal Room: we \nTemazcal Room: we’ll be good \nTemazcal Room: share screen. \nTemazcal Room: Mike\, yeah\, let us know when you’re ready\, Michael. But I think we want to wait for the board members to okay to show up. Sure. \nTemazcal Room: Yep\, okay\, I I will. That’s I’m all set. And I will. \nTemazcal Room: I will hold up. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, Michael. I think we’re we’re back now. So \nTemazcal Room: okay. \nTemazcal Room: very good. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, thanks again. Yeah. Michael Whalen\, principal geotechnical engineer\, anchor. Qea. I. I spoke in the in our last 2 engagements on this topic. \nTemazcal Room: and I will go through our updated analysis of \nTemazcal Room: static and seismic stability for the for the Pond\, p. 2\, 12 and p. 2\, 13. Firms. \nTemazcal Room: And I will start \nTemazcal Room: with a short recap of what you heard from us last summertime. \nTemazcal Room: where we had obtained all the available information on the sub service conditions that existed at the time performed by other parties. \nTemazcal Room: Several borings 24\, and\, to be exact\, were had been done. We had access to that information. \nTemazcal Room: I’m including 2 deeper ones to 80 feet. \nTemazcal Room: We had quite a few cone penetration tests or cpts to use \nTemazcal Room: many of them with hydraulic profiling tools. \nTemazcal Room: although those tended to go to depths of like around 20 feet. So there were some limitations on how deep into the subservice we could obtain information\, but we used what we had. \nTemazcal Room: and developed a model \nTemazcal Room: of the subsurface and performed stability analyses for the berm for the berms. \nTemazcal Room: And you’ll remember our technical memo. We discussed it. Our conclusions at the time was that the berms showed an adequate level of \nTemazcal Room: stability\, factors of safety under static and seismic conditions. \nTemazcal Room: and we did the analysis for 2 distinct earthquake \nTemazcal Room: magnitudes a 50 year earthquake and a 475 year earthquake \nTemazcal Room: and \nTemazcal Room: We discussed it\, and one of the takeaways from our engagement with the Board was that you’re at. You were recommending that \nTemazcal Room: a a \nTemazcal Room: further series of field investigations be performed \nTemazcal Room: specific to this type of analysis. \nTemazcal Room: focusing on Cpts\, getting to greater depths\, etc. \nTemazcal Room: And so that’s what we put together. And you saw our work plan \nTemazcal Room: right at the end of the year last year. \nTemazcal Room: and\, as was mentioned early in this conversation in this meeting. \nTemazcal Room: we performed that work plan. The investigations described in that work plan \nTemazcal Room: late this spring. We got out there as soon as we could\, and we we had to wait through difficult weather and rain conditions\, but we got out there and did the work. We’re finished by May 3\, rd \nTemazcal Room: and again consistent with the work plan that we prepared. We did \nTemazcal Room: 24 Cpts \nTemazcal Room: to as much as 100 feet below below ground surface. Oftentimes\, though\, they didn’t actually get that far. \nTemazcal Room: they got to 64 to 65 feet\, and then kind of refusal\, but significantly deeper than what we had before. \nTemazcal Room: 2 of them were seismic cones\, which is\, which is a useful way to get an understanding of \nTemazcal Room: some of the seismic properties that came into our analysis\, as you’ll see in a in a few minutes. \nTemazcal Room: We did one deeper boring to help us understand seismic properties. In the subsurface \nTemazcal Room: we obtained a handful of undisturbed samples by pushing Shelby tubes. \nTemazcal Room: and used those as well as \nTemazcal Room: the samples we obtained \nTemazcal Room: from the deep boring to perform a series of laboratory tests \nTemazcal Room: strength test for the triaxial equipment. You’ll see that comes into play in some of this presentation\, and some various index properties of the subsurface\, elasticity\, grain\, size\, moisture\, content. So all in all\, we’re able to successfully execute the program that was described in our \nTemazcal Room: in our work plan. \nTemazcal Room: And this is a map \nTemazcal Room: of \nTemazcal Room: the 2 ponds in question. \nTemazcal Room: and I could zoom in if folks\, and maybe as we go through this\, there may be opportunities to zoom in and take a look closer. But there’s a number of things that are depicted on this map. \nTemazcal Room: You see\, a whole string of little circles\, and that is\, showing both \nTemazcal Room: the preceding existing explorations that we had used for last year’s analysis \nTemazcal Room: as well as \nTemazcal Room: in the\, in the darker color. I I realize that \nTemazcal Room: they’re a little small here\, but \nTemazcal Room: the new ones that we did. \nTemazcal Room: and I guess the the takeaway I wanted to show all of you is that we \nTemazcal Room: we got information all along these these berms \nTemazcal Room: around these ponds. On the bayward side\, and between ponds 12 and 13 on both sides of plumber slough. So \nTemazcal Room: we were able to get to all these places and get our information. Another thing that appears on this map in our report is \nTemazcal Room: the fact that as we discussed a few minutes ago in the in the preceding presentation. \nTemazcal Room: Cargill has performed the keying process where the the trench is excavated and then imported\, fill\, controlled fill is put back in a in a compacted fashion. \nTemazcal Room: and \nTemazcal Room: This map includes the areas that were \nTemazcal Room: keyed over the last 5 years\, and our series of explorations included going right through some of the keyed areas and also going through places that had not been \nTemazcal Room: need. So we’re able to\, you know. Look and compare. And I’ll I’ll talk about that in a \nTemazcal Room: in a few minutes. What what did we learn from that? \nTemazcal Room: Can I ask a question before you change the slide? \nTemazcal Room: when you get further in the presentation section CC is\, gonna be kind of right on the line. It looks like \nTemazcal Room: and so my question is\, can you tell us a little bit more about how you selected these critical sections. Yeah. And how do you know there isn’t 1 that’s worse. \nTemazcal Room: And just from a very simplistic perspective\, it looks like down to the right of CC. The berm gets narrower. \nTemazcal Room: which would seem to indicate\, you know\, more vulnerable. So can you tell us a little bit about that. Sure? Yeah\, thanks that I really should. As a matter of fact\, because you do see the 5 sections that we selected on these maps \nTemazcal Room: the what we used to select these 5 sections was\, \nTemazcal Room: a combination of things \nTemazcal Room: we had. Even before we went out in the field we had existing Lidar survey. Information allowed us to see how high is the berm\, how wide is the berm? \nTemazcal Room: Does it vary? Are there places where it’s higher than in other places. \nTemazcal Room: what we. \nTemazcal Room: So we looked specifically at places where \nTemazcal Room: the top of the berm elevation \nTemazcal Room: and the the \nTemazcal Room: the adjoining low spot\, whether that’s the toe of the berm\, or\, in fact\, something even deeper than the toe of the berm\, notably the the bottom of plumber slough. \nTemazcal Room: Thus kind of being a change in elevation. We looked for places where that change of elevation was \nTemazcal Room: largest \nTemazcal Room: and closest. In other words\, where do we have the biggest\, most abrupt change from bottom to top. \nTemazcal Room: That was a big factor\, in fact\, that ended up being the primary factor in how we chose these sections. \nTemazcal Room: We were also on the lookout for indications of \nTemazcal Room: might. There be places geographically where we’re finding \nTemazcal Room: softer material than in other places? If we had seen such things that would have been a really important part of our selection. But we didn’t really see a a trend of softer geographies. \nTemazcal Room: So what these ended up being was really based on. \nTemazcal Room: shall we say? Abruptness of \nTemazcal Room: elevation change from top to bottom? \nTemazcal Room: And \nTemazcal Room: well\, there are 5 \nTemazcal Room: lines on this map. We actually \nTemazcal Room: looked at 7 sections. And the reason I say that is because. \nTemazcal Room: sections B and C cross all the way across plumber slough and include both the the flanking berm. So our models are set up to to evaluate \nTemazcal Room: 7 sections. But \nTemazcal Room: it was. It was the changing grade that would that ended up being the primary driver for us to \nTemazcal Room: choose these places for our analysis. So so is there anywhere that’s worse than C. \nTemazcal Room: Not not that we can tell. \nTemazcal Room: not not from the evidence that we saw. \nTemazcal Room: And you are right. C is is the more critical player as as we’ll talk about in a bit. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: Michael\, I have. another question that I was. \nTemazcal Room: Since we’re talking about this now I’ll go ahead and jump in. \nTemazcal Room: I hope. \nTemazcal Room: and it’ll come back again a little bit later on\, about 8 slides further ahead\, I think\, but the southwest corner there at the south side of the \nTemazcal Room: Greek or channel whatever that is. \nTemazcal Room: Cpts 8 and 9. \nTemazcal Room: so 2 questions\, I guess \nTemazcal Room: part of it is related to \nTemazcal Room: to the geometry. It looks like\, since you have. You know\, the southwest corner there is kind of west southwest\, the creek. It looks like there might be. Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: yeah. Aq. Cpt and 9 Ccp\, 8 and 9. Okay\, yeah\, the 2 yellow ones I I had misspoke. By the way\, folks that yeah\, the yellow ones are the new ones. But anyway\, it looks to me I’m I’m curious. Why\, you cut off Bed Bay mud at 30 feet when it looks like those 2 have Bay mud at 32 and 36 feet. Oh\, yeah\, is one question. That sort of okay. \nTemazcal Room: related to a few slides further down the road. But it also looks like this particular geometry might be a more critical one\, because you have that that channel out in front of you. There\, that \nTemazcal Room: have you? \nTemazcal Room: Have. You looked at the geometry \nTemazcal Room: sort of going left from Cpt. 9\, I guess. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. Are you describing how \nTemazcal Room: like the slough is relative to the berm? When you when you say that. Is that what you’re but also\, as you move\, just sort of straight west\, you get that wider water body. I’m not sure if that’s \nTemazcal Room: Creek channel\, or what? That is exactly. But those guys\, you have a wider water body that \nTemazcal Room: looks like it might be deeper channel. Okay? Less. Cpt. 9\, \nTemazcal Room: as it looks to me like bay mud bottom is about 36 feet rather than 30 feet\, which make it \nTemazcal Room: potentially\, geotechnically more critical\, but also\, maybe geometrically more critical. Sure. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. Well\, I understand what you’re saying. \nTemazcal Room: it is. It is possible. I I will admit it’s possible that there could be some places whose combination of factors is somewhat different\, or even worse\, than our selections. I think our selections are are pretty solid\, that in this case and and I’m able to speak from having gone through the analyses. One thing\, couple of things we found\, and we’ll be looking at this soon when I\, you know\, should we look at all the slip services? \nTemazcal Room: The slip services? \nTemazcal Room: I I think it’s fair to say Andrew is gonna ping me if I say this wrong\, but \nTemazcal Room: that the slip surfaces that were critical for analysis didn’t go so deep that the the acknowledged fact that young bay mud does sometimes go below 30 feet. You’re absolutely right. There’s places 32\, 34\, 36 feet deep. \nTemazcal Room: We haven’t seen that that \nTemazcal Room: has translated to where the critical slip services end up. Being \nTemazcal Room: so true though it is\, I don’t know that it \nTemazcal Room: affects the the conclusions we’re drawing. \nTemazcal Room: Similarly\, I I understand your observation about the the slough and the water bodies offshore from these locations. \nTemazcal Room: I’m thinking. \nTemazcal Room: And again\, I’ll you know\, as we go through\, and Andrew might speak up on this when we’re kind of going through some things. But \nTemazcal Room: I think that still may be far enough away from the berm that \nTemazcal Room: that water body\, even if it ends up\, being really deep over here on the left. \nTemazcal Room: I don’t know that that is\, would end up affecting our results very much. That that’s my suspicion about how those might play out. \nandrew barrett: Michael\, that’s pretty much exactly what I was. Gonna say. At at Cbt. 9 and Cbt. 8. You do see that the young Bay mud is deeper than the 30 feet that we used as our average in our models. \nandrew barrett: But one thing that we found is that the critical region\, I guess you could call it in terms of stability in terms of strength is between 10 and 20 feet\, where we saw a lot of failure services go through. \nandrew barrett: So one of the things you’re gonna notice is that what. \nTemazcal Room: I’m sorry\, Andrew\, do you mind turning on your camera when you’re talking? \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. \nandrew barrett: Oh. \nandrew barrett: hello! \nandrew barrett: And that was that was all I had to say. We we noted that the the critical area\, the critical region \nandrew barrett: of the strength parameters in the models was between 10 and 20 feet. \nandrew barrett: So that deepening there around the the 30 to 36 range \nandrew barrett: didn’t seem to have any effect on the the overall stability. \nTemazcal Room: I have a few more questions about stability. Maybe we can wait until we get down to the stability section of the presentation. Okay? I mean\, it’ll sort of follow on these. But I wanted to jump in and \nTemazcal Room: about some \nTemazcal Room: geometry here. Good. Yeah\, that that makes sense. Okay. So I’ll keep moving up\, moving forward. Alright. \nTemazcal Room: But oh\, yeah\, let me clear in my mind \nTemazcal Room: you had Lidar information to give you the the crest of the burns\, if you will. Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: So \nTemazcal Room: the toe of the berms \nTemazcal Room: did. You have also lighter information about that? \nTemazcal Room: We did we? We did have Lidar information. But one thing I should mention \nTemazcal Room: it’s in my notes is that part of our field engagement wasn’t just to do all these cpts and boardings\, but we also did. We didn’t take a survey crew out there\, but we checked manually all the dimensions out there in terms of berm width\, and maybe even more notably berm height\, just to do a ground check on what we had from the Lidar. \nTemazcal Room: which was really helpful to us. Because the berms aren’t all that high as you’re as you’re standing there and kind of looking at them\, and we needed to make sure we had that right in the cross sections we set up. So I guess what I’m saying is we had Lidar\, but we also. Field checked it. \nTemazcal Room: That that’s the issue that in my mind I I want to make sure that \nTemazcal Room: you’re saying you’re \nTemazcal Room: analyzing the steepest slopes. \nTemazcal Room: Correct? Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: that that is our intent. Yup. That’s right. Okay\, that’s fine. I I want to \nTemazcal Room: understand it better for myself. How the toe was\, I mean\, how did you measure it in terms of height or elevation\, and and kind of the inclination to say\, Hmm. \nTemazcal Room: this is the steepest at this location. Yeah. And I should. I should probably clarify that a little further\, because what we measured in the field was the observable \nTemazcal Room: berm. \nTemazcal Room: But \nTemazcal Room: plumber slew particularly\, being a really important factor in this whole evaluation for our selection of \nTemazcal Room: steepness. We didn’t go into plumber\, slew and measure that that was from the Lidar\, for sure. That’s where we and and that kind of goes back to what I was kind of \nTemazcal Room: describing in our selection. It turned out that our selection isn’t based on like \nTemazcal Room: standing there and and seeing the burn be steep. It was based on recognizing that plumber slew out here or bay waters offshore. \nTemazcal Room: Those are getting deep faster. \nTemazcal Room: And so \nTemazcal Room: that ended up to us being the the real critical definition of \nTemazcal Room: what’s the most critical place. Where is it steepest? If if that makes sense? I I in other words\, I’m I’m describing steepness\, not just at the the immediate face of the of the berm as is visible. But all the way out to the nearest deep water. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, continue forward. And we can obviously revisit these things as we go. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, berm cross sections developed for analyses. Let me start with just some very generic ones. I don’t know like I’d rather focus more on the the scaled ones we did. You’ve you may remember seeing these \nTemazcal Room: before. I haven’t even changed these for this presentation\, although in reality we have made some updates till we actually modeled. \nTemazcal Room: But the general geometry of things \nTemazcal Room: stays the same. Really. What I wanted to show everybody is our understanding of what the deal is with these berms. \nTemazcal Room: They’re built out of densified fill upon young bay mud. That’s the real point I’m trying to make. Here you see the mixed sea salts on the left. \nTemazcal Room: You see the berm crest\, and I didn’t say the stirring \nTemazcal Room: Jeremy’s earlier talk\, but \nTemazcal Room: I feel like the the fact that the surface of this\, these densified fill berms and the and the cover with the \nTemazcal Room: the surface and gravel. Sh! I’m not going to try to quantify that and what I’m saying. But surely that has some innate resistance to wave overtopping erosion. \nTemazcal Room: Just want to make that side observation. But any case just wanted to show this\, and also\, as I scroll to the next \nTemazcal Room: slide \nTemazcal Room: the this keying activity that Cargill has been performing where \nTemazcal Room: a trench\, his dog and and compact and material placed back. \nTemazcal Room: So that that’s the general concepts. I think this is all familiar. We’ve \nTemazcal Room: gone through all this before. \nTemazcal Room: What I wanted to do next was just run through \nTemazcal Room: the 5 critical sections that we selected and modeled. \nTemazcal Room: Those of you who are familiar ask real quick question. I think it’s be easy. The keying is to cut off seepage\, or for stability or settlement\, or what \nTemazcal Room: I I think it’s primarily driven by cutting off seepage right primarily to reduce permeability \nTemazcal Room: to reduce permeability. Sorry. \nTemazcal Room: yeah. And we’ll comment in a few minutes about what might that imply for stability? And see? Bitch? Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: have a question about the previous slide. \nTemazcal Room: Is that slide? Is this slide intended \nTemazcal Room: as schematic? Or\, I mean. This has elevation on it\, it has \nTemazcal Room: exaggeration on it. \nTemazcal Room: It is intended as a schematic. \nTemazcal Room: it it definitely is intended as a schematic. I say that because we didn’t put this into our model. \nTemazcal Room: We put what I’ll show next into our model. I mostly want. This is a schematic\, and it’s true. This has \nTemazcal Room: various elevations described on it. It’s a it can be a little confusing\, I realize\, because \nTemazcal Room: we developed it with a different kind of \nTemazcal Room: one data. And then we used aecoms findings. So \nTemazcal Room: I I want this to be considered as a schematic. That’s why it’s intended. Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: These. So this is the 1st of 5. \nTemazcal Room: these aren’t schematic. I mean\, these are literally what we put into our \nTemazcal Room: slope stability model. Those of you who are familiar with this slope stability software recognize that \nTemazcal Room: nowadays\, when you build this model\, you can very quickly run all sorts of different combinations of situations\, all sorts of different water levels\, you can vary the strengths of the soils. You can do a lot of these things. And the reason I say that is because. \nTemazcal Room: what you are seeing in this slide set. And frankly\, what you see in our report isn’t everything we run. We ran a lot of things because you can do it quick. \nTemazcal Room: So\, for example. \nTemazcal Room: these all show a certain assumption of water levels. \nTemazcal Room: But I think\, as as you are all aware\, you know\, part of our work was to study the effects of different water levels. So these are just selected images. The real thing I wanted to show is just is the geometry \nTemazcal Room: of the berm\, and and you see \nTemazcal Room: there’s the berm in the middle. \nTemazcal Room: But as you go out to the left the outside of the pond\, now you’re dropping out into the the offshore area to the north \nTemazcal Room: of \nTemazcal Room: of the pond at this particular location. \nTemazcal Room: And the reason\, I say that is because when I was talking a few minutes ago about you know how we define this\, the top to the bottom at the closest proximity. \nTemazcal Room: We’re kind of looking at. Where might this overall slope that I’m tracking with my cursor be most dramatic? And how might that be our critical second? \nTemazcal Room: Anyway. \nTemazcal Room: there’s location a \nTemazcal Room: I’ll comment on the sub service in a minute here\, because\, you see all these colors\, I just have a quick question\, what are the units of the X and Y axes on these. \nTemazcal Room: Those are in feet. \nTemazcal Room: elevation and feet. \nTemazcal Room: and \nTemazcal Room: a arbitrarily selected horizontal location and feet. \nTemazcal Room: Was\, was there another \nTemazcal Room: question. \nTemazcal Room: okay\, you know what? Let me let me hang on this one just a little further\, because \nTemazcal Room: there! There’s some colors that we use\, that I will. I I \nTemazcal Room: I want to explain. \nTemazcal Room: we have young bay muds everywhere below the berm. \nTemazcal Room: and then\, as you get lower on the figures \nTemazcal Room: there\, there’s green bands for young bay muds. \nTemazcal Room: and then all the way down to the bottom of the figure. \nTemazcal Room: In in reality \nTemazcal Room: Although\, as I was saying a little bit ago\, and and Andrew also said this. \nTemazcal Room: the you know\, the the young bay mud\, reaching depths of 30 feet or 34 or 36\, didn’t really affect our analysis. So once we found that out\, these graphics were simplified. \nTemazcal Room: But the point is\, everything’s young bay mud with kind of down below. There’s an old bay mud floor. \nTemazcal Room: and all the action that we’re talking about here happens\, of course\, in the young bay muds. \nTemazcal Room: I also want to explain why we have this different color scheme protruding down below the berm. \nTemazcal Room: where you see like green and pink. \nTemazcal Room: If if you’re seeing the colors \nTemazcal Room: that that’s the information we picked up and used from our analyses directly\, and I’ll explain in a few minutes how we\, you know\, came up with these layers \nTemazcal Room: versus the places to either side of the berm that are just kind of this consistent kind of dark blue. \nTemazcal Room: The the dark blue on either side of the berm is where we applied kind of the worst case strength parameters. And the reason we looked at it this way is because we expect that the presence of the berm has \nTemazcal Room: probably cause some strength gain that we’re observing\, and we shouldn’t expect that that strength gain exists to either side of the berm. \nTemazcal Room: We’re we’re really trying not to. \nTemazcal Room: We’re just trying to stay appropriately conservative with our assumptions and not \nTemazcal Room: not be overly optimistic about things. And that’s why the colors appear \nTemazcal Room: the way that they do. There’s just a distinction. But below the berm versus not below the berm. \nTemazcal Room: anyway. \nTemazcal Room: Very similar storyline for these other locations. \nTemazcal Room: There’s location B zoomed in. \nTemazcal Room: Here’s Location C\, where you can actually note that plumber slough is in the middle\, and we got \nTemazcal Room: we got some of the modeling on both sides of of the slew. But \nTemazcal Room: the critical situation was here right in the middle. What you’re seeing there? \nTemazcal Room: Location DA little smaller berm \nTemazcal Room: and location E\, and and again\, these are zoomed in just to kind of show you folks how we developed these these models and kind of the scale of of the size of the berms themselves\, because these are all the \nTemazcal Room: to scale. \nTemazcal Room: I I have a quick question. \nTemazcal Room: So \nTemazcal Room: I think the the purple line is the water level\, and I think your purposely have the water level high on the pond side and low on the outboard side for stability analysis. \nTemazcal Room: so on the pond side\, it seems like it’s \nTemazcal Room: not that far below the crest is that is\, that the existing condition? Or is this a more conservative. \nTemazcal Room: In other words\, the the free board on the inside seems kinda \nTemazcal Room: free. Board on the inside is not intended to be particularly \nTemazcal Room: conservative. \nTemazcal Room: But yeah\, what you’re seeing in this case is about. What is that about 2 feet of of height \nTemazcal Room: above ground surface\, each of those? Okay\, it’s 2 feet. Okay. \nandrew barrett: This is one of the examples of the existing marshes to be seen from the edge of Pond 12. Cross. Section Ede. Prime is on Pond 12. \nandrew barrett: There’s several 100 feet of soil. \nandrew barrett: you know\, that’s above the water line. This is at low tide. \nandrew barrett: the pond \nandrew barrett: water level. We were told by cargo that doesn’t change\, which stays roughly around 9 depending using pumps. And if there’s rainfall\, then they bring it back down. So in these models the the elevation is plus 9 nav. D. 88 for all of the ponds. Well\, all of the models that show the pond water side\, and then the elevation that’s changing is is the \nandrew barrett: the water level \nandrew barrett: on the bay side. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you. Which side is upon\, and which side is obey. \nandrew barrett: In this case this is a low water condition. So \nandrew barrett: if you’re looking at the screen\, the left side is the pond. \nandrew barrett: And and you’ll see. Generally speaking\, the water level being higher on the pond side is is the condition where we would expect to see the lowest factors of safety. \nandrew barrett: So you’ll see that a lot\, generally speaking\, in the models that are shown in this presentation \nandrew barrett: are the low tide conditions. \nTemazcal Room: Good thanks. \nandrew barrett: So you’ll see that the pondsight is usually higher. \nTemazcal Room: So \nTemazcal Room: one of the things that’s a little bit frustrating with this is that there’s no strings \nTemazcal Room: shown on these plots here. And so you’ve described what happens with the different shades of green and blue and \nTemazcal Room: and pink \nTemazcal Room: and even in your \nTemazcal Room: port \nTemazcal Room: I think 80% or more of the civility sections don’t have the strengths actually shown on them. There’s there’s a few that do. \nTemazcal Room: If we look at one of them that does \nTemazcal Room: it says that the pink \nTemazcal Room: has a strength of 2 75\, increasing by 15 psf. Per foot. \nTemazcal Room: It also says that the \nTemazcal Room: blue \nTemazcal Room: which is adjacent to the pink well. \nTemazcal Room: the dark blue\, the \nTemazcal Room: the thing to the left and right of the pink yeah\, teal. It’s different on my screen than on your screen than up on the wall there\, right. But what’s right and left of the pink \nTemazcal Room: says that it’s 2\, 75 \nTemazcal Room: increasing by 15 per foot. But if it’s 2\, 75 at the top\, and increases by foot by 15 per foot. \nTemazcal Room: By the time the blue gets down to an elevation of the height of the top of the pink. \nTemazcal Room: It’s going to be stronger than the pink. \nTemazcal Room: I think that you have cpt data that goes right down the middle of the levee. Right? Yeah\, and I think everything outside of the levee is inferred because you can’t drive rigs out over the that’s right. \nTemazcal Room: And I think that the reason you have that \nTemazcal Room: that trapezoid underneath \nTemazcal Room: levee is because you’re assuming there’s some consolidation that happens from the weight of the levee. That’s right\, right\, which means that the blue on the sides of the pink should be weaker than the pink. \nTemazcal Room: unconsolidating. You’re actually analyzing it. They’re stronger than \nTemazcal Room: well\, let’s if you give me a \nTemazcal Room: seconds you’d have to look at page 5 0\, 5. In your report \nTemazcal Room: I have 5 0\, 2\, \nTemazcal Room: which is another example. The same thing. \nTemazcal Room: But yeah\, hold on. Let me \nTemazcal Room: zoom \nTemazcal Room: share. \nTemazcal Room: You are talking about this. \nTemazcal Room: I think this table\, the company ha happened to be looking at a different page. Yeah\, same table. Okay\, I think I think this is 5. This is\, in fact\, 5 on you’re saying \nTemazcal Room: this lower row. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, actually\, so I’m looking at. \nTemazcal Room: I’m looking at Page. \nTemazcal Room: You maybe\, are you on? \nTemazcal Room: I need to move my little sorry folks for the all the \nTemazcal Room: flipping of pages. \nTemazcal Room: This this is. Page 5\, 0\, 1. \nTemazcal Room: Right here\, right here. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. Okay\, so 2\, 75 and 15 and 2\, 75 and 15 on both. \nTemazcal Room: 2\, 75 and 15. Yeah\, you’re talking about you guys. See what I’m doing there when I draw these little \nTemazcal Room: think\, yeah\, you’re talking about \nTemazcal Room: this right here\, right? And you’re comparing it to the I think the 275 is the strength at the top of the layer. \nTemazcal Room: and I see by that 15 \nTemazcal Room: Psf. Per foot. \nTemazcal Room: That’s right \nTemazcal Room: below the top of the layer\, and if you scroll down on this page\, then \nTemazcal Room: you can see where the the blue is higher. The top of blue is higher than the top of pink. \nTemazcal Room: which means that the 2 set the the blue starts at 2 75 at the top. \nTemazcal Room: and increase down so it will be \nTemazcal Room: 10 feet \nTemazcal Room: 10 feet. \nTemazcal Room: So by the. So you’re suggesting that the arithmetic works out such that by the time you’re down at the depth of the pink. \nTemazcal Room: You’ve actually got higher strengths on either side of the pink. \nTemazcal Room: I understand what you’re saying. \nTemazcal Room: I had a comment\, for later on\, again I would say\, I would suggest \nTemazcal Room: that you try putting these tables on every printout page. \nTemazcal Room: It’s it’s a little bit of a nuisance when you’re setting it up. But yeah\, once you get every run\, it shows on every run. So like you’re saying\, the software is awesome because you can do lots of runs. \nTemazcal Room: Once a table set up\, it follows you through on all the runs\, and I I think that’s as simple as a \nTemazcal Room: probably a button push to make it come out. Yeah\, it’s a little bit of a nuisance to set it up sometimes to get it okay\, scaled and formatted. And you have to move it left or right to get it out of the way of the \nTemazcal Room: safety factor pronounced. But \nTemazcal Room: sure\, okay\, that’s that. That makes sense that’s good. \nTemazcal Room: But by putting it on every one\, and you can just \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, we don’t have to \nTemazcal Room: flip around. I wonder what you’ve used on this particular one\, and one of the things that sort of alarms me now is the table you were looking at a second ago. Different page than this one has different numbers\, which means that I assume that every single table I wonder how many different \nTemazcal Room: variations there are. Sure\, and I can’t follow that at all as a checker. Okay. \nTemazcal Room: yeah. The other one. \nandrew barrett: What he was looking at was. \nTemazcal Room: Doing Andrew’s work won’t be able to tell what he’s doing\, either yeah or Cole’s work. Whoever’s doing. Sure. Sure. \nTemazcal Room: Go ahead\, Andrew\, you had a comment. \nTemazcal Room: I think that was Andrew. \nandrew barrett: Yeah\, yeah\, I was just gonna say\, the table that \nandrew barrett: the table that you were showing earlier. Michael was one of the checks that we ran using different parameters. That were found from the triaxial test data. So that’s why the values are different and that they are labeled on each page \nandrew barrett: what? You know which system we’re using. So I know it’s not super intuitive and can’t be seen right now on the screen. But it it is there. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, no\, I don’t mind. I don’t mind having different \nTemazcal Room: cross sections having different numbers on them. That would be \nTemazcal Room: probably expected. \nTemazcal Room: But yeah\, there’s most of the \nTemazcal Room: profile cross slope stability profiles that are shown in the report don’t have the table shown at all\, so I don’t know which table is applicable\, for which one \nTemazcal Room: I can assume that all the ones for B is the same as all the ones for B\, \nTemazcal Room: but \nTemazcal Room: but just print it out\, and then it’s there because I I know I’ve I’ve done thousands \nTemazcal Room: thousands of runs over the years\, and I know you. You tweak one. And it \nTemazcal Room: right? How can you prove? How do I know for sure\, when my Qc. Person is looking at it. \nTemazcal Room: that that tweak got carried through on every other right. I don’t have a residual B analysis \nTemazcal Room: that has the previous \nTemazcal Room: unodated. \nTemazcal Room: I I can appreciate that. I mean\, it’s 1 thing for Cole and I to work with Andrew and know everything’s spread out\, and what was done\, in what order we have that advantage. But as a reader and someone coming into this I can appreciate how\, if you’re missing that stuff\, it is nearly impossible to piece together. Why not just do it \nTemazcal Room: right. \nTemazcal Room: That makes sense 2 \nTemazcal Room: to follow on on Jim’s point. \nTemazcal Room: How would you distinguish \nTemazcal Room: these strength parameters that \nTemazcal Room: presumably \nTemazcal Room: on the \nTemazcal Room: left and right of the pink. \nTemazcal Room: is the natural material right? And then the the \nTemazcal Room: the key is this \nTemazcal Room: engineered material. \nTemazcal Room: presumably. \nTemazcal Room: When you say the key engineered key correct \nTemazcal Room: when you you\, too\, when you well\, it’s a tiny little thing. It’s basically above well\, but it’s shown in a way here that it implies that this trapezoid is the key. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, I that I don’t want to imply that cause. It’s not. But your point is that it could look that way right? And then it creates confusion with respect to all of these strength parameters that are being assigned particular layers. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, I certainly don’t want people to get the impression that’s intended to be the key\, but I suppose it does kind of look like key. That’s right. If you look at a certain way\, right? That’s another reason to. \nTemazcal Room: With this table on every printout\, because that table labels the pink as young bay mud. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. And so if you happen to look at one of the ones that has the table. \nTemazcal Room: then you’re set. \nTemazcal Room: but I think actually none of your presentation. But most of them don’t have the table. It is true there’s a whole bunch of them. And just if you had the table. \nTemazcal Room: But it yeah\, that that is not the key. \nTemazcal Room: But I I understand your point. That is that the key? \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, okay\, that’s that’s good. I mean these these. Okay\, I understand. \nTemazcal Room: where am I? Here? Okay\, so \nTemazcal Room: alright. So we’ve been talking about the sections and the analyses. \nTemazcal Room: I was next going to talk about how we came up with new strength parameters for these layers. \nTemazcal Room: Do. I need to be worried about timing as I go through this or just keep. We got lots of time\, I guess\, right. \nTemazcal Room: for now \nTemazcal Room: we’re we’re \nTemazcal Room: we’re on Slide 15 out of 45. So. \nTemazcal Room: I am just showing this \nTemazcal Room: graphic\, because this is what you saw. Last year. \nTemazcal Room: when we had 3 layers defined\, we identified Berm Fill. We had young bay mud. There was comments on how we were showing the strengths of the young bay mud. \nTemazcal Room: There was old bay mud\, that was it. We’ve taken that a step further now\, in 2\,024. So let’s let’s go on to what we did here in 2\,024. \nTemazcal Room: So the previous \nTemazcal Room: slides you where you’re shown with the the soil properties are those from \nTemazcal Room: before you’ve done the the Cpts or this new round of they’re for the new. They’re they’re all new. Okay. Thank you. What I’m about to show here explains how we came up with those \nTemazcal Room: you mean this\, this page here. \nTemazcal Room: Well. \nTemazcal Room: this is this\, let’s let’s let’s tackle that on in a couple of slides\, because then\, let’s \nTemazcal Room: let’s look at how we did it. This definitely doesn’t match. \nTemazcal Room: We. We have changed this. \nTemazcal Room: and here’s how we did it. \nTemazcal Room: This is a compilation of all the Cpts that were conducted. \nTemazcal Room: If you can see all the colors \nTemazcal Room: you’ll recognize. There’s a whole bunch of different colors\, and that’s because we just assign a different color to every Cpt. So all 2 dozen of the Cpts get its own color\, and we \nTemazcal Room: plotted them all up to see what it told us. And \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, there’s a lot of scatter\, but you also see some trends\, and and it suggested to us that it would be more precise for us to subdivide \nTemazcal Room: the young bay mud. \nTemazcal Room: And and so that’s what we’ve done\, and on the next slide. \nTemazcal Room: We \nTemazcal Room: you talking about here \nTemazcal Room: like this? \nTemazcal Room: Right? \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: bye. \nTemazcal Room: I’m sorry \nTemazcal Room: I can lean in \nTemazcal Room: sorry. You want me to start over again? No\, no\, I I mean I I’m getting it. \nTemazcal Room: No\, I well. \nTemazcal Room: you’re talking about Cbt. 8 and 9. So\, 8 and 9 \nTemazcal Room: you know\, everything is consistent. It looks like Cpt. 8 to 9. Go down with bay mud down to 32 feet down to 36 feet\, and it looks like really on that far west. \nTemazcal Room: southwest\, south\, south\, west\, southwest Point. \nTemazcal Room: It looks like that’s got deeper may but bay mud that stays with a nice smooth bay mud. \nTemazcal Room: strength\, profile. \nTemazcal Room: and and I’m wondering whether that geometry might look critical also\, and in any case\, even if it doesn’t\, I think that probably there needs to be some still stability done done \nTemazcal Room: with that location that shows it going to 36 feet. Okay\, I understand. It sounds like you\, unless you can explain to me why it shouldn’t be that way. That’s how it looks to me. \nTemazcal Room: And you’re. It sounds like you’re talking not only here about the depth \nTemazcal Room: there of of the young Bay mud\, but potentially also where it plots up on these graphs. \nTemazcal Room: yeah\, are you also? No\, I think that’s like it’s going to plot just nicely that it’s\, I assume\, that’s going at about 15 psf. Per foot. Okay. So if you just extend the bay mud an extra 6 feet\, you’d have that same profile going an extra. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, an extra 6 feet. I understand? You’re really making the point. There’s been some stability cases at least. \nTemazcal Room: I would expect that the circles are going to try and climb as deep as possible\, climb downwards as deep as possible. It looks like some of your spill analyses. If you just scan through \nTemazcal Room: the geotech report\, some of them go down to 30 feet. \nTemazcal Room: I think that those ones presumably bumped into something at 30 feet\, and if you allow them\, go to 36 feet and allow the Bay Ma to stay soft at 36 feet. I think they’ll extend a little bit deeper. They might go deeper\, and typically if it if it bottoms out at a depth\, and then you allow it to go a little bit deeper. The stability safety factor is going to go a little bit lower \nTemazcal Room: it. Yeah\, if it wants to bottom out and the bottom drops\, it’ll probably keep chasing it down so that could that could be the case. If if you’re allowing the circle to go as deep as you want and it and it \nTemazcal Room: finds a critical minimum safety factor. That’s higher than that. Then you say the \nTemazcal Room: the depth doesn’t matter that much\, but there were at least a few of the circles \nTemazcal Room: in your report where the bottom is 30 feet\, and I assume that that’s bottoming out\, because there’s some constraint that it bumps into right there. Okay. \nTemazcal Room: all of which is a an advocate you’re advocating that we might benefit by looking at what’s going on there in the \nTemazcal Room: that western \nTemazcal Room: edge where Cpts 8\, 9 are. I think it’s only relevant to Cpt. 8 and 9. Nothing else goes deeper than 30 feet. A lot of it’s more like 24 feet. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. Okay. But \nTemazcal Room: okay\, that could be I. I hear you. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. Well\, let let me just give an explanation of what we did with this information. \nTemazcal Room: We took. We broke it into the kind of subdivisions and the upper 5 feet. We looked at that. And for each of these subdivisions we did a probabilistic \nTemazcal Room: plot of strength versus how often it occurs. And that’s what this \nTemazcal Room: on the right is. It’s all the strengths plotted by the \nTemazcal Room: frequency of occurring. \nTemazcal Room: And it’s a pretty wide band. There’s a scatter \nTemazcal Room: and what we did was in the next. In this case\, and the next one\, we chose \nTemazcal Room: the 30 percentile level. In other words\, we chose a strength that 30%\, only only 30% of the day is below and the other 70% is above. We felt that was a reasonable way to \nTemazcal Room: come up with an estimated strength. \nTemazcal Room: Now for is particularly for wide ranges. \nTemazcal Room: and and the same is true. 5 to 10 feet below ground service. \nTemazcal Room: now 10 to 20 feet below ground service\, a little different\, in our opinion\, because there’s more of a clustering of the strengths. It’s not as broad. It’s not as much of a bell curve. It’s more of a sharp curve. \nTemazcal Room: and here we felt it was \nTemazcal Room: reasonable to choose \nTemazcal Room: the most typical strength. In other words\, the \nTemazcal Room: the top of the curve. \nTemazcal Room: That wasn’t done to try to get a high strength. It just like that. Seems like that’s the dominant strength. \nTemazcal Room: Alright! Let me jump in again. \nTemazcal Room: so averaging works nicely when the data \nTemazcal Room: is. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, if you’re if you have cpt variable data and you’re driving a pile through it. The pile is picking up a little bit of strength from 0 to 5. A little bit of strength from here\, you know\, and an average is an appropriate number. \nTemazcal Room: but if you look at some of those colors\, it looks like you’ve got straight down the far left edge of that all the way\, and so some profiles. \nTemazcal Room: some cpts at least\, are all the way on the left edge there. \nTemazcal Room: most of them. Maybe you nudge it up a few percent or so I don’t know. But really pretty darn close to that left edge is where some profiles are going to be. \nTemazcal Room: Some profiles aren’t going to be averaged \nTemazcal Room: over there. If you want to know whether the whole thing is going to slide or not\, then you can say\, Yeah\, at least 50% of the sections are not going to slide because we’ve used 50% Median value here. \nTemazcal Room: I don’t think we want 50% of the sections to be stable. I think we want all of them to be stable. And we’re looking for the worst. \nTemazcal Room: not the not the average case\, but aren’t by doing this. Aren’t we? Basically taken like down the middle of that? You’re right. I mean\, almost all of them are clustered there on the left. \nTemazcal Room: and there’s a bunch. There’s a bunch of stragglers off to the right. But \nTemazcal Room: aren’t we choosing the most prominent \nTemazcal Room: band \nTemazcal Room: through this approach? \nTemazcal Room: And that’s what we’re we’re we’re trying to rep. We’re trying to \nTemazcal Room: capture the fact that there is a definitive. \nTemazcal Room: a clustering of them on the left. \nTemazcal Room: and and certainly aren’t looking to go past that it does seem like the appropriate strength is \nTemazcal Room: right there in in the dentist part of the graph. \nTemazcal Room: I think\, for a stability analysis like this\, where you have some cones that are far. If you have data on each cone that’s scattered \nTemazcal Room: and the slope circle comes through all of those different layers\, and you average it. \nTemazcal Room: But I think if you got a single cone that’s \nTemazcal Room: straight down the left edge\, and you have actually. \nTemazcal Room: But \nTemazcal Room: it looks like you got 6 or 8 \nTemazcal Room: cones that are straight down the left edge. \nTemazcal Room: and I don’t know how you can be really confident \nTemazcal Room: that there’s not going to be some location out there where you have a slope circle that’s going to be able to find that weak spot. \nTemazcal Room: and maybe it happens to be offset a hundred feet from where you did your cross section. \nTemazcal Room: your cross section has to be representing \nTemazcal Room: the safety factor of 100 feet away from where you did your section. And I think I mean\, without having any geometry attached to the figure. \nTemazcal Room: I think that you gotta \nTemazcal Room: you gotta do something further left in your green 50 percentile. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, I understand what you’re saying. I will. I will mention. Although it’s not in this slide deck. I’m not even frankly sure if it’s in our report. \nTemazcal Room: because we can do these things so quickly and easily\, we did look to see what happens if we \nTemazcal Room: like\, take the 30 percentile version of this \nTemazcal Room: which is like 250 to 300 sheer strength. \nTemazcal Room: And I’m I’m interested in other geotechs because I’m I’m \nTemazcal Room: we’re a crowd here. But but I think that 30 percentile is \nTemazcal Room: pretty optimistic for \nTemazcal Room: this data with a slope stability analysis\, what would you choose? \nTemazcal Room: Like? 10% pretty close to the lower edge. \nTemazcal Room: But just so\, I make sure. I understand\, like the blue one is at maybe 200 or so. \nTemazcal Room: and the 50 percentile that you’ve chosen is more like 3\, 50 or something like that. Yeah\, so it’s not a geotech. But \nTemazcal Room: I am an engineer\, and I would think if you’re interested in the location where the blue one is\, you want to be at about 200. \nTemazcal Room: I’ll I’ll add some to that as well. \nTemazcal Room: I mean anything that you’re looking at really\, in this depth range that is beyond\, say\, about 500 Psf. \nTemazcal Room: these are sandy layers that you are. \nTemazcal Room: I mean all of those things. You’re not going to get a bay mud value. That is 2\,000 Psr. \nTemazcal Room: Those are sandy \nTemazcal Room: layers within the Baymark. \nTemazcal Room: Now\, if if you are modeling this as Bay MoD\, \nTemazcal Room: then \nTemazcal Room: I will agree with my friend Jim here that you are in a very tighter band\, that the upper bound of that tighter band is more like \nTemazcal Room: 400\, the lower bound would be more like \nTemazcal Room: 200\, something like that\, and that would represent \nTemazcal Room: more appropriately \nTemazcal Room: this young bay mud at these depth ranges that you are considering it \nTemazcal Room: all those other points to me. Yes\, they exist\, and they are \nTemazcal Room: what you measured\, but they don’t represent \nTemazcal Room: they mud in the context of what we are talking about. \nTemazcal Room: Right? The so what we’re using right now is about 3. \nTemazcal Room: So around 3 50 that the black line is about what reason? \nTemazcal Room: And when you you’re saying. \nTemazcal Room: what about? What if the Black Island were here? What if the black line were here. \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, that’s basically what we’re talking about\, right is\, where’s that line\, either? \nTemazcal Room: Strictly envelope the entire data set. \nTemazcal Room: But I think he ought to be somewhere towards the left edge. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, I mean 2\, 50 or something. I don’t know \nTemazcal Room: more toward the left edge. I mean\, I feel like we are kind of toward the left edge. But you’re saying \nTemazcal Room: maybe we should be worse for the left edge right? \nTemazcal Room: But put your 3\, your 3 50. What’s your vertical Median number that you have? That’s 3 \nTemazcal Room: like 325\, which would fall like\, I don’t know. I’m just obviously eyeballing\, but it’s about there. \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, man\, hold on \nTemazcal Room: so what this looks like is that \nTemazcal Room: you know at least \nTemazcal Room: 50% of your cross sections would be good \nTemazcal Room: 50% are worse than what your analysis shows. \nTemazcal Room: Statistics are awesome. \nTemazcal Room: but I think they’re \nTemazcal Room: have to be applied pretty cautiously \nTemazcal Room: with it. \nTemazcal Room: This type of \nTemazcal Room: analysis. \nTemazcal Room: I I agree with you there when we have\, when we have. \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, if every single cpt was jumping back and forth all over the place. \nTemazcal Room: you know that it maybe it’s different. But if you look at the Cpts themselves\, a lot of them are pretty smooth. \nTemazcal Room: yeah\, a linear \nTemazcal Room: linear tracks remain \nTemazcal Room: points out that a lot of those things that are further off towards the right are probably \nTemazcal Room: a sand. \nTemazcal Room: thin sand lenses that \nTemazcal Room: really appropriately or not even \nTemazcal Room: clay\, and shouldn’t be analyzed as a clay. But because A/C petite or coelec even \nTemazcal Room: analyzes these\, the thin layer factor doesn’t really \nTemazcal Room: those are all outliers right? And and so the strengths are are \nTemazcal Room: really not supposed to be averaged. \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, they’re not really part of the the su behavior of the material. \nTemazcal Room: What what are we? So what do we take? We’re taking by taking the 50 percentile \nTemazcal Room: we’re taking them. Are we doing a mode? Isn’t that a statistical mode like the \nTemazcal Room: I should be okay. I don’t want to turn this into probability statistics discussion\, but I do agree. The statist\, the use of the statistics is very important. We do need to do that very thoughtfully. I understand what you’re saying. \nTemazcal Room: The way we thought about that \nTemazcal Room: principle was when we said\, All right\, we’re we’re presenting the 50% tile like I’m showing here. \nTemazcal Room: We also recognized \nTemazcal Room: what if we just stay consistent with what we’re doing\, the other ones and use the 30 percentile. \nTemazcal Room: And we did do those runs\, and they don’t make that big of a difference necessarily. But \nTemazcal Room: there’s an argument to be made for doing that\, or even or even farther down. I think\, for instance\, I mean\, I’m curious\, I can’t tell\, but that left edge there \nTemazcal Room: looks pretty close to the same gray that’s at Cpt. \nTemazcal Room: 9\, \nTemazcal Room: yeah\, like goes to 36 feet. \nTemazcal Room: And so \nTemazcal Room: someplace that profile exists\, and if if you want you can. You can get a little more detailed and look at specific C specific \nTemazcal Room: profiles and say\, You know\, this one is averaged up and down it. But \nTemazcal Room: but averaging. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, composited a whole bunch of locations is \nTemazcal Room: well\, it’s a it is a simplification. It’s it’s at at the least\, it is a simplification \nTemazcal Room: right to average a bunch of locations. And \nTemazcal Room: and I understand the point that you know there are occasions when you want to bore 0 in on a specific \nTemazcal Room: location. I think that \nTemazcal Room: is part of where your comments are now\, maybe that you’ve got you’ve got a band there\, and maybe you look at some of your profiles\, and they \nTemazcal Room: cpts on both \nTemazcal Room: there and on both sides are. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, towards the right edge of your dense band there\, and maybe that \nTemazcal Room: profile you use a slightly better. \nTemazcal Room: you know. If you I mean ideally\, you look at some sort of geomorphological background and say\, Yeah\, we think it makes sense. This one’s a little bit stronger. This one’s a little bit weaker. It may well be that Cpt. 9 is a little bit deeper\, because it’s further out towards the bay\, and everything is just and does tends to slope that way. And \nTemazcal Room: yeah\, and maybe because it’s out further towards the bay\, maybe it happens to have been younger and less desiccation. And it all happened during the you know\, post gold rush. I was actually expecting to see more of that\, the bay muds there\, and so it really is weaker than all the others which might be a few 100 years old. \nTemazcal Room: I mean to be honest\, we were kind of expecting to see more of that than we did. We think we might end up in a situation where there was a strong signal that \nTemazcal Room: the Western Cpts are worse than the Eastern ones. I mean\, that wouldn’t have shocked us if we’d seen it. Now\, admittedly. Yeah\, there are some Cpts that \nTemazcal Room: are lower than others. You’re pointing out numbers 8\, 9. Those are in the same place. So is that a geographic trend? Maybe it is\, I mean. \nTemazcal Room: but it’s not one that we’ve seen propagated throughout the rest of them. But \nTemazcal Room: anyway\, your point\, your points are well taken about. \nTemazcal Room: Might there be more critical places\, both in going back earlier here. \nTemazcal Room: based on\, you know\, topography. \nTemazcal Room: And might there be more critical places based on \nTemazcal Room: specific Cpt logs \nTemazcal Room: understood. \nTemazcal Room: There might be \nTemazcal Room: cherry washta Nick would like to make a comment. He has his hand raised. \nTemazcal Room: Nick. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: please. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, so let me 1st put my geologist hat on \nTemazcal Room: I was as I was looking at all of this I was \nTemazcal Room: well\, I have this microphone on\, so I don’t worry. \nTemazcal Room: Putting my geologist hat on as I was looking. All of this. \nTemazcal Room: There surely are all channels underneath all of this that are sandy \nTemazcal Room: and that’s as was suggested. That may explain some of those very high \nTemazcal Room: or relatively high strengths that you see\, and possible\, even refusal \nTemazcal Room: would have been nice to map those out\, but you know\, that requires going through a whole lot of very old Usgs coastal maps\, and so on. \nTemazcal Room: I’m not necessarily convinced that that would help. Now\, when it comes to this kind of discussion of statistics. On on one hand\, I don’t see this as a life safety situation\, so necessarily taking the lowest strength is in my view\, not \nTemazcal Room: required. \nTemazcal Room: however clustering it like this\, while interesting\, is not really helpful when one looks at a long linear structure. \nTemazcal Room: And that’s what you have. You have a very long structure\, and what I would have liked to have seen\, and that \nTemazcal Room: well\, I I don’t know how this microphone works. So \nTemazcal Room: you know\, if I stick it in my mouth\, then \nTemazcal Room: maybe \nTemazcal Room: anyway. \nTemazcal Room: The the \nTemazcal Room: because it is a long linear structure. I would like to have seen this parsed out \nTemazcal Room: bisection. \nTemazcal Room: As you’re looking at the different sections where you put your cross sections\, I would have preferred to see this data presented for that particular section\, because you actually have a pretty good coverage of of field data. \nTemazcal Room: and that would allow you to do a better assessment whether you really have to go with the lowest strength\, or whether\, in fact\, the local variability is such that some higher value is is \nTemazcal Room: recommended rather than looking at all of the data in you know\, in an aggregate. So I think that would be \nTemazcal Room: my suggestion that that’s a much better way to approach it\, I think. \nTemazcal Room: seeing the scattering all of the data is is great. That’s that’s a beautiful plot. I love it\, you know\, if you if I present it for Young Bay mud\, then you can probably plot all the data that we have for Young Bay mud from the Bay Area\, and it will all nicely plot within this range. But \nTemazcal Room: because it’s such a long linear structure\, it would have been more \nTemazcal Room: informative and probably useful for you to \nTemazcal Room: look at the section where you \nTemazcal Room: the nearby data from the section where you actually did the slope stability analysis based on your criteria\, which I’m actually not taking exception with but looking at this discussion\, and\, as I said in my view. \nTemazcal Room: it’s not necessary to take the absolutely lowest value\, since this is not a life safety situation\, but at the same time there may indeed be a section where all the data is in this lowest thing\, which is what the Jim French suggested\, that there may be a section where all of the data nicely plots\, all on that low end\, in which case \nTemazcal Room: you have to use whatever you have. \nTemazcal Room: So that that would be my comment on on this whole. \nTemazcal Room: you know. Discussion. Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: No\, that that’s good. I mean\, I I understand what you are all saying. I understand that and there’s no doubt there is\, I’m sure\, more that can be gleaned from this data. This is a lot of data. And and you guys all well know part of our job. And our judgment is to say\, all right\, we got all the say\, what is the best amount of \nTemazcal Room: processing and analysis we should devote to this data to answer the question \nTemazcal Room: at hand. Now\, as we get into the latter part of this presentation. I think we’re gonna see. \nTemazcal Room: even with what we have done here. There’s some pretty clear answers becoming evident about \nTemazcal Room: the situation and and I\, I would imagine\, if we \nTemazcal Room: kind of chase down some of these additional levels of \nTemazcal Room: detail behind these analyses and \nTemazcal Room: maybe make less conservative assumptions. \nTemazcal Room: There may be more of that. That is possible. \nTemazcal Room: But but there’s no doubt there could be more analysis always done on this stuff. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, yeah\, Bob’s got a question. Yeah\, I just wanted to follow up on this. I I find this really interesting. Would you mind going back to that slide that showed the plan view\, and it showed some of the adjacent marsh. \nTemazcal Room: You know\, one of the things I’ve done a lot of is \nTemazcal Room: Wetland restoration\, and these dikes subsided\, Balens\, and you can see where there’s the existing marsh which is green in the upper left. \nTemazcal Room: You can see that there’s a \nTemazcal Room: a whole bunch of channels. \nTemazcal Room: and what we do find is when\, \nTemazcal Room: the water starts moving\, or whatever the the old channels are often reoccupi. The old channels are often reoccupied. \nTemazcal Room: Because they’re just more erodible. I’m not as familiar with the Mss. And \nTemazcal Room: it’s sheer strength or or erosion resistance. But \nTemazcal Room: The comment that Nick made\, that there may be some sections that cross \nTemazcal Room: old channels that aren’t otherwise apparent in the just the existing terrain. I think it’s a very good one. \nTemazcal Room: and \nTemazcal Room: One way to look at that would be to look at some old \nTemazcal Room: tea\, sheet maps or other maps which I think the South Bay Salt Ponds. People have that show where the the channels were. \nTemazcal Room: especially the you know\, the larger channels. \nTemazcal Room: and then that might affect your your section \nTemazcal Room: location selection. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, I will. I will say there’s no doubt there. There is evidence for lots of \nTemazcal Room: channels\, you know. There’s a lot. In other words\, there. There’s evidence for lots of sand lenses all through here\, and I I presume geologically\, that that’s just a representation of the \nTemazcal Room: ongoing meandering of them over\, you know\, millennia. \nTemazcal Room: and but the the way it looks to us is they’re just kind of like all over the place. There’s this \nTemazcal Room: a galaxy of little sand lenses\, and I don’t even know if we could map them. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, yeah. And I just want to state that it may be their sand lenses in in traditional dykes applied to Balens\, especially when they get \nTemazcal Room: wet and they’re managed ponds. You often have \nTemazcal Room: weaker material depositing in the old channels. It’s just \nTemazcal Room: organic or other stuff that really erodes in this case. If it’s sand\, maybe it’s less erosional. I don’t know. \nTemazcal Room: But a geomorphic interpretation of the \nTemazcal Room: subsurface might be might be helpful. \nTemazcal Room: Okay? Is my only point. Thanks. Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, I mean one of the takeaways. I’m I get from this. I mean you. You are all making you’re you’re observing. You’re pointing out \nTemazcal Room: the ways. We have simplified the analysis. \nTemazcal Room: No doubt we have taken the State\, and we have tried to find \nTemazcal Room: you have to simplify to some degree right to do an analysis\, there’s no way around it. So we’ve \nTemazcal Room: we’ve said\, all right. What’s the right amount of simplification to give us \nTemazcal Room: to tell us what’s going on here \nTemazcal Room: to a sufficient level of\, you know\, understanding to help everyone make decisions. And \nTemazcal Room: and so your your points about some of the additional ways we can. Analysis are well taken\, and and maybe that’s what we should do \nTemazcal Room: to better understand the story. I must say I’m \nTemazcal Room: really eager to hear your comments on the \nTemazcal Room: the end of this presentation\, because that’s I think we’re really the storyline is going to come through. \nTemazcal Room: are we? Are we? Good? \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, I think. So keep going. Yeah\, please. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, let me get. Let me catch this up to where I left us off. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, th\, this is what we ended up with. After all that statistical analysis and all that data. This is the new table we are now using where the young bay mud \nTemazcal Room: is subdivided into \nTemazcal Room: 4 layers. \nTemazcal Room: Really the lowest of these\, where it says\, Ybm. 20 feet below ground service\, and below\, that’s really 20 to 30 feet\, and Jim was making comments earlier about how \nTemazcal Room: there are some places. It’s deeper than 30\, that is true. \nTemazcal Room: But in our models. It goes to 30\, and then it’s underlain by old bay mud. \nTemazcal Room: and these are the properties \nTemazcal Room: we’ve used. \nTemazcal Room: There’s been comments about how it would be helpful to kind of map this onto all the slide outputs. But that’s that’s the that’s the new \nTemazcal Room: set of properties we’ve been using. \nTemazcal Room: And \nTemazcal Room: just to compare what we had last year to what we have now \nTemazcal Room: this graph \nTemazcal Room: compares them\, and and the real difference \nTemazcal Room: now versus last year \nTemazcal Room: is that \nTemazcal Room: we are now\, seeing evidence that the young bay mud \nTemazcal Room: stays \nTemazcal Room: soft to a greater depth \nTemazcal Room: than what we had expected from last year’s data. That’s the real \nTemazcal Room: take away from what we did. \nTemazcal Room: It’s not as good. \nTemazcal Room: it’s softer\, and it goes deeper. \nTemazcal Room: And the e even on the simplified profiles. That’s what you see. Now\, you know \nTemazcal Room: all the other comments acknowledged \nTemazcal Room: I mentioned. We also did triaxial strength testing in the laboratory \nTemazcal Room: on undisturbed samples \nTemazcal Room: which allowed us to develop a best fit \nTemazcal Room: strength\, envelope. \nTemazcal Room: or effective stresses. \nTemazcal Room: And as I’ll show you in a few minutes\, we used that as another form of our analysis to see what it tells us \nTemazcal Room: so. Those are the soil strengths we used\, and we used\, and we did it\, and and put into the \nTemazcal Room: put those into those cross sections I was showing you. And then we ran a whole bunch of stability analysis to figure out \nTemazcal Room: what are the factors of safety at this site? \nTemazcal Room: yeah. \nTemazcal Room: So \nTemazcal Room: before I get to that\, though\, let me let me go back to this concept of keying for a moment. That’s been an important subject \nTemazcal Room: for our evaluation. \nTemazcal Room: We\, as I said\, had explorations going through places that had been keyed\, and we had explorations that went through places that had not been keyed. \nTemazcal Room: And again\, with that we plotted all of those strength points together. \nTemazcal Room: this actually shows a comparison. If if you can pick it up between \nTemazcal Room: places that were keyed\, and dark dots and places that were not in light dots. And and really \nTemazcal Room: the the bottom line that we found from our explorations is \nTemazcal Room: minimal appearance of strength \nTemazcal Room: gain \nTemazcal Room: from King J. I’m just talking about strength gain. How much resistance did the cone pentromer experience? \nTemazcal Room: A a little bit more\, but almost not enough more to even put a number on it. That’s why I describe as minimal \nTemazcal Room: change. \nTemazcal Room: In other words\, he doesn’t seem to have that big of an effect \nTemazcal Room: on the strength \nTemazcal Room: in the berm. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: what kind of material are you using for the keying? You know\, in one of the write-ups somewhere \nTemazcal Room: read that. It was maybe your response to questions. \nTemazcal Room: from staff. \nTemazcal Room: It had some criteria that says \nTemazcal Room: doesn’t have \nTemazcal Room: deleterious material\, or some some sort of generic kind of thing\, but nothing about plasticity\, nothing about grain\, size\, distribution. Right? Is this some bay mud that you’re back filling again with? Or I mean\, it’s a bay mud\, or is it import gravel? Right? \nTemazcal Room: So ability. Obviously\, it’s not gravel. But you guys have your set of criteria. No deleterious material. It is a little bit broad like like you say that that’s the kind of rule book you guys use. But we did go out. I think it was a couple of years ago when \nTemazcal Room: surveyed all the it’s all imported material you have. \nTemazcal Room: and we did a a reconnaissance of it. We took samples. We characterized it. It is not a young bay mud. \nTemazcal Room: it is\, it is silty. It’s largely a fine grained mix of silt with some sand. If I remember what \nTemazcal Room: our results told us \nTemazcal Room: so. It was still a. It was still a pretty fine material\, but not \nTemazcal Room: not to the degree like a bay. Mud would be plasticity. \nTemazcal Room: I do not remember what the plasticity was. \nTemazcal Room: I do not remember what the plasticity was. I do recall\, though\, that \nTemazcal Room: in addition to the lack of deleterious material in it. \nTemazcal Room: It looked like a material that if under the right moisture\, conditions could be compacted. \nTemazcal Room: and from what we understand from your team and what we’ve seen on our explorations. It appears to be a well compacted matrix of \nTemazcal Room: sandy silt materials \nTemazcal Room: placed into the trench. Not a big difference in strength from what was there before. \nTemazcal Room: but in terms of the activity itself. \nTemazcal Room: and the way in which you you for the cargo team specifically goes after places that might \nTemazcal Room: have had some deleterious materials in them\, and replaced it with a better\, more consistent material. \nTemazcal Room: It appears to us \nTemazcal Room: that it’s going to have benefit of \nTemazcal Room: the intention of making it more suitable against seepage\, but not really with a \nTemazcal Room: a \nTemazcal Room: a change in strength. \nTemazcal Room: So I’m curious. Just I’m in a \nTemazcal Room: general observation is that \nTemazcal Room: bill that’s compacted to 90% play. Phil \nTemazcal Room: should typically have an unconfined\, compressive strength \nTemazcal Room: I would expect of at least \nTemazcal Room: 6 to 706 to 800. Psf. \nTemazcal Room: almost everything is \nTemazcal Room: less than that. I guess. The top\, the top several feet. \nTemazcal Room: half of it’s like that. \nTemazcal Room: What would you? What was your estimate? 60 packed it to? 95%. It should be \nTemazcal Room: yep. \nTemazcal Room: 1\,500 pso. \nTemazcal Room: Your your 1st estimate was like 6\, 6 to 800 for like a 90% compaction\, I know right? \nTemazcal Room: Mediocre compaction. 90% ish sure \nTemazcal Room: And \nTemazcal Room: and you know\, one of the photos\, and I’m not sure if it was in the presentation or report\, or someplace showed you guys with a sheep’s foot on the end of a \nTemazcal Room: of an excavator which should put this stuff down at. \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, it’s Cape. If this\, if the trench is solid enough\, that should put it down at 95% without much difficulty. \nTemazcal Room: So I’m curious. It look\, it looks like \nTemazcal Room: compaction is \nTemazcal Room: below water\, or \nTemazcal Room: maybe maybe not 90\, probably not 95%. \nTemazcal Room: And it’s not a structural. \nTemazcal Room: Then it should be off the charts with tip resistance\, and it shouldn’t. \nTemazcal Room: Shouldn’t give you a tip. Reason it shouldn’t give you an su out of it. It should give you a \nTemazcal Room: friction angle \nTemazcal Room: as a granular deposit if it’s granular yeah \nTemazcal Room: are you observing relative to its \nTemazcal Room: what? You’d interpret its ability to resist seepage as being \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, I I would I don’t. I don’t think this is a heavily like structural fill level compaction. I don’t think this is a necessarily \nTemazcal Room: a 95% compact in drawing that \nTemazcal Room: our findings bear that out in Bay mud. There is 0 chance that you’re going to get. I mean\, if it’s surrounded by soft levee\, and \nTemazcal Room: that’d make it tough until the last couple of feet. Possibly. But it looks like to us. It’s a it’s probably more likely you’re down in May \nTemazcal Room: 88% range. I would \nTemazcal Room: might have guessed. Maybe \nTemazcal Room: it looks like it’s a \nTemazcal Room: compacted material. \nTemazcal Room: not not not heavily compacted\, but \nTemazcal Room: but compacted and \nTemazcal Room: better controlled\, material wise. But the strengths are 4 to 600 \nTemazcal Room: Psf. \nTemazcal Room: down below. 5 feet they are. That’s a\, you know\, pocket 10 of \nTemazcal Room: or Tsf or something. \nTemazcal Room: I mean isn’t most of the action here\, though. Kind of in the down to 5 feet level \nTemazcal Room: isn’t most of the seepage resistance\, though\, in the upper 5 feet\, I mean\, that’s where we see the biggest benefit here. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, that’s where we see the highest strength\, I should say. \nTemazcal Room: and probably the most compaction activity occurring. \nTemazcal Room: I think once we get below 5\, we’re starting to get into just pre-existing young bay muds. \nTemazcal Room: I’m actually\, frankly\, not very concerned about the strength of the material. I’m just sort of \nTemazcal Room: commenting on. It looks like \nTemazcal Room: compaction is \nTemazcal Room: mediocre. \nTemazcal Room: Okay? \nTemazcal Room: And maybe gotcha fine. Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: right? \nTemazcal Room: Well\, I know. I mean\, I know you’re \nTemazcal Room: your intention is not to make a \nTemazcal Room: structural fit\, and I don’t think that’d be necessary anyway. \nTemazcal Room: excuse me\, Nick would like to speak. \nTemazcal Room: can I? Just. \nTemazcal Room: if I may just add my concern actually would be reactivity of whatever this fill is with salt water. \nTemazcal Room: If the clay happens to be \nTemazcal Room: what we normally want to use for impervious fill\, which is high plasticity clay. Those shrink when exposed to salt water. So actually\, they’re not the best material \nTemazcal Room: to be used. \nTemazcal Room: And so at some point\, somebody looking at it to make sure that you’re basically not putting in material that eventually over a period of time is gonna shrink and cracks are gonna develop. And it’s gonna yeah\, yeah\, shrinkable in the sense that a high salt concentration will shrink to double layers. Yeah. And you know\, it’s a fairly well known phenomenon. \nTemazcal Room: but sometimes we kind of forget that that’s what happened. So I don’t. I don’t think that’s what they have out here\, though you know it’s worth checking that it’s not happening. That’s all. Okay. Yeah\, that’s fair. We we can have some commentary to that. I mean\, based on what we saw\, the fill on the ground and based on what we see it in its \nTemazcal Room: placement in the keys. I I don’t think that’s what they have here. But yeah\, I could. I could imagine a scenario where you brought a material that happened. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: okay\, I’m gonna point out that we’ve got about an hour \nTemazcal Room: left of \nTemazcal Room: meeting time here. If we’re trying to hit our 4 30 \nTemazcal Room: target of getting out of here. \nTemazcal Room: Just just wanted to point that out. Okay\, I am happy to move faster. Actually\, some of this might go fast\, because \nTemazcal Room: this part about the seismic events has not changed. And so maybe I’ll just boil down. Say\, as you remember. \nTemazcal Room: we analyzed for a 50 year earthquake event and a 475 earthquake event and determined peak ground accelerations for both of those \nTemazcal Room: partly based on the soil properties we saw at the site and partly based on the Usgs\, derived compilation of all earthquakes and faults in the region. \nTemazcal Room: so no change there. \nTemazcal Room: and I don’t. I don’t think that was a \nTemazcal Room: I know there’s some discussion last year about \nTemazcal Room: is a 475 year. Earthquake \nTemazcal Room: too big\, bigger than it needs to be for this analysis. Would a 200 year earthquake make more sense \nTemazcal Room: to that? I guess I’d say\, maybe. But why not \nTemazcal Room: see what happens with the bigger one? \nTemazcal Room: alright! Let me let me go through the analyses\, findings of of stability\, because \nTemazcal Room: th this is this is\, I think\, the thing I I’d like to hear input\, on \nTemazcal Room: Here’s the sections we analyzed. \nTemazcal Room: You remember this. \nTemazcal Room: and we analyze for Factor safety\, as we know. \nTemazcal Room: And let me just let me just skip to the \nTemazcal Room: to the results. Under normal static conditions the factors of safety were quite high. \nTemazcal Room: 2.8 9. In this case \nTemazcal Room: these berms are sitting there stable. \nTemazcal Room: Okay? I don’t think that’s a surprise to anybody. The question is\, what happens in an earthquake? \nTemazcal Room: And so I have a couple of slides presenting a 50 year earthquake. \nTemazcal Room: In this. This example is at Section D\, and you see a \nTemazcal Room: all of these analyses basically go through the berm and out past the tow. They’re \nTemazcal Room: slip services that involve \nTemazcal Room: a potential for tow failures of the \nTemazcal Room: of the berm. We analyzed a variety of these. These are always the the critical ones we came up with \nTemazcal Room: in this section. The the berms factor. Safety is\, is above the desired level of 1.1. So that’s good \nTemazcal Room: in the next slide at section CC\, it is below 1.1. Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: So I’m curious. \nTemazcal Room: what type of search constraints you’re doing. \nTemazcal Room: How is this searching\, is it? I mean\, at some point in the draft. \nTemazcal Room: Powerpoint. We had it said\, No\, sir\, no surfaces are are circular\, or all are non-circular\, or something like that\, and I think \nTemazcal Room: I can’t remember what the note was there. All slide models shown are non circular. \nTemazcal Room: That \nTemazcal Room: slide got deleted from the final presentation\, which which is fine \nTemazcal Room: it looks like there are some circular circles. Oh\, definitely\, this looks \nTemazcal Room: a \nTemazcal Room: clearly non-circular looks like a not on typical type of non-circular surface. The \nTemazcal Room: I think it was the next one that \nTemazcal Room: is non circular\, but it looks kind of like a sloppily drawn circle\, or I mean\, it looks like an awkwardly circle. I’m curious what? How this came up with that geometry for the circle. \nTemazcal Room: And and in general. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, what is the \nTemazcal Room: search algorithm that you’re using here? Are you limiting it? Is it circular? Are you limiting? The entry points? Exit points? \nTemazcal Room: I don’t know. Slide 2 as well as I know. Slope W slope W. You can \nTemazcal Room: print out the entry point \nTemazcal Room: limits and the exit point limits\, and the printout\, if you’re allowing it to search to a certain depth maximum\, if that’s what you’re doing. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. And I\, you know\, I \nTemazcal Room: I think if you’re presenting this to \nTemazcal Room: someone to review\, it ought to have \nTemazcal Room: some sort of explanation\, preferably a graphic depiction on every \nTemazcal Room: printout that says\, this is what the slide constraints\, the the slide surface constraints were. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. Yeah. Cause I see\, cause there are a lot of different ways to do it \nTemazcal Room: right\, because there are a lot of different ways to do it. Like you’re saying\, which ones did we use. Right? Yeah\, do we use this? Do we use that\, you know? And my guess is that most of the time circular\, I mean circular needs to be checked. I think \nTemazcal Room: especially if you have soft clay\, the most common expected case is going to be a deep circle that’s going to include most of the embankment and going to take it with it. \nTemazcal Room: especially with seismic. \nTemazcal Room: But \nTemazcal Room: I’m I’m all in favor of \nTemazcal Room: looking at other types of configurations also\, because \nTemazcal Room: other things \nTemazcal Room: can happen. But but somehow\, if if I’m checking this\, I just need to know what the \nTemazcal Room: what the search methodology is. And okay\, I think the most helpful is is if you can give it graphically on the printout. \nTemazcal Room: and then I just know every single time \nTemazcal Room: what you do. I’d rather than a paragraph at the front than I go? Well. \nTemazcal Room: okay. But was it. \nTemazcal Room: does it? Does it allow it go to 36 feet this time\, or is it trunking? Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: okay. \nTemazcal Room: we. I mean\, at the risk of \nTemazcal Room: sounding like\, I’m oversimplifying things. We ran it a bunch of different ways\, right? Circular\, non circular wedges \nTemazcal Room: some other\, I mean. I I could probably ask Andrew to tell us for\, like 15 min about all the things he did\, and maybe that would be worthwhile. But at the very least\, I think what I’m hearing is kind of like your comment on the \nTemazcal Room: tabulation of the properties. It would be helpful as reviewers to understand. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, for this output. That’s the style of \nTemazcal Room: search that was done. \nTemazcal Room: Because if we ran 5 different styles of churches of searches. Why not \nTemazcal Room: tell you the 5 different ones\, and label them each accordingly. Is that \nTemazcal Room: that’s kind of what I’m taking away is that without that it’s just hard for you to understand sometimes what? Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: the implication that we’re saying raffle here on the printout is the most useful\, and it’s\, you know\, for your own internal. Qc\, it’s most useful. \nTemazcal Room: you know for the \nTemazcal Room: people\, that are doing the runs\, you’re trying to keep track of all your burnouts. And yeah. \nTemazcal Room: got to make sure that you’ve got it. And the printout Graphic just shows that you’ve got it \nTemazcal Room: right exactly what it is. \nTemazcal Room: It was a little easier when I was a young engineer doing this myself because I didn’t. I couldn’t do 100 runs a day. I did like 2 runs a day\, so I didn’t have as many\, but I understand\, understand. Give. It would be helpful to understand. \nTemazcal Room: And I think that I\, you know. \nTemazcal Room: referring back to some previous discussions. I think there’s \nTemazcal Room: some questions about the blue strength profile being stronger than the pink strength\, profile\, right? Which I think is going to potentially change \nTemazcal Room: many\, most all of the \nTemazcal Room: all of these results. But \nTemazcal Room: okay\, thank you\, Jim. Nick. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: couple of questions. I don’t know if this is a typo or not\, but \nTemazcal Room: it for this OLE. Level or lower level\, and one of these \nTemazcal Room: I think \nTemazcal Room: it is. It’s \nTemazcal Room: it may be the next one. \nTemazcal Room: Are you looking at the oh\, yeah\, it says. \nTemazcal Room: this is. \nTemazcal Room: I guess. PGA point 3 7. Is that it? I pull? \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, is that a typo? Or it’s supposed to be point 3 4. \nTemazcal Room: Not that. Oh\, you’re talking about here? The yeah\, the PGA that’s applied. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. Because in the previous slides it says\, you know\, the only level is point 3 4. Just curious. If \nTemazcal Room: this was \nTemazcal Room: so\, I’m sorry. Hold on. Yeah. I want to go back. Yeah\, right there point 3 4G\, and your point is\, why does this one show point 3 7 g\, not that it’s a big difference. But but \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, yeah. \nTemazcal Room: I. \nTemazcal Room: And the other question is\, are you applying a pseudo static of like? Let’s say in this case\, point 3 7\, \nTemazcal Room: or are you reducing it for the slope. Stability analysis. \nTemazcal Room: because that’s the PGA. That’s the peak value. \nTemazcal Room: Andrew\, correct me if I’m wrong. The these are pseudo static analyses. \nTemazcal Room: So I believe we batcher the PGA accordingly\, for a pseudostatic \nTemazcal Room: enough\, so. \nandrew barrett: You didn’t apply any factoring for these. We started off with the analysis with a 2 thirds factor and then \nandrew barrett: eventually move to the full PGA value \nandrew barrett: conversations at our last meeting. \nTemazcal Room: Andrew\, do you? Do you remember the point? The reason for the point 3 7 here instead of a point 3 4? \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, if you’re sleeping. \nandrew barrett: As it is. \nandrew barrett: I I think that I don’t know. I don’t think it would make much of a difference to be honest\, but I I’m not sure if that’s just a \nandrew barrett: in error. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. Okay. \nTemazcal Room: In any event\, \nTemazcal Room: did that answer your question? Well. \nTemazcal Room: not quite. Let me. \nTemazcal Room: I’m curious. If this number is \nTemazcal Room: 2 thirds. Is this mislabeled by any chance as being OLE. \nTemazcal Room: It’s definitely not. Cle\, it’s definitely not the larger one. \nTemazcal Room: What? What is hold on a second? \nTemazcal Room: Precisely. \nTemazcal Room: then. \nTemazcal Room: this point 3 7. \nTemazcal Room: I \nTemazcal Room: I don’t know what this is. \nTemazcal Room: It’s a little higher point 3 4\, right? What is it like? 2 thirds of point 5. \nTemazcal Room: But it’s mislabeled as OLE. \nTemazcal Room: You follow what I’m saying. Yeah\, I I do. \nTemazcal Room: I know that’s not what happened\, but I understand why you’re asking that question. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, 2 thirds is more like point 33 and point 34. And this is point 3 37. \nTemazcal Room: I’m just. \nTemazcal Room: We’re trying to follow what what’s being done? \nTemazcal Room: Well\, and part part of the reason\, I say\, that’s because when we go to the next ones\, you do see a higher one for the contingency level event\, right? \nTemazcal Room: In fact\, since we’re talking about it \nTemazcal Room: like\, for example\, when I go ahead a couple of slides\, there’s a point 5. So that’s what you’d expect to see from the earlier statement of PGA. Right? The intention is for that to show the PGA \nTemazcal Room: just what is the PGA that we derive from the \nTemazcal Room: the earlier evaluation. \nTemazcal Room: I understand. But what is your pseudo static \nTemazcal Room: value that you’re putting for your slope? Stability \nTemazcal Room: analysis\, is it? Are you using full PGA\, or are you reducing it by \nTemazcal Room: some number? \nTemazcal Room: I think we’re Andrew again. Correct me wrong. I think we’re using the full number. \nandrew barrett: Using the. \nTemazcal Room: The number we’re using. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: so why is the 1.3 7 instead of point 3? I’m I’m frankly not sure but the intention is to just \nTemazcal Room: plug in the PGA. Okay\, so that’s \nTemazcal Room: bully. All right. Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you\, Rameen Nick. \nTemazcal Room: but \nTemazcal Room: so hopefully you can hear me now. I. I like this picture because \nTemazcal Room: it becomes non circular\, simply as a function of your layering that that’s a very normal thing that will happen. \nTemazcal Room: If you have a gradually increasing strength with depth\, then you get a completely different failure surface. \nTemazcal Room: So\, as you can see\, it follows the layer that where you have a transition in strength. Okay? So you have actually predetermined the failure surface in here. \nTemazcal Room: That that that is a problem. \nTemazcal Room: Say say that you\, predetermined by by your layering\, you have predetermined where that thing will is going to flatten out. \nTemazcal Room: See what I mean? \nTemazcal Room: Well\, I mean\, I see how our layering dictates where? Well\, that’s what I mean. So you predetermined by by where you put the layer boundary\, you have actually determined where the bottom of this thing’s going to be. If you moved it lower down\, it would move lower down. That’s what happens in these non\, so non circle analysis\, which I’ve done a lot. \nTemazcal Room: But I have a question which really follows up \nTemazcal Room: 1st of all. \nTemazcal Room: Oh. \nTemazcal Room: I don’t know how to put it. \nTemazcal Room: Has anyone here actually checked slide against any other code\, or even a hand calculation where it actually does all of this correctly. \nTemazcal Room: I. \nTemazcal Room: Many years ago I had experience with rock science\, where they were very loose \nTemazcal Room: with their \nTemazcal Room: codes. \nTemazcal Room: and I have not used them since. \nTemazcal Room: For that reason I have not gone back\, presumably over the years they’ve improved. \nTemazcal Room: But I have not been impressed by a QR. Qa. Qc. Their own. What? What software were you carrying issues with? We were using slide and for for some other purposes\, and things weren’t quite right. So we use other software. I’m simply asking\, has anybody \nTemazcal Room: my colleagues done any Qa. Qc. Normally\, when you adopt the code. Of course you trust the \nTemazcal Room: people who published it. Sure. \nTemazcal Room: but \nTemazcal Room: I generally run it against something that I know\, just to make sure that it \nTemazcal Room: gives me the results in any case. But looking at the seismic analysis you know\, I think\, what my colleagues were asking. You know\, Magdi\, Cnc. If you go back to it is those are the reduction coefficients that people take the \nTemazcal Room: maximum acceleration\, whatever you come up\, and then you come up with a pseudostatic\, coefficient\, based on the thickness of the profile\, and so on. And so I guess that’s the question\, because\, applying full point 5G. Of course \nTemazcal Room: you can look at it. It’s conservative. \nTemazcal Room: But\, on the other hand\, I don’t think it really gives the right response\, and so puts you in a situation where you’re presenting point 7 5 \nTemazcal Room: factor of safety\, which\, in fact\, may be real underestimation of what you have. So I would suggest. Take a look at how \nTemazcal Room: you derive the seismic coefficient for this. \nTemazcal Room: It’s not PGA. \nTemazcal Room: If if anything\, we’re overestimating the seismic forces\, we’re absolutely\, I think we’re being either corporately conservative or we’re being overly concerned. If if you’re applying\, if you’re applying full PGA\, then yes\, you’re being very conservative\, conservative on a \nTemazcal Room: in a way that I don’t think anybody here would suggest that you should be. \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, why. \nTemazcal Room: okay\, thank you\, Nick. \nTemazcal Room: Jima\, you had something. \nTemazcal Room: Are you done\, or you still have some more. \nTemazcal Room: I I have one more part to discuss\, which is the deformation analysis. \nTemazcal Room: Oh. \nTemazcal Room: okay. Why don’t you finish that? Okay\, yeah. Let’s look\, because I think we have these examples where the factor safety is less than 1.1. \nTemazcal Room: Maybe we’re being overly conservative. \nTemazcal Room: probably are. I mean\, we want to purposely be conservative. \nTemazcal Room: But we got these factors\, maybe below 1.1\, particularly in the 475 year earthquake. \nTemazcal Room: Frankly\, I like using that earthquake at all is pretty darn conservative\, but it’s appropriate for us to look at it. But what does that mean? What is what is this telling us about the behavior of the berm in this \nTemazcal Room: large earthquake. So \nTemazcal Room: to understand that we performed a \nTemazcal Room: displacement analysis\, not not a \nTemazcal Room: real fancy one. \nTemazcal Room: We all know you could do that some very advanced ways. You could do full models. We didn’t do that. We \nTemazcal Room: looked at. Oh\, yeah\, I’m sorry. Here’s the examples in yellow\, where we have factors\, safety less than 1.1. \nTemazcal Room: They are in cross sections B and C\, \nTemazcal Room: and they are mostly in the large earthquake\, and in one case in the smaller earthquake. But what do those tell us? So? Let me\, let me tell you what we came up with there and then. I think we can\, you know\, talk about \nTemazcal Room: things. \nTemazcal Room: deformation analysis. \nTemazcal Room: We used \nTemazcal Room: an established \nTemazcal Room: Co available code. Andrew can cite it. I’m not going to try to state the name of it at the moment\, but I will tell you it is a \nTemazcal Room: sliding block model. \nTemazcal Room: but classic\, you know\, fairly simple model that \nTemazcal Room: takes the weight of the berm. The frictional force of the base of the berm applies \nTemazcal Room: the acceleration from the earthquake to it\, and determines. How much is it going to move if the Thatcher safety is low\, how much is the berm going to move? Is it going to completely move out of the way\, or what is going to happen. \nTemazcal Room: and we ran it for the worst case we had\, which is a section CC. In a low tide. \nTemazcal Room: and the answer we get from that is that it will move \nTemazcal Room: along the slip plane 2 to 9 inches \nTemazcal Room: with 5 inches\, being the \nTemazcal Room: the best estimate of movement. \nTemazcal Room: That’s a result I wanted to make sure to put in front of everybody within the board and \nTemazcal Room: get reactions to\, because \nTemazcal Room: when we see that answer come up. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. The factors of safety are sometimes. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, well\, below 1.1\, but \nTemazcal Room: that is not an amount of deformation that is going to mean \nTemazcal Room: a berm breach. I know ultimately\, when you boil this all down. This\, the whole purpose of this analysis we’re doing is are the berms gonna hold up. \nTemazcal Room: And we’re our conclusion is even in these earthquake events. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, there will be some \nTemazcal Room: deformation\, but not enough to affect their ability to hold the mixed sea salts. And it seems like\, isn’t that really the bottom line of all this analysis \nTemazcal Room: is. \nTemazcal Room: will they hold up \nTemazcal Room: so right? And and so you’re talking about horizontal movement. I guess \nTemazcal Room: the question is\, is there vertical settlement as well? Yeah. So the way I would describe this movement is when I say along the slip service. I mean\, it’s like \nTemazcal Room: vertical atop and horizontal out at the toe. So it’s some of both. \nTemazcal Room: is is what we would imagine. \nandrew barrett: As an aside before that discussion keeps going. It’s the brain. Macedo method\, 2\,018\, I believe\, is the \nandrew barrett: year that that paper was published I could look it up specifically. It’s the modified Newmark sliding block analysis that uses \nandrew barrett: earthquake analysis from actual earthquakes. Thank you. \nandrew barrett: Yep. \nTemazcal Room: Good. \nTemazcal Room: So we we would interpret it. That’s why we put this little picture of an example slip service on the slide that we’d interpret as moving \nTemazcal Room: 2 to 9 inches along that surface. \nTemazcal Room: and and we don’t see that as being something that affects the \nTemazcal Room: robustness or \nTemazcal Room: retaining ability of the of the berms. \nTemazcal Room: So to us all this said that to us seems like that’s feels like that’s the ultimate conclusion. Did you ever \nTemazcal Room: so? What method did you use for doing the deformation analysis? \nTemazcal Room: what what Andrew just described is is a is a codified version of the sliding block \nTemazcal Room: analysis. The Newmark sliding block analysis. But whose implementation of that. \nTemazcal Room: Andrew\, can you say that one more time. \nandrew barrett: Brain Macedo Method. \nTemazcal Room: Say it again. \nTemazcal Room: Say that again\, Andrew\, I’m gonna pull up the statement in our \nTemazcal Room: Brian macedo. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, yeah. \nTemazcal Room: is that \nTemazcal Room: meaningful? \nTemazcal Room: Well\, after what you said about rock science. Goodness. \nTemazcal Room: Oh. \nTemazcal Room: okay. \nTemazcal Room: Brian\, what about Brian Macedo? \nTemazcal Room: No\, I see. \nTemazcal Room: you know. If we I will say I mean\, if we were. We’ve been using slide 2 forever\, I mean\, and if \nTemazcal Room: I have not yet been like Oh\, my gosh! What is going on? If we had had a moment\, even one moment. We’re like what is going on with this thing. I think we’d be digging in. Sounds like you did\, but \nTemazcal Room: I have not had that yet. \nTemazcal Room: anyway\, that that I I skipped over some slides in there. But \nTemazcal Room: that’s that’s what we’ve come up with. I mean\, this is our summary. \nTemazcal Room: Our impression is\, and and recognizing yes\, for sure\, we could \nTemazcal Room: go into further analyses. Further data. We could do some more critical sections\, certainly run some more ones like it. \nTemazcal Room: Location 8\, 9. \nTemazcal Room: Probably. Maybe we find low factors of safety there\, too. \nTemazcal Room: wouldn’t shock me\, I suppose. But \nTemazcal Room: ultimately this deformation analysis seems to us like\, that’s what’s really \nTemazcal Room: going on. \nTemazcal Room: And and I and I\, I also recognize that earthquakes that have been experienced at this facility in the past are not 475 year events. We know that there have been earthquakes. There’s 1\,989 \nTemazcal Room: that was not at that size\, but \nTemazcal Room: that is a data point\, and there was no deformation in that earthquake. So that does give us\, I think\, some \nTemazcal Room: confirmation that we’re using \nTemazcal Room: appropriate values for this. \nTemazcal Room: so I almost feel like that in some ways might end up being more important than delving further into what the factors safety are. Yes. \nTemazcal Room: can you talk about the the low tide? Elevation that you selected\, how you selected it? And if \nTemazcal Room: power \nTemazcal Room: sensitive\, the deformation results are to that number. Yup \nTemazcal Room: we selected 2 feet for our low tide. For most of these analyses not 0 feet. We. We recognize low tide goes below 2 every day. \nTemazcal Room: But our 1st batch of analyses use 2 simply because we’re compounding probabilities. We’re talking about what happens during an earthquake\, which is\, you know\, a 4 min event. \nTemazcal Room: and the likelihood of the earthquake occurring during the \nTemazcal Room: tiny part of the day when the low tide occurs\, we said\, Okay\, let’s \nTemazcal Room: 2. Seems like a more reasonable expectation of what might happen. So we ran a bunch of these with 2\, \nTemazcal Room: but also recognize that there’s interest \nTemazcal Room: from from everybody and understand? Okay\, you know\, that’s great. But what about like a really low tide\, which is really like more like 0? So we did a comparison. It made no effect whatsoever on the deformation. It made a very marginal effect on the factors of safety\, but not even enough to \nTemazcal Room: to round out to the numbers shown in our table. So whether or not it’s a 0 or a 2 foot low. Tide doesn’t really affect what we came up with\, but those are the numbers that that we used in our analyses. \nTemazcal Room: I have a question. \nTemazcal Room: This relates to the previous \nTemazcal Room: presentation that \nTemazcal Room: run up goes up to elevation 11 or something like that. Okay\, is that elevation that you’re kind of considering as being the the berm. Or are you using today’s elevation? We’re using today’s elevations. \nTemazcal Room: We didn’t. We didn’t go in and make them 11.5. \nTemazcal Room: In other words. \nTemazcal Room: I don’t \nTemazcal Room: really expect it would do much to change them to 11.5. \nTemazcal Room: But we use the elevations that are current. \nTemazcal Room: How much higher would 11 and a half be \nTemazcal Room: from current television? A fraction of a foot \nTemazcal Room: fraction of a foot. Okay. \nTemazcal Room: thank you. \nTemazcal Room: Dima. All right. \nTemazcal Room: So thank you for your \nTemazcal Room: presentation. \nTemazcal Room: I don’t remember whether you had told us this \nTemazcal Room: during your previous presentation or not. But I’m just curious about \nTemazcal Room: the colored section \nTemazcal Room: of the broom and the pink and the \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, how did you get the configuration of those \nTemazcal Room: 3rd section. \nTemazcal Room: Let me go back to the figure that shows one of those examples. \nTemazcal Room: yeah. So the here’s a good one. \nTemazcal Room: I wouldn’t say there was any science behind. How we exactly defined the trapezoid that you see other than we just wanted to have a trapezoid\, we said\, let’s just have a trapezoidal distinction between \nTemazcal Room: what’s under the berm and what is not under the berm. \nTemazcal Room: and the distinction. There\, again\, is \nTemazcal Room: what we have used under the berm is strictly from our analysis of the Cpt data. \nTemazcal Room: whereas what’s outside of that trapezoid \nTemazcal Room: is a an attempt to estimate \nTemazcal Room: what we would. \nTemazcal Room: the the deeper material layer unaffected by the berm. It it is. It is an engineering judgment attempt to estimate that. \nTemazcal Room: There has been a suggestion that might some of our values be\, in fact. \nTemazcal Room: making that \nTemazcal Room: stronger than what’s under the berm \nTemazcal Room: that could be. I I’m not sure what my answer that is at the moment\, but that is\, that’s that was our intention with the analysis. And that’s that’s what the trapezoid means. And that’s how we developed it. So it was strictly based on Strand\, not on \nTemazcal Room: some historical information on what \nTemazcal Room: it’s. It’s all strength and just our interpretation that there would be an an area \nTemazcal Room: of \nTemazcal Room: soil \nTemazcal Room: affected by the berm’s presence. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: thank you. \nTemazcal Room: So from my perspective\, you know\, based on the presentation\, the thing that I’m \nTemazcal Room: really concerned about is \nTemazcal Room: finding the critical section. \nTemazcal Room: right? And I think the way you did it was based on \nTemazcal Room: what the geometry is. Yeah\, based on lighter data \nTemazcal Room: and measurements that you took in the field. \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, I think what Nick said \nTemazcal Room: is really the most important aspect of this. \nTemazcal Room: because \nTemazcal Room: if you don’t find the critical \nTemazcal Room: section \nTemazcal Room: right. \nTemazcal Room: you you might not be representing what the risk really is\, because it’s a long \nTemazcal Room: linear structure. And so I would echo what Nick had previously said\, which is. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, use the data close to \nTemazcal Room: this section \nTemazcal Room: that you have picked \nTemazcal Room: rather than the average. \nTemazcal Room: Right? I think. Now\, yeah\, that’s that’s going to be very important. \nTemazcal Room: The other thing that right\, I think you should also use in terms of \nTemazcal Room: finding the critical section. \nTemazcal Room: because you are picking geometry. And he said\, if it’s narrower. \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, that’s likely to be \nTemazcal Room: critical\, because\, you know\, it’s narrower\, like\, the berm is narrower. Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: But you could also use. Look at the strength. \nTemazcal Room: Right? Yeah\, you could go to sections and see in this area there’s a concentration \nTemazcal Room: of soft material\, even though the geometry \nTemazcal Room: might be \nTemazcal Room: logic\, right? \nTemazcal Room: So so you have to look at it \nTemazcal Room: from that perspective \nTemazcal Room: as well. \nTemazcal Room: The other thing which caught my eye \nTemazcal Room: really is the the weird shape \nTemazcal Room: of the burn. \nTemazcal Room: you know. I mean\, I was kind of looking at the firm. I’m wondering what made them ship there. \nTemazcal Room: The sheep. \nTemazcal Room: the way it is. \nTemazcal Room: You know the way that the way it’s shown in our model \nTemazcal Room: or the way it really is. \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, in the photos. Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: I’m kind of wondering \nTemazcal Room: why would \nTemazcal Room: they build a firm \nTemazcal Room: and kind of shape it the way they did \nTemazcal Room: what is\, what is what is about the shape that is weird? Well\, I’m I’m I’m just looking at. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, you want to build a you want to build a firm right? \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, normally \nTemazcal Room: right\, you would expect that. \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, you want to make the things straight. You know there are these segments to it. \nTemazcal Room: So I’m kind of wondering whether this was built in stages. \nTemazcal Room: you know. Maybe there was a time ago\, right? I don’t know whether you have any historical information. Was this all built? You know there was a plan. \nTemazcal Room: and the plan was that sense should be shaped \nTemazcal Room: the way it is. \nTemazcal Room: So so you’re talking. You’re talking about the curves. Yeah\, how it curves around and everything. Yeah\, I don’t. \nTemazcal Room: I don’t know why they built them the way they did. I mean\, yeah. \nTemazcal Room: yeah\, yeah\, because they’re 100 years ago is when when they built these. Yeah\, because sometimes what happens is\, maybe the initial plan was to build something small\, and there was something small. \nTemazcal Room: and he decided to expand it. \nTemazcal Room: So you know\, from \nTemazcal Room: where the previous one ended. You know. \nTemazcal Room: you want to hit the roadway so \nTemazcal Room: it ends up being shaped like that. \nTemazcal Room: But if that’s the case\, I mean. What would happen is that you have \nTemazcal Room: sections \nTemazcal Room: of the berm \nTemazcal Room: which are different by virtue \nTemazcal Room: of age. \nTemazcal Room: Right? \nTemazcal Room: And so I mean\, it kind of made me curious that \nTemazcal Room: somehow. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, like that \nTemazcal Room: bad section. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, close to them at all. \nTemazcal Room: What was that for? \nTemazcal Room: Because\, I think \nTemazcal Room: you know\, looking at the shape \nTemazcal Room: you know\, it might drive you into saying. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, maybe this\, then the site development history. \nTemazcal Room: It’s also an important factor \nTemazcal Room: in determining \nTemazcal Room: what is the most critical section \nTemazcal Room: you know. If yeah\, I understand behind it\, I mean\, I can understand it \nTemazcal Room: but it’s kind of. \nTemazcal Room: you know. \nTemazcal Room: pick my curiosity as to \nTemazcal Room: well\, it’s \nTemazcal Room: it it. \nTemazcal Room: you know. Why would anyone build the firm the way it is? \nTemazcal Room: It’s it’s a little bit like our \nTemazcal Room: I I will tell you. You know\, when we were out there at all these places\, looking and measuring this berm\, if we had seen a stretch of berm that was distinctly different than another stretch of berm. \nTemazcal Room: We would have said\, Wait a minute. \nTemazcal Room: maybe that needs to be analyzed separately\, because that’s him. But we didn’t really see that I mean\, it was pretty consistent throughout. I know the \nTemazcal Room: the\, the alignment of it’s kind of odd and changes a lot\, but the berm itself didn’t change enough for us to see anything that would prompt us to \nTemazcal Room: analyze that specifically. But we did. We did look for it\, and it was a little bit like what we did with all the \nTemazcal Room: Cpt logs again we’re like\, are there places out here where the soil is worse or softer? \nTemazcal Room: And we didn’t see that regionally. I I know there’s been discussion here\, and i 1 of the takeaways from this discussion. I feel like is. \nTemazcal Room: maybe we should analyze over at Cpt. 8 and 9. Maybe that’s a little batch of yeah. A situation that\, you know\, warrants its own analysis may maybe so\, although I will say one advantage of having done all these analysis. I can offer a prediction of what we will find. \nTemazcal Room: If we do that I will. I will bet \nTemazcal Room: I’ll bet a Starbucks card \nTemazcal Room: we will find a factor safety of like point 7\, \nTemazcal Room: and we’ll run a deformation analysis. It’ll be like 2 to 9 inches. I think that’s probably what we’re gonna learn. Yeah. And so we’re gonna have to reckon with. What do we all make of that\, you know\, is. \nTemazcal Room: No\, I mean I I am \nTemazcal Room: okay with what you’ve done. I think you’ve made an effort. \nTemazcal Room: You know you’ve done your due diligence. \nTemazcal Room: and the only thing that I would suggest \nTemazcal Room: be done is to kind of look more closely at the issue of \nTemazcal Room: what is the critical section. \nTemazcal Room: because ultimately the behavior of this\, then\, is going to be in 3 dimensions. Right? \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, even if you have a weak section. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, when this thing is subjected to an earthquake is going to respond as a system rather than the \nTemazcal Room: you know the section that you have true \nTemazcal Room: 3 dimensional effects\, you know\, compete. Your due diligence is to kind of look at it \nTemazcal Room: a little bit more in terms of \nTemazcal Room: is there any either due to site\, development\, history. \nTemazcal Room: or the strength of the material you’re encountering is there potentially a more critical section \nTemazcal Room: than what you have looked at. So \nTemazcal Room: you know\, when we 1st got involved with Cargill on this question. We were prepared with Cargill team to look at 3 like\, if this firm is going to breach\, how big an area is gonna breach\, and what are the 3 dimensional effects? We were all prepared to do that until our analysis suggested \nTemazcal Room: it isn’t actually gonna breach. So once we found that we’re like\, okay. Well. \nTemazcal Room: suddenly\, there isn’t such a need for that sort of 3 dimensional analysis. Now\, we’re faced with this amount of deformation\, and \nTemazcal Room: there are surely 3 dimensional\, you know\, effects going on with that\, too. But \nTemazcal Room: given the magnitude and scale of it\, it seems like we’re kind of getting our answer now\, yeah\, well\, I mean\, the 3 dimensional response is actually going to be better. It’ll probably make the numbers even less. Yeah\, exactly. \nTemazcal Room: you know. And you know\, but I think that \nTemazcal Room: the one piece is to \nTemazcal Room: look at the sections\, you know\, in terms of strength\, not there’s a geometry. \nTemazcal Room: and see whether that would drive you \nTemazcal Room: into looking at a particular section. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, okay\, I understand. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you. Gma. \nTemazcal Room: See\, Romaine\, you got your hand up. \nTemazcal Room: Yes\, thank you. \nTemazcal Room: I was wondering because I was looking your report\, and it said that the yield acceleration is like point 1 9 \nTemazcal Room: I I’m curious what parameters you used in the beret and macedo \nTemazcal Room: approach \nTemazcal Room: to get the deformations you’re getting. \nTemazcal Room: It looks a little low to me\, but \nTemazcal Room: in fairness the deformation does\, or the yield. No\, no\, the yield. I’m I’m okay with the yield. I think the deformation numbers look a little low to me. \nTemazcal Room: So \nTemazcal Room: yeah\, for that yield \nTemazcal Room: and the materials that we have at at the site. So \nTemazcal Room: yeah\, 7\, 5. Or I mean\, even the 4 75 is \nTemazcal Room: basically a big San Andreas \nTemazcal Room: event. If you\, or pay or 2\, but 7 and a half or 8 doesn’t matter which one. But I’m curious \nTemazcal Room: what parameters you used in your Bra Msato evaluation to come up with \nTemazcal Room: deformations you came up with\, okay. \nTemazcal Room: okay\, \nTemazcal Room: I I get that and we can provide. We can provide that. I mean\, we could kind of walk through with the team. Here we could provide a separate\, follow up the kind of details\, allow folks to kind of dive in and see it. \nTemazcal Room: But yeah\, I get I I understand your takeaway is like you were a little surprised. The numbers were what they were. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: Alright. We we can. \nTemazcal Room: We can give more detail behind the inputs to the bray. Macedo. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: thank you\, Michael. \nTemazcal Room: Very good. Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: Now we go to public comment before Ec. Further Ecrb discussion. \nTemazcal Room: So for members of the public. \nTemazcal Room: if you would like to speak today\, we request that you \nTemazcal Room: only provide comments or questions specific to the questions given today or the presentations given today. \nTemazcal Room: If you would like to speak\, you will need to do so in one of 3 ways. \nTemazcal Room: If you are here in person. \nTemazcal Room: Please raise your hand so we can call on you\, at which time you may come forward\, and \nTemazcal Room: I’ll have a lectern\, but you can come forward to speak. \nTemazcal Room: If you are attending on the Zoom Platform on your computer\, please raise your virtual hand and zoom. \nTemazcal Room: You may do this by clicking on the hand at the bottom of your screen. \nTemazcal Room: If you are attending via phone\, you must press Star 9 on your keypad to raise your hand to make a comment. \nTemazcal Room: and star 6 to unmute or mute yourself. \nTemazcal Room: We will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order they are raised during the public comment period. \nTemazcal Room: Starting with anyone present in person \nTemazcal Room: when called upon\, you’ll be unmuted so that you can share your comments. \nTemazcal Room: Please state your name and affiliation. At the beginning of your remarks \nTemazcal Room: you have a limit of 3 min to speak. \nTemazcal Room: as at any public meeting. Please keep your comments respectful. \nTemazcal Room: We are here to listen to everyone who wishes to address the meeting. \nTemazcal Room: but\, as always\, we ask that everyone act in a civil manner. \nTemazcal Room: hate speech threats made directly or indirectly\, and abusive language will not be tolerated. \nTemazcal Room: and anyone who fails to follow these guidelines\, or exceeds the established 3 min without permit\, or 3 min limit without permission \nTemazcal Room: will be muted. \nTemazcal Room: Margie\, are there any hands raised? \nTemazcal Room: I do not see any. \nTemazcal Room: No\, I do not see any hand. \nTemazcal Room: That is the end of public comment. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: So let’s \nTemazcal Room: return to board discussion. \nTemazcal Room: think there were a lot of questions today\, and and \nTemazcal Room: for the most part they’ve been answered\, but it sounds like \nTemazcal Room: there are some \nTemazcal Room: additional pieces of information or analysis that \nTemazcal Room: are going to be required. And I’m just \nTemazcal Room: wondering. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, and or I think the question to the board right now is. \nTemazcal Room: is there a path forward without a further \nTemazcal Room: meeting? \nTemazcal Room: Is there an information package or a calculation package \nTemazcal Room: that Cargill can provide to us. \nTemazcal Room: That satisfies everyone’s. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, comments. And I think \nTemazcal Room: and so I put that that question to the board here. \nTemazcal Room: I’d like to see some clarification of the \nTemazcal Room: set up and run up analysis. And I could be more specific \nTemazcal Room: if that’s helpful to the people. \nTemazcal Room: and then I also had a question\, for \nTemazcal Room: I also had a a more general question to \nTemazcal Room: I think to Janet\, to the staff. \nTemazcal Room: I don’t know when we should do that. But to answer your question\, I think I’d like to see more on the way. Run up \nTemazcal Room: still. Water analysis. Okay\, yeah\, thank you. \nTemazcal Room: Thanks. \nTemazcal Room: And Jen\, I I assume you’ve been taking lots and lots of notes. And so the concerns of the Board of the questions. \nTemazcal Room: Do you think that that can be. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, summarized and and turned into a request for Cargill to respond to\, or \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, like cause\, the thing\, I I \nTemazcal Room: what I don’t I mean I. \nTemazcal Room: If we have to have another meeting\, we have to have another meeting. But if the if the board is \nTemazcal Room: satisfied that in general or not in general\, that they are satisfied \nTemazcal Room: that\, you know conditions are being met\, or the calculations and the analyses are \nTemazcal Room: or proper. \nTemazcal Room: with a few adjustments and clarifications. \nTemazcal Room: You know I think we \nTemazcal Room: I’m happy to go that way. But \nTemazcal Room: you know again I’m asking the board here if \nTemazcal Room: if there is something that is \nTemazcal Room: troubling you enough to the point where. \nTemazcal Room: you know you think we need to come back? \nTemazcal Room: Well\, I guess maybe a question could be\, for the Board to think about is what kind of deformation \nTemazcal Room: would be a deformation that would be a concern. \nTemazcal Room: So\, you know. \nTemazcal Room: is is 9 inches a concern. \nTemazcal Room: Is it something that they can address through inspections and maintenance \nTemazcal Room: in this? In the worst case\, scenario\, and \nTemazcal Room: and perhaps \nTemazcal Room: you know\, because they do \nTemazcal Room: endeavor to have 2 feet of free board. \nTemazcal Room: If their deformations don’t exceed 2 feet\, then perhaps \nTemazcal Room: The risk is very low that there could be a release \nTemazcal Room: and so we could ask them\, for \nTemazcal Room: you know\, it sounds like there’s a concern about how the \nTemazcal Room: the bay muds outside of the zone\, under the berms\, were treated with their strength parameters\, and also \nTemazcal Room: that they may not have picked the most conservative \nTemazcal Room: parts of the berm to model\, and so maybe they could. They could run those and provide those results. And if the results were. \nTemazcal Room: the deformations were within a certain range. Then then it would be fine. \nTemazcal Room: Jen. In. In addition to those\, there was the question of just the strength that was that was chosen. \nTemazcal Room: You know\, the 3 50 versus like 200\, \nTemazcal Room: I think I think that’s an important one. \nTemazcal Room: And then there was also like a question of whether we’re using the full PGA or \nTemazcal Room: something less than that. \nTemazcal Room: Those 2 might be compensating changes that might get you back to the same answer. But I feel like all those things you said\, and the 2 that\, I added could be addressed in a you know\, a\, a written. \nTemazcal Room: a response\, sort of a thing \nTemazcal Room: is\, should they be applying a factor to the the peak\, the PGA\, instead of using the PGA in their analyses? \nTemazcal Room: Well\, they actually being conservative. \nTemazcal Room: So \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, if they apply a factor\, that deformation. \nTemazcal Room: that factor of safety\, is going to be higher. So yeah\, Erin\, on the safe side\, is the way. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: frame. \nTemazcal Room: Oh. \nTemazcal Room: still. \nTemazcal Room: yeah. But I think I think ultimately\, is that defamation \nTemazcal Room: is the factor of safety. The limit equilibrium analysis \nTemazcal Room: is given as factor of safety which is low. \nTemazcal Room: But the deformation analysis is saying\, these are the kind of displacements \nTemazcal Room: that we are getting. \nTemazcal Room: and so it kind of \nTemazcal Room: makes the limit. Equilibrium results\, you know\, less \nTemazcal Room: significant. \nTemazcal Room: Go ahead\, Jim. \nTemazcal Room: It looks to \nTemazcal Room: hey\, Kevin? \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, sorry\, Nick. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, if if I may. I \nTemazcal Room: on the \nTemazcal Room: you know overall. This is a tremendous amount of work. \nTemazcal Room: and in general it’s been quite carefully done. I think we’ve identified a couple of places. The the seismic deformation is interesting because brain macedo formulation is completely independent of the slide analysis. \nTemazcal Room: It only you only use the geometry of whatever’s the potentially failing mass. The rest of it is independent\, I think\, in the seismic analysis\, I I really do suggest that you actually look at proper\, whether the slide code in itself \nTemazcal Room: has a reduction formula in it for the pseudostatic\, for the pseudostatic\, which \nTemazcal Room: would be nice. But whether you’re applying the right seismic coefficient. \nTemazcal Room: that normally would be used in this kind of analysis\, because if you did not\, then this was an incredibly conservative \nTemazcal Room: result\, and the other one is\, as Jen already mentioned. I I agree. If \nTemazcal Room: you\, I would suggest that you do look whether there is a more critical \nTemazcal Room: area based on the shear strength\, the actual shear strength\, data that you have. \nTemazcal Room: and if the deformation then following proper procedures\, comes less than I would say\, I agree 2 feet. Then we’re obviously in a reasonably good shape and and a memo to the effect\, explaining what exactly the analysis were probably may suffice. \nTemazcal Room: At least\, that’s that’s my view. Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, thank you\, Nick. \nTemazcal Room: I had a hard time hearing. What Nick was saying. Can you rephrase it? \nTemazcal Room: Maybe broad or \nTemazcal Room: presenter from from your commentary. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, you’re you’re advocating that. It would be wise to check an additional area as a critical section for stability. \nTemazcal Room: That was one. \nTemazcal Room: And the second \nTemazcal Room: comment was that we should \nTemazcal Room: either confirm or modify appropriately the pseudostatic \nTemazcal Room: number in the model. \nTemazcal Room: in in the slope\, stability model in the slope stability model. And are we using the number that we should? Or could we really be using a smaller number? And that’s factored? And I mean\, basically ask double check that you’re using the right numbers in your brain\, macedo \nTemazcal Room: analysis. And and the 3\, rd that’s right. The 3rd one is the the numbers that went into the deformation analysis. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you. Romine\, I’m \nTemazcal Room: I agree at the end of the day\, if the deformation analyses\, that \nTemazcal Room: I guess this board feels \nTemazcal Room: comfortable with the numbers\, and you don’t get any breach or any overtopping. Obviously that that’s that’s the key. \nTemazcal Room: But I like to \nTemazcal Room: emphasize that \nTemazcal Room: from your report. It says the yield is point 1 9\, and even if you use two-thirds of the \nTemazcal Room: lower level\, you get like point 2 2. So you’re above it already. Now it’s important that well\, all of those numbers are in the context of the strength parameters that you have used\, which we have had questions about. So if if you use lower strength \nTemazcal Room: parameters and you get \nTemazcal Room: lower yield\, you will get invariably larger deformations\, and if those deformations are still within the limits that \nTemazcal Room: there are no issues with breach and overtopping\, etc. \nTemazcal Room: Then those \nTemazcal Room: will give at least me a lot more confidence that\, hey? We are good. You have done a lot of good work\, but \nTemazcal Room: I think there are some loose ends that needs to be kind of \nTemazcal Room: tidied up\, so that \nTemazcal Room: at least I can get a good sense that we are good good to go the way you are approaching it. \nTemazcal Room: It’s\, I think\, one of the one of the points I I hear from. That is \nTemazcal Room: not only your interest in understanding the parameters that went into the brain Macedo \nTemazcal Room: displacement\, analysis\, but making sure that those parameters match up with \nTemazcal Room: whatever modifications may be appropriate in the strengths. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, you Jim. \nTemazcal Room: I’ve \nTemazcal Room: think this is probably everyone’s agreeing that something more needs to be resubmitted. There’s a question that remains outstanding whether the Ecrb wants to see that again. \nTemazcal Room: and I’m somewhat up in the air about that somewhat undecided. \nTemazcal Room: I I \nTemazcal Room: heard some of what Nick said\, and \nTemazcal Room: Michael’s summary\, and and remain. And so some. This is \nTemazcal Room: a lot of it’s been said before\, but I think \nTemazcal Room: there’s several things that need to be resubmitted\, one is\, and I’m going to add a couple. \nTemazcal Room: I think\, over that \nTemazcal Room: west\, southwest corner. \nTemazcal Room: Probably a need. A new section needs to be done there. \nTemazcal Room: with bay mud going down to 36 feet. \nTemazcal Room: I think probably the strengths need to be reevaluated and not use a median\, and probably not even a 30 percentile. \nTemazcal Room: but probably closer towards a lower bound less. You want to get section by section and cone by cone\, and use specific sections with specific cones. \nTemazcal Room: one of the things that’s hard to review and to know. I mean in terms of engineering criteria. I think the engineering criteria is that you need to do a robust search. \nTemazcal Room: It’s going to be sure\, to find the critical shape and depth \nTemazcal Room: of of the stability surfaces. \nTemazcal Room: and I think that we can’t know that from what’s been given \nTemazcal Room: so far. \nTemazcal Room: And you know\, if if you were to provide something with \nTemazcal Room: you know\, entry and exit points \nTemazcal Room: or bottom tangent depths that are allowed\, or and so on. \nTemazcal Room: Then that needs to be resubmitted to \nTemazcal Room: Bcdc. \nTemazcal Room: maybe Jen’s okay with looking at at that. Maybe Jen looks at it and says\, Oh\, this is over my head. I need the ecrb to look at it again. \nTemazcal Room: It may be relatively straightforward\, but it’s \nTemazcal Room: but there’s there’s a lot of material that’s going to have to be looked at\, not necessarily super complicated or difficult\, I think. Yeah\, I think \nTemazcal Room: these instructions we’re giving are pretty straightforward. These requests we’re giving are pretty straightforward\, and they’re they’re done\, or they’re not done. \nTemazcal Room: let’s see\, I I think that there’s some problems with the \nTemazcal Room: pink being weaker than the surrounding blue\, and that should be revisited. \nTemazcal Room: I understand that\, you know\, under\, you know\, in the trapezoid\, where you have cones pushing through it and borings and lab data. \nTemazcal Room: Probably your your results are pretty good. \nTemazcal Room: but the way you put that outside\, and where you start that from should not be weaker than the \nTemazcal Room: should not be stronger than the \nTemazcal Room: pink in particular. \nTemazcal Room: Maybe there’s others \nTemazcal Room: with their \nTemazcal Room: and then and then the parameters with for Bray Macedo. I think that needs to be \nTemazcal Room: explained what it’s there. \nTemazcal Room: and it seems a little surprising\, maybe\, for \nTemazcal Room: Rameen\, who’s more familiar with brand Macedo. \nTemazcal Room: that with a yield coefficient of 19\, you get only 9 inches. \nTemazcal Room: I mean I\, \nTemazcal Room: without knowing Brand \nTemazcal Room: Macedo myself. You know\, I got to think that point 19 yield coefficient should give you give you substantially more displacement than that \nTemazcal Room: what’s too much displacement is an interesting question that in itself might \nTemazcal Room: ask for a \nTemazcal Room: ecrb review\, because it’s there’s not a simple\, easy answer. \nTemazcal Room: 9 inches is probably\, I mean\, there’s 2 issues with with displacement. One is\, you know. How low does it get? And when does it get overtopped? And does the hydraulic\, you know. The overtopping frequency increases as soon as you get some \nTemazcal Room: some seismic settlement\, and so you have to jump back on it real quickly and build it back up as soon as you can\, so you don’t have 10 years \nTemazcal Room: of return interval to happen before you know\, with the Lower Cross elevation. \nTemazcal Room: The second thing that’s a little more tricky and more judgmenty\, maybe\, is \nTemazcal Room: at some level\, probably with bay mud 9 inches. You don’t get cracking\, but at 2 feet you start to have to ask about. Are you getting cracking of the embankment materials itself\, and do you \nTemazcal Room: get up to? Not over topping? But you get seepage through these \nTemazcal Room: cracks that you know\, tension cracks that have developed and so on. \nTemazcal Room: So at some point \nTemazcal Room: that gets to be another more complicated issue \nTemazcal Room: that I \nTemazcal Room: that \nTemazcal Room: It’s not worth speculating about all the different ramifications until we. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, find out what the the final numbers are for displacement. \nTemazcal Room: I think those need to be resubmitted\, and \nTemazcal Room: much of that\, at least\, I think \nTemazcal Room: I’d be okay if Jen feels comfortable with it. \nTemazcal Room: I’d be okay with us looking at it. \nTemazcal Room: I I am able to run submittals by less than a quorum of the board to assess if they’re satisfactory. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, I think that’s \nTemazcal Room: yeah. \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, well\, Nick\, you mean Chris has had her hand up. Okay. \nTemazcal Room: I had. Well\, one question for Jen. You mentioned that they were adding 2 feet of free board\, and I don’t think I heard that they were adding free board. I think they were just going to the 11.5 \nTemazcal Room: when you mentioned earlier that maybe 9 inches of deformation was okay\, since they were having adding free board. \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, add\, if I said\, adding\, that was a miss. \nTemazcal Room: a bad choice of words. They maintain 2 2 feet of free board in the ponds. \nTemazcal Room: So that’s my understanding. And and maybe you know\, cargo. You can comment that that the elevation of the water in the pond in the Mss. Ponds doesn’t get above 9 feet elevation. \nTemazcal Room: and if they raised the berms. Then it would. \nTemazcal Room: It would go up to 9.5 feet if they raised the berms to 11.5 feet. \nTemazcal Room: Got it? That’s super helpful. \nTemazcal Room: The other question I had or comment is\, we talked about the locations of the marsh channels\, and so \nTemazcal Room: I looked up. I looked at them\, and then I made my computer die\, so I shouldn’t have been doing that but there are some great maps that show the mark marsh channels\, and even on the 1993 aerial imagery\, if you go through Google Earth\, you can see some of the nice big ones. \nTemazcal Room: And they’re not at the sections\, and there is one that was to the right of Section C\, so I think if they are going to do some analysis. \nTemazcal Room: It would be good to look at the Marsh channel\, so I can send you Jen\, a link to what I was looking at\, so you can share that out. Later. \nTemazcal Room: And then my other question\, is that I was also seeing and looking at the image imagery. The large borrow pits around the inside of the berms. \nTemazcal Room: Cause when they were\, you know\, they excavated material from inside the ponds to build up the berms. \nTemazcal Room: But it didn’t look like in any of the sections that they were analyzing. It included that deep borrow pit\, and I am not a geotechnical engineer. \nTemazcal Room: so I wasn’t sure if that configuration impacts any of the analysis. If we should be considering the fact that there is that deep borrow pit on the pond side of the berms. \nTemazcal Room: So that’s it. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you. Chris Gail. \nTemazcal Room: Alright\, yeah\, we’ve \nTemazcal Room: we’ve made several requests\, some of which are \nTemazcal Room: adding conservatism and a couple of which are potentially \nTemazcal Room: reducing conservatism. \nTemazcal Room: And this is actually a question more for my geotechnical colleagues. \nTemazcal Room: and it has to do with the title Lag. \nTemazcal Room: And right. Now they’ve done it with high tide and low tide. Obviously. \nTemazcal Room: it looks like it’s \nTemazcal Room: but a 30% difference in most cases on the \nTemazcal Room: factors of safety. \nTemazcal Room: And I’m I’m used to looking at this for bulkhead design. But \nTemazcal Room: in a case like this. \nTemazcal Room: do you have a sense of \nTemazcal Room: how conservative or what is the likelihood of \nTemazcal Room: you know. \nTemazcal Room: considering the the low tide on the \nTemazcal Room: what is it? The high tide on the \nTemazcal Room: out inside\, and the low tide on the outside right\, which is obviously the most conservative. \nTemazcal Room: Is that necessary? \nTemazcal Room: They’ve given us results for both. Is that something where \nTemazcal Room: we could reasonably \nTemazcal Room: allow them to \nTemazcal Room: as as they do. These additional analyses \nTemazcal Room: do something either a Median Median tide. \nTemazcal Room: or \nTemazcal Room: consider \nTemazcal Room: no\, no title\, no title\, lag. \nTemazcal Room: In the analysis. Why\, I wanted the opinion of my \nTemazcal Room: geotech colleagues on this one. \nTemazcal Room: I think all of the critical \nTemazcal Room: circles that you looked at were sliding waterward right rather than land. Yeah\, they all were in. In that case low tide is going to always be \nTemazcal Room: conservative. \nTemazcal Room: but that’s again assuming \nTemazcal Room: inside the berm. \nTemazcal Room: The water table is high. Side is is that high tide right? \nTemazcal Room: Which is a \nTemazcal Room: which which assumes there’s a title lag. \nTemazcal Room: And I’m asking\, is that isn’t that what it is? Is that what causes it. I don’t think their title. I I don’t think their title. I think it’s just the static Waterloo. \nandrew barrett: The the pond stays at plus 9 feet\, nav. D. 88 at at all times. Essentially\, besides\, rainfall is my understanding. When the water is pumped out\, then to make it back to be at 9. So inside the pond\, at least in our models\, and the way it was told to us by the car representatives on site. \nandrew barrett: it stays at plus 9 all the time in the pond. \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, so that water level\, the water level inside is not \nTemazcal Room: driven by the tide. It’s driven by something that Cargill’s doing. \nandrew barrett: These ponds are completely removed from being connected. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nandrew barrett: To the tidal effects of the bay. Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. No. Title. Effects. Inside. \nandrew barrett: Trying to keep them that way. \nTemazcal Room: Okay? So then\, so then the then the question would just be. \nTemazcal Room: is it reasonable to \nTemazcal Room: use a meet? Use a Median tide if you will. \nTemazcal Room: or a mean tide. \nTemazcal Room: instead of low or high\, instead of low. \nTemazcal Room: If we\, if we\, if we want to allow \nTemazcal Room: something for reducing conservatism. \nTemazcal Room: question for the question for my colleague. \nTemazcal Room: and start with a low tide. \nTemazcal Room: and if it becomes problematic and expensive\, repairs are called for\, or something like that\, then fine it a little bit. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, just to comment on that. I think I heard that a was it a plus 2 tide was used \nTemazcal Room: plus 2 plus 2 for low tide\, and and that’s is that mean lower low water or Navd? Or are they about the same here? I can’t remember. It’s \nTemazcal Room: project datum. \nTemazcal Room: And Abd\, 88. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. So I mean\, a\, a really low tide is like\, minus 2 or something. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, yeah\, yeah\, just so it’s not. It’s not a \nTemazcal Room: yeah. The mean lower\, low water \nTemazcal Room: is 0. Let’s say that’s close to NAVD. \nTemazcal Room: In the South Bay. This the tide drops well below \nTemazcal Room: mean lower\, low water. That’s \nTemazcal Room: so. If you wanted to be really conservative\, you could add another 4 feet of height to your water difference \nTemazcal Room: which I’m not suggesting\, but I’m not sure. Was it quite as conservative as it may seem? \nTemazcal Room: You think they’re not being too conservative by using. Well\, I don’t know I it just as a coastal person. It made sense to me to assume a low tide on the outside \nTemazcal Room: as a conservative measure. What water elevation were you using \nTemazcal Room: 2 \nTemazcal Room: elevation\, too? Yeah\, in in the remember\, this is in the seismic analysis I’m talking about. So that was part of our reasoning is like a seismic is a distinct\, you know\, momentary event. So \nTemazcal Room: what’s the likelihood of that? Overlapping with an extreme low tide? We used to then we did it with 0 as well. It didn’t change much. We have not run it at minus 2. That would. That would definitely be a compounding of I’m not suggesting that you do. I just wanted to point out that the tide can be a lot lower. \nTemazcal Room: I’d \nTemazcal Room: it’s it’s a it’s it’s on the low end of the title cycle. \nTemazcal Room: It’s not a low tide. \nTemazcal Room: It’s just \nTemazcal Room: it’s a dropping tide. \nTemazcal Room: So \nTemazcal Room: yeah\, it’s below Msl\, and and what they’re getting at is the joint probability. Right? Like\, if you’re looking at a yeah\, 475 year\, I I think I think it’s okay. \nTemazcal Room: Sure\, okay\, \nTemazcal Room: okay\, Nick\, you had you had your hand up earlier. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, Mr. Chairman\, actually\, I was going to make a motion\, but I’ll let go ahead before. \nTemazcal Room: I have my hand up. \nTemazcal Room: Yes\, but Bob has his hand up as well. \nTemazcal Room: I’m I’m I’m going to talk coastal stuff\, so I’ll let if it’s geotech. I think you need to go ahead. \nTemazcal Room: I’m not suggesting that \nTemazcal Room: different levels of earthquake shaking should be used\, but these are not the largest levels either. So there is some inherent. If there is some conservatism somewhere else. We’re not \nTemazcal Room: looking at the largest level of shaking either\, so that I’m I’m not suggesting that you should. But just put it in context as well. \nTemazcal Room: Dima. \nTemazcal Room: continuing the geotax. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, Michael\, I don’t remember whether you mentioned he said anything about cpage. \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, I I actually I all I said about seepage was when I was talking about our \nTemazcal Room: conclusions regarding the effects of keying in the berm. \nTemazcal Room: where we really didn’t see any appreciable strength increase in the berm. \nTemazcal Room: but because of our \nTemazcal Room: observations of the keyed material in place\, it’s apparent level of compaction\, which which is not a huge amount of compaction we discussed\, but \nTemazcal Room: but there is compaction that has occurred that we see\, and our observations of the material used. \nTemazcal Room: that it’s our conclusion that \nTemazcal Room: that should improve seepage \nTemazcal Room: just based on that alone\, you may minimize seepage. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, minimize seepage\, minimize seepage. Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: alright. \nTemazcal Room: that that’s our conclusion based on what we see. \nTemazcal Room: Okay? And then. \nTemazcal Room: from the perspective of the overtopping presentation. \nTemazcal Room: I think you alluded to \nTemazcal Room: the material being used to top the broom. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, I should minimize scarring. \nTemazcal Room: I think it should be pretty resistant to scouring. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, if you had waves hitting it\, for\, you know\, days upon days\, of course\, but \nTemazcal Room: for a short \nTemazcal Room: wave over topping event. I think that with that compacted material \nTemazcal Room: and the gravel servicing\, I think that’s going to resist scour pretty well. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, I mean\, I think maybe. \nTemazcal Room: Now\, what happened where? \nTemazcal Room: I’ve \nTemazcal Room: perhaps not. I think maybe that should be something that you should \nTemazcal Room: formalize as a recommendation to address the issue of of our observations about its apparent resistance to a wave over tapping scour. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: do that? \nTemazcal Room: Thank you\, Jima. Bob. \nTemazcal Room: Yes. So from the coastal side. I’d be interested in seeing \nTemazcal Room: selected profiles of the one or more transects \nTemazcal Room: showing the static and dynamic water levels and other parameters used. \nTemazcal Room: That would be for Jeremy. I don’t know if he’s still on the phone \nTemazcal Room: and then I’d also like to see those values tabulated. Some representative \nTemazcal Room: portion of all the wave run up\, runs \nTemazcal Room: tabulated\, so I can see what the wave heights\, water depths. \nTemazcal Room: dynamic water\, level\, etc\, are. \nTemazcal Room: or a representative number of the calculations. \nTemazcal Room: I I don’t think that’s that hard to do. It’s it is something that Fema did for their flood studies and in their intermediate data submittals. And I think the software probably allows you to do that. \nTemazcal Room: But separate from that. \nTemazcal Room: I wanted to say that I think \nTemazcal Room: Chris and I\, \nTemazcal Room: Chris May and I could \nTemazcal Room: look over what you get on that topic and work with you\, Jen\, or one of us. \nTemazcal Room: If if we didn’t want to bring it back. So I I don’t know that. \nTemazcal Room: That might. That might make it easier. \nTemazcal Room: But I had an overall question\, and I’m sorry I’m not if I’m supposed to be up to speed on this. But my concern with this \nTemazcal Room: situation \nTemazcal Room: is that \nTemazcal Room: the material \nTemazcal Room: is \nTemazcal Room: has salt levels and certain types of salt levels that could adversely affect wildlife \nTemazcal Room: if released into the bay. \nTemazcal Room: That’s what I\, my concern\, has been \nTemazcal Room: more than a life safety. \nTemazcal Room: and I thought I heard somebody say that that’s not really a concern\, because the material the \nTemazcal Room: Mss. \nTemazcal Room: Just \nTemazcal Room: dissolves immediately or something\, and I’m not sure I understand that \nTemazcal Room: is. Is\, am I \nTemazcal Room: wrong to be concerned or wrong to not understand that it dissolves \nTemazcal Room: right away? \nTemazcal Room: Listen to that while we’re here. It depends on the concentration. \nTemazcal Room: So it it depends on how much is is\, you know. It’s a it’s a concentrated salt\, right? So. \nTemazcal Room: But the\, but the concentrations themselves are are quite high because it’s crystallized\, and some of it might be \nTemazcal Room: more soluble than others\, but certainly. \nTemazcal Room: if it was a hundred parts per 1\,000\, which I think is \nTemazcal Room: lower than it is\, and it was liquid\, and that was released. I think that could probably kill fish\, couldn’t it. \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, I I just trying to understand how serious this is if we have a release which is an important consideration in terms of what the criteria are. \nTemazcal Room: and I don’t know the exact levels. But if you put a bowl of this and dissolve the mix sea salts in it\, and then put the fish in it. Yeah\, the fish wouldn’t \nTemazcal Room: wouldn’t be good\, but that’s a big difference than a little bit getting out into the ocean and diluting. \nTemazcal Room: I do remember working on the Napa Salt Ponds. Of course that was way a long time ago\, and I think everyone’s learned a lot more since then\, but we had a pond with up to maybe 100 parts per 1\,000 pond 3\, \nTemazcal Room: and there was quite a bit of concern about diluting that before it was released. \nTemazcal Room: That was one of our major challenges\, and we got through that in 2\,005. \nTemazcal Room: But Newark slew has a number of \nTemazcal Room: protected species in it. \nTemazcal Room: So I I have to admit that I haven’t analyzed this or read everything about that. But what I’ve seen is not really satisfied me. \nTemazcal Room: In terms of my concern\, and we don’t have a biologist on here. So I’m I’m wondering what the implications are. If the implications are serious\, then this could be a risk level that is higher \nTemazcal Room: than we think. \nTemazcal Room: which case\, if it was a new project\, it might have to be designed to a higher standard than what we’re talking about. \nTemazcal Room: So\, on the other hand\, I think \nTemazcal Room: it needs to be managed. Cargo has a lot of experience. \nTemazcal Room: you know. They they should be able to maintain. This is in everybody’s interest. \nTemazcal Room: But I’m \nTemazcal Room: a little unclear on how serious the situation is. \nTemazcal Room: and I don’t know is that generally\, just because I didn’t read everything\, or is there? \nTemazcal Room: No\, just I mean to recap a little bit in the very 1st meeting of the ecrb Ecrb asked Cargill to present information on the risk of \nTemazcal Room: the mixed sea salts on the ecology and human health. \nTemazcal Room: and \nTemazcal Room: instead of providing that information\, Cargill said that instead they would model the most conservative scenarios. \nTemazcal Room: And so that’s that’s where we’re at \nTemazcal Room: the most conservative levy failure or defamation scenarios or release scenarios. \nTemazcal Room: But there’s been no modeling of the okay. \nTemazcal Room: So I I just think that’s an important context. And \nTemazcal Room: for me\, anyway\, if somebody’s worked around the bay a lot on restoration projects and around Newark Slough in particular\, and \nTemazcal Room: sufficient wildlife\, reserve\, etc. \nTemazcal Room: So I just think that’s something \nTemazcal Room: to think about\, and why I would like to \nTemazcal Room: review the wave\, run up information again. \nTemazcal Room: even though I don’t doubt the Cargill’s judgment that some wave overtopping probably has no significance. \nTemazcal Room: And so I appreciate that viewpoint quite a bit. Actually. \nTemazcal Room: sure\, if I could just add the reason we didn’t do the you know environmental assessment\, because. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, the studies indicated that we went to have\, we would not have a breach\, or we would not have mixed. See salt \nTemazcal Room: going out into the pond\, which is why. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, that’s why we didn’t proceed with doing an environmental \nTemazcal Room: assessment. You didn’t think that\, you know there’s no breach. It’s not going to be in a \nTemazcal Room: any ecological impact. \nTemazcal Room: That’s kind of the reason why we didn’t. Do you know\, further environmental. So so I think in that case\, I just want to be more sure that we understand what the wave run up and overtopping potential are\, and \nTemazcal Room: how that feeds into the geotech\, and how the \nTemazcal Room: would apply to our judgment regarding whether or not \nTemazcal Room: the analysis indicates that this somewhat ambiguous failure\, scenario of \nTemazcal Room: possibly some levee erosion or possible breaching and release that’s undefined is likely not to be exceeded. \nTemazcal Room: So that’s kind of where I am. I want to be more careful. \nTemazcal Room: so I would like to see the wave run up \nTemazcal Room: information. \nTemazcal Room: And I would like the geotech to be comfortable with the situations\, too. Recognizing \nTemazcal Room: that impacting ecology is a big deal. \nTemazcal Room: Thanks. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: Think that’s that’s it. Now\, \nTemazcal Room: so it sounds like. \nTemazcal Room: everybody is okay with \nTemazcal Room: additional information and clarification from Cargill. \nTemazcal Room: that we’re okay\, recommending approval of the permit \nTemazcal Room: ending \nTemazcal Room: the middle of clarifications and information \nTemazcal Room: to the satisfaction. Yeah\, right? And and so \nTemazcal Room: I think we would\, Jen\, you’d have to pick \nTemazcal Room: 4 of us who are\, you know\, so we don’t have a quorum issue. \nTemazcal Room: But you know I would suggest \nTemazcal Room: Bob and \nTemazcal Room: Jim \nTemazcal Room: remain\, and \nTemazcal Room: probably \nTemazcal Room: Nick \nTemazcal Room: to\, or maybe\, or maybe\, if somebody’s not interested\, I I would be \nTemazcal Room: a good person to help. \nTemazcal Room: But one of 4 of those 5 names \nTemazcal Room: would be \nTemazcal Room: reviewers of the information and pending that set\, you know\, pending our satisfaction to that\, then we would recommend \nTemazcal Room: approval \nTemazcal Room: of a permit. \nTemazcal Room: Can I? Have a little discussion? Chris did. Were you interested? Or \nTemazcal Room: so it’s 5 for the quorum. So it’s like one coastal\, and which is probably enough. But it could be Chris or I. But if there’s room it might be good at both of us. Okay\, 4. \nTemazcal Room: See yourself. \nTemazcal Room: That’s all right. \nTemazcal Room: But for the coastal part. \nTemazcal Room: anyway\, I can go either way with it. I just wanted to give Chris an opportunity to \nTemazcal Room: to weigh in. See how interested she is. And no\, I’m I’m happy to review the coastal part. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: but I don’t think I think the geotech issues are \nTemazcal Room: our significance. I don’t think they could have both of us if we only have 4 got it. \nTemazcal Room: So either one whatever. Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: okay. So do I have a motion? \nTemazcal Room: Second. \nTemazcal Room: all in favor. \nTemazcal Room: or do we? Do you need to do a \nTemazcal Room: a roll call\, or can we just do a voice? Vote? Jen. \nTemazcal Room: let’s do a roll call just \nTemazcal Room: to be thorough. \nTemazcal Room: we are going to have a roll call vote now on the motion which is \nTemazcal Room: to \nTemazcal Room: request additional information based on our discussion today. \nTemazcal Room: and if it seems like it satisfies \nTemazcal Room: our our concerns. Then the Ecrb will find that the safety issues have been addressed by cargo. \nTemazcal Room: Okay \nTemazcal Room: Roddy washedatch here. Aye. \nTemazcal Room: Jim\, French \nTemazcal Room: Bob Italia. Yes. \nTemazcal Room: Jima Kasali. \nTemazcal Room: Chris May. \nTemazcal Room: Yes. \nTemazcal Room: Rameen Golisarki. Yes. \nTemazcal Room: Nick Sitar. Yes. \nTemazcal Room: Gail Johnson. Yes. \nTemazcal Room: and Patrick Ryan. Yes. \nTemazcal Room: right. Yeses have it. \nTemazcal Room: I have another. So we will. \nTemazcal Room: Jen\, I assume you’re going to put together minutes and the \nTemazcal Room: the request for information. Additional information and clarification will go to Cargill right? And \nTemazcal Room: copied to \nTemazcal Room: the ecrb. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. So what I’ll do is I’ll draft a letter summarizing the information request. \nTemazcal Room: I’ll probably run a draft of it by \nTemazcal Room: couple of people on the ecrb\, maybe the chair\, the chair and vice chair. \nTemazcal Room: and then \nTemazcal Room: and then send it off. \nTemazcal Room: We will all to Cargill. Try to do that in \nTemazcal Room: in a week. \nTemazcal Room: And then this meeting\, which is being recorded\, will also be posted. \nTemazcal Room: On our website at the meeting. Notice? \nTemazcal Room: Right? \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: okay. \nTemazcal Room: okay\, thanks. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. There. A motion to adjourn. \nTemazcal Room: Second\, okay\, all those in favor. \nTemazcal Room: Aye. \nTemazcal Room: okay\, thank you. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you. Cargill. Thank you. \nZOOM TRANSCRIPT \nJenn Hyman\, BCDC: muted. Can everybody mute? \nJenn Hyman\, BCDC: the script that we have? It’s fine fine! \nJenn Hyman\, BCDC: Oh\, I know. Sorry! That’s me. \nTemazcal Room: We can go ahead and start right. Rod \nTemazcal Room: the microphones. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. Good afternoon. Welcome to this hybrid in person and online Ecrb meeting. \nTemazcal Room: My name is Rod Iwashta. I am the chair of the Ecrb\, and I have a few announcements. \nTemazcal Room: Our 1st order of business is to call the roll board. Members\, please \nTemazcal Room: unmute yourselves to respond and then mute yourselves again after responding. Jen\, please call the roll \nTemazcal Room: okay\, and actually make sure to \nTemazcal Room: microphones for \nTemazcal Room: general observation is that \nTemazcal Room: bill that’s compacted to 90% play. Phil \nTemazcal Room: should typically have an unconfined\, compressive strength \nTemazcal Room: I would expect of at least \nTemazcal Room: 6 to 706 to 800. Psf. \nTemazcal Room: almost everything is \nTemazcal Room: less than that. I guess. The top\, the top several feet. \nTemazcal Room: half of it’s like that. \nTemazcal Room: What would you? What was your estimate? 60 packed it to? 95%. It should be \nTemazcal Room: yep. \nTemazcal Room: 1\,500 pso. \nTemazcal Room: Your your 1st estimate was like 6\, 6 to 800 for like a 90% compaction\, I know right? \nTemazcal Room: Mediocre compaction. 90% ish sure \nTemazcal Room: And \nTemazcal Room: and you know\, one of the photos\, and I’m not sure if it was in the presentation or report\, or someplace showed you guys with a sheep’s foot on the end of a \nTemazcal Room: of an excavator which should put this stuff down at. \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, it’s Cape. If this\, if the trench is solid enough\, that should put it down at 95% without much difficulty. \nTemazcal Room: So I’m curious. It look\, it looks like \nTemazcal Room: compaction is \nTemazcal Room: below water\, or \nTemazcal Room: maybe maybe not 90\, probably not 95%. \nTemazcal Room: And it’s not a structural. \nTemazcal Room: Then it should be off the charts with tip resistance\, and it shouldn’t. \nTemazcal Room: Shouldn’t give you a tip. Reason it shouldn’t give you an su out of it. It should give you a \nTemazcal Room: friction angle \nTemazcal Room: as a granular deposit if it’s granular yeah \nTemazcal Room: are you observing relative to its \nTemazcal Room: what? You’d interpret its ability to resist seepage as being \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, I I would I don’t. I don’t think this is a heavily like structural fill level compaction. I don’t think this is a necessarily \nTemazcal Room: a 95% compact in drawing that \nTemazcal Room: our findings bear that out in Bay mud. There is 0 chance that you’re going to get. I mean\, if it’s surrounded by soft levee\, and \nTemazcal Room: that’d make it tough until the last couple of feet. Possibly. But it looks like to us. It’s a it’s probably more likely you’re down in May \nTemazcal Room: 88% range. I would \nTemazcal Room: might have guessed. Maybe \nTemazcal Room: it looks like it’s a \nTemazcal Room: compacted material. \nTemazcal Room: not not not heavily compacted\, but \nTemazcal Room: but compacted and \nTemazcal Room: better controlled\, material wise. But the strengths are 4 to 600 \nTemazcal Room: Psf. \nTemazcal Room: down below. 5 feet they are. That’s a\, you know\, pocket 10 of \nTemazcal Room: or Tsf or something. \nTemazcal Room: I mean isn’t most of the action here\, though. Kind of in the down to 5 feet level \nTemazcal Room: isn’t most of the seepage resistance\, though\, in the upper 5 feet\, I mean\, that’s where we see the biggest benefit here. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, that’s where we see the highest strength\, I should say. \nTemazcal Room: and probably the most compaction activity occurring. \nTemazcal Room: I think once we get below 5\, we’re starting to get into just pre-existing young bay muds. \nTemazcal Room: I’m actually\, frankly\, not very concerned about the strength of the material. I’m just sort of \nTemazcal Room: commenting on. It looks like \nTemazcal Room: compaction is \nTemazcal Room: mediocre. \nTemazcal Room: Okay? \nTemazcal Room: And maybe gotcha fine. Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: right? \nTemazcal Room: Well\, I know. I mean\, I know you’re \nTemazcal Room: your intention is not to make a \nTemazcal Room: structural fit\, and I don’t think that’d be necessary anyway. \nTemazcal Room: excuse me\, Nick would like to speak. \nTemazcal Room: can I? Just. \nTemazcal Room: if I may just add my concern actually would be reactivity of whatever this fill is with salt water. \nTemazcal Room: If the clay happens to be \nTemazcal Room: what we normally want to use for impervious fill\, which is high plasticity clay. Those shrink when exposed to salt water. So actually\, they’re not the best material \nTemazcal Room: to be used. \nTemazcal Room: And so at some point\, somebody looking at it to make sure that you’re basically not putting in material that eventually over a period of time is gonna shrink and cracks are gonna develop. And it’s gonna yeah\, yeah\, shrinkable in the sense that a high salt concentration will shrink to double layers. Yeah. And you know\, it’s a fairly well known phenomenon. \nTemazcal Room: but sometimes we kind of forget that that’s what happened. So I don’t. I don’t think that’s what they have out here\, though you know it’s worth checking that it’s not happening. That’s all. Okay. Yeah\, that’s fair. We we can have some commentary to that. I mean\, based on what we saw\, the fill on the ground and based on what we see it in its \nTemazcal Room: placement in the keys. I I don’t think that’s what they have here. But yeah\, I could. I could imagine a scenario where you brought a material that happened. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: okay\, I’m gonna point out that we’ve got about an hour \nTemazcal Room: left of \nTemazcal Room: meeting time here. If we’re trying to hit our 4 30 \nTemazcal Room: target of getting out of here. \nTemazcal Room: Just just wanted to point that out. Okay\, I am happy to move faster. Actually\, some of this might go fast\, because \nTemazcal Room: this part about the seismic events has not changed. And so maybe I’ll just boil down. Say\, as you remember. \nTemazcal Room: we analyzed for a 50 year earthquake event and a 475 earthquake event and determined peak ground accelerations for both of those \nTemazcal Room: partly based on the soil properties we saw at the site and partly based on the Usgs\, derived compilation of all earthquakes and faults in the region. \nTemazcal Room: so no change there. \nTemazcal Room: and I don’t. I don’t think that was a \nTemazcal Room: I know there’s some discussion last year about \nTemazcal Room: is a 475 year. Earthquake \nTemazcal Room: too big\, bigger than it needs to be for this analysis. Would a 200 year earthquake make more sense \nTemazcal Room: to that? I guess I’d say\, maybe. But why not \nTemazcal Room: see what happens with the bigger one? \nTemazcal Room: alright! Let me let me go through the analyses\, findings of of stability\, because \nTemazcal Room: th this is this is\, I think\, the thing I I’d like to hear input\, on \nTemazcal Room: Here’s the sections we analyzed. \nTemazcal Room: You remember this. \nTemazcal Room: and we analyze for Factor safety\, as we know. \nTemazcal Room: And let me just let me just skip to the \nTemazcal Room: to the results. Under normal static conditions the factors of safety were quite high. \nTemazcal Room: 2.8 9. In this case \nTemazcal Room: these berms are sitting there stable. \nTemazcal Room: Okay? I don’t think that’s a surprise to anybody. The question is\, what happens in an earthquake? \nTemazcal Room: And so I have a couple of slides presenting a 50 year earthquake. \nTemazcal Room: In this. This example is at Section D\, and you see a \nTemazcal Room: all of these analyses basically go through the berm and out past the tow. They’re \nTemazcal Room: slip services that involve \nTemazcal Room: a potential for tow failures of the \nTemazcal Room: of the berm. We analyzed a variety of these. These are always the the critical ones we came up with \nTemazcal Room: in this section. The the berms factor. Safety is\, is above the desired level of 1.1. So that’s good \nTemazcal Room: in the next slide at section CC\, it is below 1.1. Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: So I’m curious. \nTemazcal Room: what type of search constraints you’re doing. \nTemazcal Room: How is this searching\, is it? I mean\, at some point in the draft. \nTemazcal Room: Powerpoint. We had it said\, No\, sir\, no surfaces are are circular\, or all are non-circular\, or something like that\, and I think \nTemazcal Room: I can’t remember what the note was there. All slide models shown are non circular. \nTemazcal Room: That \nTemazcal Room: slide got deleted from the final presentation\, which which is fine \nTemazcal Room: it looks like there are some circular circles. Oh\, definitely\, this looks \nTemazcal Room: a \nTemazcal Room: clearly non-circular looks like a not on typical type of non-circular surface. The \nTemazcal Room: I think it was the next one that \nTemazcal Room: is non circular\, but it looks kind of like a sloppily drawn circle\, or I mean\, it looks like an awkwardly circle. I’m curious what? How this came up with that geometry for the circle. \nTemazcal Room: And and in general. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, what is the \nTemazcal Room: search algorithm that you’re using here? Are you limiting it? Is it circular? Are you limiting? The entry points? Exit points? \nTemazcal Room: I don’t know. Slide 2 as well as I know. Slope W slope W. You can \nTemazcal Room: print out the entry point \nTemazcal Room: limits and the exit point limits\, and the printout\, if you’re allowing it to search to a certain depth maximum\, if that’s what you’re doing. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. And I\, you know\, I \nTemazcal Room: I think if you’re presenting this to \nTemazcal Room: someone to review\, it ought to have \nTemazcal Room: some sort of explanation\, preferably a graphic depiction on every \nTemazcal Room: printout that says\, this is what the slide constraints\, the the slide surface constraints were. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. Yeah. Cause I see\, cause there are a lot of different ways to do it \nTemazcal Room: right\, because there are a lot of different ways to do it. Like you’re saying\, which ones did we use. Right? Yeah\, do we use this? Do we use that\, you know? And my guess is that most of the time circular\, I mean circular needs to be checked. I think \nTemazcal Room: especially if you have soft clay\, the most common expected case is going to be a deep circle that’s going to include most of the embankment and going to take it with it. \nTemazcal Room: especially with seismic. \nTemazcal Room: But \nTemazcal Room: I’m I’m all in favor of \nTemazcal Room: looking at other types of configurations also\, because \nTemazcal Room: other things \nTemazcal Room: can happen. But but somehow\, if if I’m checking this\, I just need to know what the \nTemazcal Room: what the search methodology is. And okay\, I think the most helpful is is if you can give it graphically on the printout. \nTemazcal Room: and then I just know every single time \nTemazcal Room: what you do. I’d rather than a paragraph at the front than I go? Well. \nTemazcal Room: okay. But was it. \nTemazcal Room: does it? Does it allow it go to 36 feet this time\, or is it trunking? Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: okay. \nTemazcal Room: we. I mean\, at the risk of \nTemazcal Room: sounding like\, I’m oversimplifying things. We ran it a bunch of different ways\, right? Circular\, non circular wedges \nTemazcal Room: some other\, I mean. I I could probably ask Andrew to tell us for\, like 15 min about all the things he did\, and maybe that would be worthwhile. But at the very least\, I think what I’m hearing is kind of like your comment on the \nTemazcal Room: tabulation of the properties. It would be helpful as reviewers to understand. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, for this output. That’s the style of \nTemazcal Room: search that was done. \nTemazcal Room: Because if we ran 5 different styles of churches of searches. Why not \nTemazcal Room: tell you the 5 different ones\, and label them each accordingly. Is that \nTemazcal Room: that’s kind of what I’m taking away is that without that it’s just hard for you to understand sometimes what? Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: the implication that we’re saying raffle here on the printout is the most useful\, and it’s\, you know\, for your own internal. Qc\, it’s most useful. \nTemazcal Room: you know for the \nTemazcal Room: people\, that are doing the runs\, you’re trying to keep track of all your burnouts. And yeah. \nTemazcal Room: got to make sure that you’ve got it. And the printout Graphic just shows that you’ve got it \nTemazcal Room: right exactly what it is. \nTemazcal Room: It was a little easier when I was a young engineer doing this myself because I didn’t. I couldn’t do 100 runs a day. I did like 2 runs a day\, so I didn’t have as many\, but I understand\, understand. Give. It would be helpful to understand. \nTemazcal Room: And I think that I\, you know. \nTemazcal Room: referring back to some previous discussions. I think there’s \nTemazcal Room: some questions about the blue strength profile being stronger than the pink strength\, profile\, right? Which I think is going to potentially change \nTemazcal Room: many\, most all of the \nTemazcal Room: all of these results. But \nTemazcal Room: okay\, thank you\, Jim. Nick. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: couple of questions. I don’t know if this is a typo or not\, but \nTemazcal Room: it for this OLE. Level or lower level\, and one of these \nTemazcal Room: I think \nTemazcal Room: it is. It’s \nTemazcal Room: it may be the next one. \nTemazcal Room: Are you looking at the oh\, yeah\, it says. \nTemazcal Room: this is. \nTemazcal Room: I guess. PGA point 3 7. Is that it? I pull? \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, is that a typo? Or it’s supposed to be point 3 4. \nTemazcal Room: Not that. Oh\, you’re talking about here? The yeah\, the PGA that’s applied. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. Because in the previous slides it says\, you know\, the only level is point 3 4. Just curious. If \nTemazcal Room: this was \nTemazcal Room: so\, I’m sorry. Hold on. Yeah. I want to go back. Yeah\, right there point 3 4G\, and your point is\, why does this one show point 3 7 g\, not that it’s a big difference. But but \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, yeah. \nTemazcal Room: I. \nTemazcal Room: And the other question is\, are you applying a pseudo static of like? Let’s say in this case\, point 3 7\, \nTemazcal Room: or are you reducing it for the slope. Stability analysis. \nTemazcal Room: because that’s the PGA. That’s the peak value. \nTemazcal Room: Andrew\, correct me if I’m wrong. The these are pseudo static analyses. \nTemazcal Room: So I believe we batcher the PGA accordingly\, for a pseudostatic \nTemazcal Room: enough\, so. \nandrew barrett: You didn’t apply any factoring for these. We started off with the analysis with a 2 thirds factor and then \nandrew barrett: eventually move to the full PGA value \nandrew barrett: conversations at our last meeting. \nTemazcal Room: Andrew\, do you? Do you remember the point? The reason for the point 3 7 here instead of a point 3 4? \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, if you’re sleeping. \nandrew barrett: As it is. \nandrew barrett: I I think that I don’t know. I don’t think it would make much of a difference to be honest\, but I I’m not sure if that’s just a \nandrew barrett: in error. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. Okay. \nTemazcal Room: In any event\, \nTemazcal Room: did that answer your question? Well. \nTemazcal Room: not quite. Let me. \nTemazcal Room: I’m curious. If this number is \nTemazcal Room: 2 thirds. Is this mislabeled by any chance as being OLE. \nTemazcal Room: It’s definitely not. Cle\, it’s definitely not the larger one. \nTemazcal Room: What? What is hold on a second? \nTemazcal Room: Precisely. \nTemazcal Room: then. \nTemazcal Room: this point 3 7. \nTemazcal Room: I \nTemazcal Room: I don’t know what this is. \nTemazcal Room: It’s a little higher point 3 4\, right? What is it like? 2 thirds of point 5. \nTemazcal Room: But it’s mislabeled as OLE. \nTemazcal Room: You follow what I’m saying. Yeah\, I I do. \nTemazcal Room: I know that’s not what happened\, but I understand why you’re asking that question. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, 2 thirds is more like point 33 and point 34. And this is point 3 37. \nTemazcal Room: I’m just. \nTemazcal Room: We’re trying to follow what what’s being done? \nTemazcal Room: Well\, and part part of the reason\, I say\, that’s because when we go to the next ones\, you do see a higher one for the contingency level event\, right? \nTemazcal Room: In fact\, since we’re talking about it \nTemazcal Room: like\, for example\, when I go ahead a couple of slides\, there’s a point 5. So that’s what you’d expect to see from the earlier statement of PGA. Right? The intention is for that to show the PGA \nTemazcal Room: just what is the PGA that we derive from the \nTemazcal Room: the earlier evaluation. \nTemazcal Room: I understand. But what is your pseudo static \nTemazcal Room: value that you’re putting for your slope? Stability \nTemazcal Room: analysis\, is it? Are you using full PGA\, or are you reducing it by \nTemazcal Room: some number? \nTemazcal Room: I think we’re Andrew again. Correct me wrong. I think we’re using the full number. \nandrew barrett: Using the. \nTemazcal Room: The number we’re using. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: so why is the 1.3 7 instead of point 3? I’m I’m frankly not sure but the intention is to just \nTemazcal Room: plug in the PGA. Okay\, so that’s \nTemazcal Room: bully. All right. Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you\, Rameen Nick. \nTemazcal Room: but \nTemazcal Room: so hopefully you can hear me now. I. I like this picture because \nTemazcal Room: it becomes non circular\, simply as a function of your layering that that’s a very normal thing that will happen. \nTemazcal Room: If you have a gradually increasing strength with depth\, then you get a completely different failure surface. \nTemazcal Room: So\, as you can see\, it follows the layer that where you have a transition in strength. Okay? So you have actually predetermined the failure surface in here. \nTemazcal Room: That that that is a problem. \nTemazcal Room: Say say that you\, predetermined by by your layering\, you have predetermined where that thing will is going to flatten out. \nTemazcal Room: See what I mean? \nTemazcal Room: Well\, I mean\, I see how our layering dictates where? Well\, that’s what I mean. So you predetermined by by where you put the layer boundary\, you have actually determined where the bottom of this thing’s going to be. If you moved it lower down\, it would move lower down. That’s what happens in these non\, so non circle analysis\, which I’ve done a lot. \nTemazcal Room: But I have a question which really follows up \nTemazcal Room: 1st of all. \nTemazcal Room: Oh. \nTemazcal Room: I don’t know how to put it. \nTemazcal Room: Has anyone here actually checked slide against any other code\, or even a hand calculation where it actually does all of this correctly. \nTemazcal Room: I. \nTemazcal Room: Many years ago I had experience with rock science\, where they were very loose \nTemazcal Room: with their \nTemazcal Room: codes. \nTemazcal Room: and I have not used them since. \nTemazcal Room: For that reason I have not gone back\, presumably over the years they’ve improved. \nTemazcal Room: But I have not been impressed by a QR. Qa. Qc. Their own. What? What software were you carrying issues with? We were using slide and for for some other purposes\, and things weren’t quite right. So we use other software. I’m simply asking\, has anybody \nTemazcal Room: my colleagues done any Qa. Qc. Normally\, when you adopt the code. Of course you trust the \nTemazcal Room: people who published it. Sure. \nTemazcal Room: but \nTemazcal Room: I generally run it against something that I know\, just to make sure that it \nTemazcal Room: gives me the results in any case. But looking at the seismic analysis you know\, I think\, what my colleagues were asking. You know\, Magdi\, Cnc. If you go back to it is those are the reduction coefficients that people take the \nTemazcal Room: maximum acceleration\, whatever you come up\, and then you come up with a pseudostatic\, coefficient\, based on the thickness of the profile\, and so on. And so I guess that’s the question\, because\, applying full point 5G. Of course \nTemazcal Room: you can look at it. It’s conservative. \nTemazcal Room: But\, on the other hand\, I don’t think it really gives the right response\, and so puts you in a situation where you’re presenting point 7 5 \nTemazcal Room: factor of safety\, which\, in fact\, may be real underestimation of what you have. So I would suggest. Take a look at how \nTemazcal Room: you derive the seismic coefficient for this. \nTemazcal Room: It’s not PGA. \nTemazcal Room: If if anything\, we’re overestimating the seismic forces\, we’re absolutely\, I think we’re being either corporately conservative or we’re being overly concerned. If if you’re applying\, if you’re applying full PGA\, then yes\, you’re being very conservative\, conservative on a \nTemazcal Room: in a way that I don’t think anybody here would suggest that you should be. \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, why. \nTemazcal Room: okay\, thank you\, Nick. \nTemazcal Room: Jima\, you had something. \nTemazcal Room: Are you done\, or you still have some more. \nTemazcal Room: I I have one more part to discuss\, which is the deformation analysis. \nTemazcal Room: Oh. \nTemazcal Room: okay. Why don’t you finish that? Okay\, yeah. Let’s look\, because I think we have these examples where the factor safety is less than 1.1. \nTemazcal Room: Maybe we’re being overly conservative. \nTemazcal Room: probably are. I mean\, we want to purposely be conservative. \nTemazcal Room: But we got these factors\, maybe below 1.1\, particularly in the 475 year earthquake. \nTemazcal Room: Frankly\, I like using that earthquake at all is pretty darn conservative\, but it’s appropriate for us to look at it. But what does that mean? What is what is this telling us about the behavior of the berm in this \nTemazcal Room: large earthquake. So \nTemazcal Room: to understand that we performed a \nTemazcal Room: displacement analysis\, not not a \nTemazcal Room: real fancy one. \nTemazcal Room: We all know you could do that some very advanced ways. You could do full models. We didn’t do that. We \nTemazcal Room: looked at. Oh\, yeah\, I’m sorry. Here’s the examples in yellow\, where we have factors\, safety less than 1.1. \nTemazcal Room: They are in cross sections B and C\, \nTemazcal Room: and they are mostly in the large earthquake\, and in one case in the smaller earthquake. But what do those tell us? So? Let me\, let me tell you what we came up with there and then. I think we can\, you know\, talk about \nTemazcal Room: things. \nTemazcal Room: deformation analysis. \nTemazcal Room: We used \nTemazcal Room: an established \nTemazcal Room: Co available code. Andrew can cite it. I’m not going to try to state the name of it at the moment\, but I will tell you it is a \nTemazcal Room: sliding block model. \nTemazcal Room: but classic\, you know\, fairly simple model that \nTemazcal Room: takes the weight of the berm. The frictional force of the base of the berm applies \nTemazcal Room: the acceleration from the earthquake to it\, and determines. How much is it going to move if the Thatcher safety is low\, how much is the berm going to move? Is it going to completely move out of the way\, or what is going to happen. \nTemazcal Room: and we ran it for the worst case we had\, which is a section CC. In a low tide. \nTemazcal Room: and the answer we get from that is that it will move \nTemazcal Room: along the slip plane 2 to 9 inches \nTemazcal Room: with 5 inches\, being the \nTemazcal Room: the best estimate of movement. \nTemazcal Room: That’s a result I wanted to make sure to put in front of everybody within the board and \nTemazcal Room: get reactions to\, because \nTemazcal Room: when we see that answer come up. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. The factors of safety are sometimes. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, well\, below 1.1\, but \nTemazcal Room: that is not an amount of deformation that is going to mean \nTemazcal Room: a berm breach. I know ultimately\, when you boil this all down. This\, the whole purpose of this analysis we’re doing is are the berms gonna hold up. \nTemazcal Room: And we’re our conclusion is even in these earthquake events. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, there will be some \nTemazcal Room: deformation\, but not enough to affect their ability to hold the mixed sea salts. And it seems like\, isn’t that really the bottom line of all this analysis \nTemazcal Room: is. \nTemazcal Room: will they hold up \nTemazcal Room: so right? And and so you’re talking about horizontal movement. I guess \nTemazcal Room: the question is\, is there vertical settlement as well? Yeah. So the way I would describe this movement is when I say along the slip service. I mean\, it’s like \nTemazcal Room: vertical atop and horizontal out at the toe. So it’s some of both. \nTemazcal Room: is is what we would imagine. \nandrew barrett: As an aside before that discussion keeps going. It’s the brain. Macedo method\, 2\,018\, I believe\, is the \nandrew barrett: year that that paper was published I could look it up specifically. It’s the modified Newmark sliding block analysis that uses \nandrew barrett: earthquake analysis from actual earthquakes. Thank you. \nandrew barrett: Yep. \nTemazcal Room: Good. \nTemazcal Room: So we we would interpret it. That’s why we put this little picture of an example slip service on the slide that we’d interpret as moving \nTemazcal Room: 2 to 9 inches along that surface. \nTemazcal Room: and and we don’t see that as being something that affects the \nTemazcal Room: robustness or \nTemazcal Room: retaining ability of the of the berms. \nTemazcal Room: So to us all this said that to us seems like that’s feels like that’s the ultimate conclusion. Did you ever \nTemazcal Room: so? What method did you use for doing the deformation analysis? \nTemazcal Room: what what Andrew just described is is a is a codified version of the sliding block \nTemazcal Room: analysis. The Newmark sliding block analysis. But whose implementation of that. \nTemazcal Room: Andrew\, can you say that one more time. \nandrew barrett: Brain Macedo Method. \nTemazcal Room: Say it again. \nTemazcal Room: Say that again\, Andrew\, I’m gonna pull up the statement in our \nTemazcal Room: Brian macedo. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, yeah. \nTemazcal Room: is that \nTemazcal Room: meaningful? \nTemazcal Room: Well\, after what you said about rock science. Goodness. \nTemazcal Room: Oh. \nTemazcal Room: okay. \nTemazcal Room: Brian\, what about Brian Macedo? \nTemazcal Room: No\, I see. \nTemazcal Room: you know. If we I will say I mean\, if we were. We’ve been using slide 2 forever\, I mean\, and if \nTemazcal Room: I have not yet been like Oh\, my gosh! What is going on? If we had had a moment\, even one moment. We’re like what is going on with this thing. I think we’d be digging in. Sounds like you did\, but \nTemazcal Room: I have not had that yet. \nTemazcal Room: anyway\, that that I I skipped over some slides in there. But \nTemazcal Room: that’s that’s what we’ve come up with. I mean\, this is our summary. \nTemazcal Room: Our impression is\, and and recognizing yes\, for sure\, we could \nTemazcal Room: go into further analyses. Further data. We could do some more critical sections\, certainly run some more ones like it. \nTemazcal Room: Location 8\, 9. \nTemazcal Room: Probably. Maybe we find low factors of safety there\, too. \nTemazcal Room: wouldn’t shock me\, I suppose. But \nTemazcal Room: ultimately this deformation analysis seems to us like\, that’s what’s really \nTemazcal Room: going on. \nTemazcal Room: And and I and I\, I also recognize that earthquakes that have been experienced at this facility in the past are not 475 year events. We know that there have been earthquakes. There’s 1\,989 \nTemazcal Room: that was not at that size\, but \nTemazcal Room: that is a data point\, and there was no deformation in that earthquake. So that does give us\, I think\, some \nTemazcal Room: confirmation that we’re using \nTemazcal Room: appropriate values for this. \nTemazcal Room: so I almost feel like that in some ways might end up being more important than delving further into what the factors safety are. Yes. \nTemazcal Room: can you talk about the the low tide? Elevation that you selected\, how you selected it? And if \nTemazcal Room: power \nTemazcal Room: sensitive\, the deformation results are to that number. Yup \nTemazcal Room: we selected 2 feet for our low tide. For most of these analyses not 0 feet. We. We recognize low tide goes below 2 every day. \nTemazcal Room: But our 1st batch of analyses use 2 simply because we’re compounding probabilities. We’re talking about what happens during an earthquake\, which is\, you know\, a 4 min event. \nTemazcal Room: and the likelihood of the earthquake occurring during the \nTemazcal Room: tiny part of the day when the low tide occurs\, we said\, Okay\, let’s \nTemazcal Room: 2. Seems like a more reasonable expectation of what might happen. So we ran a bunch of these with 2\, \nTemazcal Room: but also recognize that there’s interest \nTemazcal Room: from from everybody and understand? Okay\, you know\, that’s great. But what about like a really low tide\, which is really like more like 0? So we did a comparison. It made no effect whatsoever on the deformation. It made a very marginal effect on the factors of safety\, but not even enough to \nTemazcal Room: to round out to the numbers shown in our table. So whether or not it’s a 0 or a 2 foot low. Tide doesn’t really affect what we came up with\, but those are the numbers that that we used in our analyses. \nTemazcal Room: I have a question. \nTemazcal Room: This relates to the previous \nTemazcal Room: presentation that \nTemazcal Room: run up goes up to elevation 11 or something like that. Okay\, is that elevation that you’re kind of considering as being the the berm. Or are you using today’s elevation? We’re using today’s elevations. \nTemazcal Room: We didn’t. We didn’t go in and make them 11.5. \nTemazcal Room: In other words. \nTemazcal Room: I don’t \nTemazcal Room: really expect it would do much to change them to 11.5. \nTemazcal Room: But we use the elevations that are current. \nTemazcal Room: How much higher would 11 and a half be \nTemazcal Room: from current television? A fraction of a foot \nTemazcal Room: fraction of a foot. Okay. \nTemazcal Room: thank you. \nTemazcal Room: Dima. All right. \nTemazcal Room: So thank you for your \nTemazcal Room: presentation. \nTemazcal Room: I don’t remember whether you had told us this \nTemazcal Room: during your previous presentation or not. But I’m just curious about \nTemazcal Room: the colored section \nTemazcal Room: of the broom and the pink and the \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, how did you get the configuration of those \nTemazcal Room: 3rd section. \nTemazcal Room: Let me go back to the figure that shows one of those examples. \nTemazcal Room: yeah. So the here’s a good one. \nTemazcal Room: I wouldn’t say there was any science behind. How we exactly defined the trapezoid that you see other than we just wanted to have a trapezoid\, we said\, let’s just have a trapezoidal distinction between \nTemazcal Room: what’s under the berm and what is not under the berm. \nTemazcal Room: and the distinction. There\, again\, is \nTemazcal Room: what we have used under the berm is strictly from our analysis of the Cpt data. \nTemazcal Room: whereas what’s outside of that trapezoid \nTemazcal Room: is a an attempt to estimate \nTemazcal Room: what we would. \nTemazcal Room: the the deeper material layer unaffected by the berm. It it is. It is an engineering judgment attempt to estimate that. \nTemazcal Room: There has been a suggestion that might some of our values be\, in fact. \nTemazcal Room: making that \nTemazcal Room: stronger than what’s under the berm \nTemazcal Room: that could be. I I’m not sure what my answer that is at the moment\, but that is\, that’s that was our intention with the analysis. And that’s that’s what the trapezoid means. And that’s how we developed it. So it was strictly based on Strand\, not on \nTemazcal Room: some historical information on what \nTemazcal Room: it’s. It’s all strength and just our interpretation that there would be an an area \nTemazcal Room: of \nTemazcal Room: soil \nTemazcal Room: affected by the berm’s presence. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: thank you. \nTemazcal Room: So from my perspective\, you know\, based on the presentation\, the thing that I’m \nTemazcal Room: really concerned about is \nTemazcal Room: finding the critical section. \nTemazcal Room: right? And I think the way you did it was based on \nTemazcal Room: what the geometry is. Yeah\, based on lighter data \nTemazcal Room: and measurements that you took in the field. \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, I think what Nick said \nTemazcal Room: is really the most important aspect of this. \nTemazcal Room: because \nTemazcal Room: if you don’t find the critical \nTemazcal Room: section \nTemazcal Room: right. \nTemazcal Room: you you might not be representing what the risk really is\, because it’s a long \nTemazcal Room: linear structure. And so I would echo what Nick had previously said\, which is. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, use the data close to \nTemazcal Room: this section \nTemazcal Room: that you have picked \nTemazcal Room: rather than the average. \nTemazcal Room: Right? I think. Now\, yeah\, that’s that’s going to be very important. \nTemazcal Room: The other thing that right\, I think you should also use in terms of \nTemazcal Room: finding the critical section. \nTemazcal Room: because you are picking geometry. And he said\, if it’s narrower. \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, that’s likely to be \nTemazcal Room: critical\, because\, you know\, it’s narrower\, like\, the berm is narrower. Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: But you could also use. Look at the strength. \nTemazcal Room: Right? Yeah\, you could go to sections and see in this area there’s a concentration \nTemazcal Room: of soft material\, even though the geometry \nTemazcal Room: might be \nTemazcal Room: logic\, right? \nTemazcal Room: So so you have to look at it \nTemazcal Room: from that perspective \nTemazcal Room: as well. \nTemazcal Room: The other thing which caught my eye \nTemazcal Room: really is the the weird shape \nTemazcal Room: of the burn. \nTemazcal Room: you know. I mean\, I was kind of looking at the firm. I’m wondering what made them ship there. \nTemazcal Room: The sheep. \nTemazcal Room: the way it is. \nTemazcal Room: You know the way that the way it’s shown in our model \nTemazcal Room: or the way it really is. \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, in the photos. Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: I’m kind of wondering \nTemazcal Room: why would \nTemazcal Room: they build a firm \nTemazcal Room: and kind of shape it the way they did \nTemazcal Room: what is\, what is what is about the shape that is weird? Well\, I’m I’m I’m just looking at. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, you want to build a you want to build a firm right? \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, normally \nTemazcal Room: right\, you would expect that. \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, you want to make the things straight. You know there are these segments to it. \nTemazcal Room: So I’m kind of wondering whether this was built in stages. \nTemazcal Room: you know. Maybe there was a time ago\, right? I don’t know whether you have any historical information. Was this all built? You know there was a plan. \nTemazcal Room: and the plan was that sense should be shaped \nTemazcal Room: the way it is. \nTemazcal Room: So so you’re talking. You’re talking about the curves. Yeah\, how it curves around and everything. Yeah\, I don’t. \nTemazcal Room: I don’t know why they built them the way they did. I mean\, yeah. \nTemazcal Room: yeah\, yeah\, because they’re 100 years ago is when when they built these. Yeah\, because sometimes what happens is\, maybe the initial plan was to build something small\, and there was something small. \nTemazcal Room: and he decided to expand it. \nTemazcal Room: So you know\, from \nTemazcal Room: where the previous one ended. You know. \nTemazcal Room: you want to hit the roadway so \nTemazcal Room: it ends up being shaped like that. \nTemazcal Room: But if that’s the case\, I mean. What would happen is that you have \nTemazcal Room: sections \nTemazcal Room: of the berm \nTemazcal Room: which are different by virtue \nTemazcal Room: of age. \nTemazcal Room: Right? \nTemazcal Room: And so I mean\, it kind of made me curious that \nTemazcal Room: somehow. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, like that \nTemazcal Room: bad section. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, close to them at all. \nTemazcal Room: What was that for? \nTemazcal Room: Because\, I think \nTemazcal Room: you know\, looking at the shape \nTemazcal Room: you know\, it might drive you into saying. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, maybe this\, then the site development history. \nTemazcal Room: It’s also an important factor \nTemazcal Room: in determining \nTemazcal Room: what is the most critical section \nTemazcal Room: you know. If yeah\, I understand behind it\, I mean\, I can understand it \nTemazcal Room: but it’s kind of. \nTemazcal Room: you know. \nTemazcal Room: pick my curiosity as to \nTemazcal Room: well\, it’s \nTemazcal Room: it it. \nTemazcal Room: you know. Why would anyone build the firm the way it is? \nTemazcal Room: It’s it’s a little bit like our \nTemazcal Room: I I will tell you. You know\, when we were out there at all these places\, looking and measuring this berm\, if we had seen a stretch of berm that was distinctly different than another stretch of berm. \nTemazcal Room: We would have said\, Wait a minute. \nTemazcal Room: maybe that needs to be analyzed separately\, because that’s him. But we didn’t really see that I mean\, it was pretty consistent throughout. I know the \nTemazcal Room: the\, the alignment of it’s kind of odd and changes a lot\, but the berm itself didn’t change enough for us to see anything that would prompt us to \nTemazcal Room: analyze that specifically. But we did. We did look for it\, and it was a little bit like what we did with all the \nTemazcal Room: Cpt logs again we’re like\, are there places out here where the soil is worse or softer? \nTemazcal Room: And we didn’t see that regionally. I I know there’s been discussion here\, and i 1 of the takeaways from this discussion. I feel like is. \nTemazcal Room: maybe we should analyze over at Cpt. 8 and 9. Maybe that’s a little batch of yeah. A situation that\, you know\, warrants its own analysis may maybe so\, although I will say one advantage of having done all these analysis. I can offer a prediction of what we will find. \nTemazcal Room: If we do that I will. I will bet \nTemazcal Room: I’ll bet a Starbucks card \nTemazcal Room: we will find a factor safety of like point 7\, \nTemazcal Room: and we’ll run a deformation analysis. It’ll be like 2 to 9 inches. I think that’s probably what we’re gonna learn. Yeah. And so we’re gonna have to reckon with. What do we all make of that\, you know\, is. \nTemazcal Room: No\, I mean I I am \nTemazcal Room: okay with what you’ve done. I think you’ve made an effort. \nTemazcal Room: You know you’ve done your due diligence. \nTemazcal Room: and the only thing that I would suggest \nTemazcal Room: be done is to kind of look more closely at the issue of \nTemazcal Room: what is the critical section. \nTemazcal Room: because ultimately the behavior of this\, then\, is going to be in 3 dimensions. Right? \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, even if you have a weak section. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, when this thing is subjected to an earthquake is going to respond as a system rather than the \nTemazcal Room: you know the section that you have true \nTemazcal Room: 3 dimensional effects\, you know\, compete. Your due diligence is to kind of look at it \nTemazcal Room: a little bit more in terms of \nTemazcal Room: is there any either due to site\, development\, history. \nTemazcal Room: or the strength of the material you’re encountering is there potentially a more critical section \nTemazcal Room: than what you have looked at. So \nTemazcal Room: you know\, when we 1st got involved with Cargill on this question. We were prepared with Cargill team to look at 3 like\, if this firm is going to breach\, how big an area is gonna breach\, and what are the 3 dimensional effects? We were all prepared to do that until our analysis suggested \nTemazcal Room: it isn’t actually gonna breach. So once we found that we’re like\, okay. Well. \nTemazcal Room: suddenly\, there isn’t such a need for that sort of 3 dimensional analysis. Now\, we’re faced with this amount of deformation\, and \nTemazcal Room: there are surely 3 dimensional\, you know\, effects going on with that\, too. But \nTemazcal Room: given the magnitude and scale of it\, it seems like we’re kind of getting our answer now\, yeah\, well\, I mean\, the 3 dimensional response is actually going to be better. It’ll probably make the numbers even less. Yeah\, exactly. \nTemazcal Room: you know. And you know\, but I think that \nTemazcal Room: the one piece is to \nTemazcal Room: look at the sections\, you know\, in terms of strength\, not there’s a geometry. \nTemazcal Room: and see whether that would drive you \nTemazcal Room: into looking at a particular section. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, okay\, I understand. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you. Gma. \nTemazcal Room: See\, Romaine\, you got your hand up. \nTemazcal Room: Yes\, thank you. \nTemazcal Room: I was wondering because I was looking your report\, and it said that the yield acceleration is like point 1 9 \nTemazcal Room: I I’m curious what parameters you used in the beret and macedo \nTemazcal Room: approach \nTemazcal Room: to get the deformations you’re getting. \nTemazcal Room: It looks a little low to me\, but \nTemazcal Room: in fairness the deformation does\, or the yield. No\, no\, the yield. I’m I’m okay with the yield. I think the deformation numbers look a little low to me. \nTemazcal Room: So \nTemazcal Room: yeah\, for that yield \nTemazcal Room: and the materials that we have at at the site. So \nTemazcal Room: yeah\, 7\, 5. Or I mean\, even the 4 75 is \nTemazcal Room: basically a big San Andreas \nTemazcal Room: event. If you\, or pay or 2\, but 7 and a half or 8 doesn’t matter which one. But I’m curious \nTemazcal Room: what parameters you used in your Bra Msato evaluation to come up with \nTemazcal Room: deformations you came up with\, okay. \nTemazcal Room: okay\, \nTemazcal Room: I I get that and we can provide. We can provide that. I mean\, we could kind of walk through with the team. Here we could provide a separate\, follow up the kind of details\, allow folks to kind of dive in and see it. \nTemazcal Room: But yeah\, I get I I understand your takeaway is like you were a little surprised. The numbers were what they were. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: Alright. We we can. \nTemazcal Room: We can give more detail behind the inputs to the bray. Macedo. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: thank you\, Michael. \nTemazcal Room: Very good. Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: Now we go to public comment before Ec. Further Ecrb discussion. \nTemazcal Room: So for members of the public. \nTemazcal Room: if you would like to speak today\, we request that you \nTemazcal Room: only provide comments or questions specific to the questions given today or the presentations given today. \nTemazcal Room: If you would like to speak\, you will need to do so in one of 3 ways. \nTemazcal Room: If you are here in person. \nTemazcal Room: Please raise your hand so we can call on you\, at which time you may come forward\, and \nTemazcal Room: I’ll have a lectern\, but you can come forward to speak. \nTemazcal Room: If you are attending on the Zoom Platform on your computer\, please raise your virtual hand and zoom. \nTemazcal Room: You may do this by clicking on the hand at the bottom of your screen. \nTemazcal Room: If you are attending via phone\, you must press Star 9 on your keypad to raise your hand to make a comment. \nTemazcal Room: and star 6 to unmute or mute yourself. \nTemazcal Room: We will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order they are raised during the public comment period. \nTemazcal Room: Starting with anyone present in person \nTemazcal Room: when called upon\, you’ll be unmuted so that you can share your comments. \nTemazcal Room: Please state your name and affiliation. At the beginning of your remarks \nTemazcal Room: you have a limit of 3 min to speak. \nTemazcal Room: as at any public meeting. Please keep your comments respectful. \nTemazcal Room: We are here to listen to everyone who wishes to address the meeting. \nTemazcal Room: but\, as always\, we ask that everyone act in a civil manner. \nTemazcal Room: hate speech threats made directly or indirectly\, and abusive language will not be tolerated. \nTemazcal Room: and anyone who fails to follow these guidelines\, or exceeds the established 3 min without permit\, or 3 min limit without permission \nTemazcal Room: will be muted. \nTemazcal Room: Margie\, are there any hands raised? \nTemazcal Room: I do not see any. \nTemazcal Room: No\, I do not see any hand. \nTemazcal Room: That is the end of public comment. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: So let’s \nTemazcal Room: return to board discussion. \nTemazcal Room: think there were a lot of questions today\, and and \nTemazcal Room: for the most part they’ve been answered\, but it sounds like \nTemazcal Room: there are some \nTemazcal Room: additional pieces of information or analysis that \nTemazcal Room: are going to be required. And I’m just \nTemazcal Room: wondering. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, and or I think the question to the board right now is. \nTemazcal Room: is there a path forward without a further \nTemazcal Room: meeting? \nTemazcal Room: Is there an information package or a calculation package \nTemazcal Room: that Cargill can provide to us. \nTemazcal Room: That satisfies everyone’s. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, comments. And I think \nTemazcal Room: and so I put that that question to the board here. \nTemazcal Room: I’d like to see some clarification of the \nTemazcal Room: set up and run up analysis. And I could be more specific \nTemazcal Room: if that’s helpful to the people. \nTemazcal Room: and then I also had a question\, for \nTemazcal Room: I also had a a more general question to \nTemazcal Room: I think to Janet\, to the staff. \nTemazcal Room: I don’t know when we should do that. But to answer your question\, I think I’d like to see more on the way. Run up \nTemazcal Room: still. Water analysis. Okay\, yeah\, thank you. \nTemazcal Room: Thanks. \nTemazcal Room: And Jen\, I I assume you’ve been taking lots and lots of notes. And so the concerns of the Board of the questions. \nTemazcal Room: Do you think that that can be. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, summarized and and turned into a request for Cargill to respond to\, or \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, like cause\, the thing\, I I \nTemazcal Room: what I don’t I mean I. \nTemazcal Room: If we have to have another meeting\, we have to have another meeting. But if the if the board is \nTemazcal Room: satisfied that in general or not in general\, that they are satisfied \nTemazcal Room: that\, you know conditions are being met\, or the calculations and the analyses are \nTemazcal Room: or proper. \nTemazcal Room: with a few adjustments and clarifications. \nTemazcal Room: You know I think we \nTemazcal Room: I’m happy to go that way. But \nTemazcal Room: you know again I’m asking the board here if \nTemazcal Room: if there is something that is \nTemazcal Room: troubling you enough to the point where. \nTemazcal Room: you know you think we need to come back? \nTemazcal Room: Well\, I guess maybe a question could be\, for the Board to think about is what kind of deformation \nTemazcal Room: would be a deformation that would be a concern. \nTemazcal Room: So\, you know. \nTemazcal Room: is is 9 inches a concern. \nTemazcal Room: Is it something that they can address through inspections and maintenance \nTemazcal Room: in this? In the worst case\, scenario\, and \nTemazcal Room: and perhaps \nTemazcal Room: you know\, because they do \nTemazcal Room: endeavor to have 2 feet of free board. \nTemazcal Room: If their deformations don’t exceed 2 feet\, then perhaps \nTemazcal Room: The risk is very low that there could be a release \nTemazcal Room: and so we could ask them\, for \nTemazcal Room: you know\, it sounds like there’s a concern about how the \nTemazcal Room: the bay muds outside of the zone\, under the berms\, were treated with their strength parameters\, and also \nTemazcal Room: that they may not have picked the most conservative \nTemazcal Room: parts of the berm to model\, and so maybe they could. They could run those and provide those results. And if the results were. \nTemazcal Room: the deformations were within a certain range. Then then it would be fine. \nTemazcal Room: Jen. In. In addition to those\, there was the question of just the strength that was that was chosen. \nTemazcal Room: You know\, the 3 50 versus like 200\, \nTemazcal Room: I think I think that’s an important one. \nTemazcal Room: And then there was also like a question of whether we’re using the full PGA or \nTemazcal Room: something less than that. \nTemazcal Room: Those 2 might be compensating changes that might get you back to the same answer. But I feel like all those things you said\, and the 2 that\, I added could be addressed in a you know\, a\, a written. \nTemazcal Room: a response\, sort of a thing \nTemazcal Room: is\, should they be applying a factor to the the peak\, the PGA\, instead of using the PGA in their analyses? \nTemazcal Room: Well\, they actually being conservative. \nTemazcal Room: So \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, if they apply a factor\, that deformation. \nTemazcal Room: that factor of safety\, is going to be higher. So yeah\, Erin\, on the safe side\, is the way. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: frame. \nTemazcal Room: Oh. \nTemazcal Room: still. \nTemazcal Room: yeah. But I think I think ultimately\, is that defamation \nTemazcal Room: is the factor of safety. The limit equilibrium analysis \nTemazcal Room: is given as factor of safety which is low. \nTemazcal Room: But the deformation analysis is saying\, these are the kind of displacements \nTemazcal Room: that we are getting. \nTemazcal Room: and so it kind of \nTemazcal Room: makes the limit. Equilibrium results\, you know\, less \nTemazcal Room: significant. \nTemazcal Room: Go ahead\, Jim. \nTemazcal Room: It looks to \nTemazcal Room: hey\, Kevin? \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, sorry\, Nick. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, if if I may. I \nTemazcal Room: on the \nTemazcal Room: you know overall. This is a tremendous amount of work. \nTemazcal Room: and in general it’s been quite carefully done. I think we’ve identified a couple of places. The the seismic deformation is interesting because brain macedo formulation is completely independent of the slide analysis. \nTemazcal Room: It only you only use the geometry of whatever’s the potentially failing mass. The rest of it is independent\, I think\, in the seismic analysis\, I I really do suggest that you actually look at proper\, whether the slide code in itself \nTemazcal Room: has a reduction formula in it for the pseudostatic\, for the pseudostatic\, which \nTemazcal Room: would be nice. But whether you’re applying the right seismic coefficient. \nTemazcal Room: that normally would be used in this kind of analysis\, because if you did not\, then this was an incredibly conservative \nTemazcal Room: result\, and the other one is\, as Jen already mentioned. I I agree. If \nTemazcal Room: you\, I would suggest that you do look whether there is a more critical \nTemazcal Room: area based on the shear strength\, the actual shear strength\, data that you have. \nTemazcal Room: and if the deformation then following proper procedures\, comes less than I would say\, I agree 2 feet. Then we’re obviously in a reasonably good shape and and a memo to the effect\, explaining what exactly the analysis were probably may suffice. \nTemazcal Room: At least\, that’s that’s my view. Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, thank you\, Nick. \nTemazcal Room: I had a hard time hearing. What Nick was saying. Can you rephrase it? \nTemazcal Room: Maybe broad or \nTemazcal Room: presenter from from your commentary. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, you’re you’re advocating that. It would be wise to check an additional area as a critical section for stability. \nTemazcal Room: That was one. \nTemazcal Room: And the second \nTemazcal Room: comment was that we should \nTemazcal Room: either confirm or modify appropriately the pseudostatic \nTemazcal Room: number in the model. \nTemazcal Room: in in the slope\, stability model in the slope stability model. And are we using the number that we should? Or could we really be using a smaller number? And that’s factored? And I mean\, basically ask double check that you’re using the right numbers in your brain\, macedo \nTemazcal Room: analysis. And and the 3\, rd that’s right. The 3rd one is the the numbers that went into the deformation analysis. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you. Romine\, I’m \nTemazcal Room: I agree at the end of the day\, if the deformation analyses\, that \nTemazcal Room: I guess this board feels \nTemazcal Room: comfortable with the numbers\, and you don’t get any breach or any overtopping. Obviously that that’s that’s the key. \nTemazcal Room: But I like to \nTemazcal Room: emphasize that \nTemazcal Room: from your report. It says the yield is point 1 9\, and even if you use two-thirds of the \nTemazcal Room: lower level\, you get like point 2 2. So you’re above it already. Now it’s important that well\, all of those numbers are in the context of the strength parameters that you have used\, which we have had questions about. So if if you use lower strength \nTemazcal Room: parameters and you get \nTemazcal Room: lower yield\, you will get invariably larger deformations\, and if those deformations are still within the limits that \nTemazcal Room: there are no issues with breach and overtopping\, etc. \nTemazcal Room: Then those \nTemazcal Room: will give at least me a lot more confidence that\, hey? We are good. You have done a lot of good work\, but \nTemazcal Room: I think there are some loose ends that needs to be kind of \nTemazcal Room: tidied up\, so that \nTemazcal Room: at least I can get a good sense that we are good good to go the way you are approaching it. \nTemazcal Room: It’s\, I think\, one of the one of the points I I hear from. That is \nTemazcal Room: not only your interest in understanding the parameters that went into the brain Macedo \nTemazcal Room: displacement\, analysis\, but making sure that those parameters match up with \nTemazcal Room: whatever modifications may be appropriate in the strengths. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, you Jim. \nTemazcal Room: I’ve \nTemazcal Room: think this is probably everyone’s agreeing that something more needs to be resubmitted. There’s a question that remains outstanding whether the Ecrb wants to see that again. \nTemazcal Room: and I’m somewhat up in the air about that somewhat undecided. \nTemazcal Room: I I \nTemazcal Room: heard some of what Nick said\, and \nTemazcal Room: Michael’s summary\, and and remain. And so some. This is \nTemazcal Room: a lot of it’s been said before\, but I think \nTemazcal Room: there’s several things that need to be resubmitted\, one is\, and I’m going to add a couple. \nTemazcal Room: I think\, over that \nTemazcal Room: west\, southwest corner. \nTemazcal Room: Probably a need. A new section needs to be done there. \nTemazcal Room: with bay mud going down to 36 feet. \nTemazcal Room: I think probably the strengths need to be reevaluated and not use a median\, and probably not even a 30 percentile. \nTemazcal Room: but probably closer towards a lower bound less. You want to get section by section and cone by cone\, and use specific sections with specific cones. \nTemazcal Room: one of the things that’s hard to review and to know. I mean in terms of engineering criteria. I think the engineering criteria is that you need to do a robust search. \nTemazcal Room: It’s going to be sure\, to find the critical shape and depth \nTemazcal Room: of of the stability surfaces. \nTemazcal Room: and I think that we can’t know that from what’s been given \nTemazcal Room: so far. \nTemazcal Room: And you know\, if if you were to provide something with \nTemazcal Room: you know\, entry and exit points \nTemazcal Room: or bottom tangent depths that are allowed\, or and so on. \nTemazcal Room: Then that needs to be resubmitted to \nTemazcal Room: Bcdc. \nTemazcal Room: maybe Jen’s okay with looking at at that. Maybe Jen looks at it and says\, Oh\, this is over my head. I need the ecrb to look at it again. \nTemazcal Room: It may be relatively straightforward\, but it’s \nTemazcal Room: but there’s there’s a lot of material that’s going to have to be looked at\, not necessarily super complicated or difficult\, I think. Yeah\, I think \nTemazcal Room: these instructions we’re giving are pretty straightforward. These requests we’re giving are pretty straightforward\, and they’re they’re done\, or they’re not done. \nTemazcal Room: let’s see\, I I think that there’s some problems with the \nTemazcal Room: pink being weaker than the surrounding blue\, and that should be revisited. \nTemazcal Room: I understand that\, you know\, under\, you know\, in the trapezoid\, where you have cones pushing through it and borings and lab data. \nTemazcal Room: Probably your your results are pretty good. \nTemazcal Room: but the way you put that outside\, and where you start that from should not be weaker than the \nTemazcal Room: should not be stronger than the \nTemazcal Room: pink in particular. \nTemazcal Room: Maybe there’s others \nTemazcal Room: with their \nTemazcal Room: and then and then the parameters with for Bray Macedo. I think that needs to be \nTemazcal Room: explained what it’s there. \nTemazcal Room: and it seems a little surprising\, maybe\, for \nTemazcal Room: Rameen\, who’s more familiar with brand Macedo. \nTemazcal Room: that with a yield coefficient of 19\, you get only 9 inches. \nTemazcal Room: I mean I\, \nTemazcal Room: without knowing Brand \nTemazcal Room: Macedo myself. You know\, I got to think that point 19 yield coefficient should give you give you substantially more displacement than that \nTemazcal Room: what’s too much displacement is an interesting question that in itself might \nTemazcal Room: ask for a \nTemazcal Room: ecrb review\, because it’s there’s not a simple\, easy answer. \nTemazcal Room: 9 inches is probably\, I mean\, there’s 2 issues with with displacement. One is\, you know. How low does it get? And when does it get overtopped? And does the hydraulic\, you know. The overtopping frequency increases as soon as you get some \nTemazcal Room: some seismic settlement\, and so you have to jump back on it real quickly and build it back up as soon as you can\, so you don’t have 10 years \nTemazcal Room: of return interval to happen before you know\, with the Lower Cross elevation. \nTemazcal Room: The second thing that’s a little more tricky and more judgmenty\, maybe\, is \nTemazcal Room: at some level\, probably with bay mud 9 inches. You don’t get cracking\, but at 2 feet you start to have to ask about. Are you getting cracking of the embankment materials itself\, and do you \nTemazcal Room: get up to? Not over topping? But you get seepage through these \nTemazcal Room: cracks that you know\, tension cracks that have developed and so on. \nTemazcal Room: So at some point \nTemazcal Room: that gets to be another more complicated issue \nTemazcal Room: that I \nTemazcal Room: that \nTemazcal Room: It’s not worth speculating about all the different ramifications until we. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, find out what the the final numbers are for displacement. \nTemazcal Room: I think those need to be resubmitted\, and \nTemazcal Room: much of that\, at least\, I think \nTemazcal Room: I’d be okay if Jen feels comfortable with it. \nTemazcal Room: I’d be okay with us looking at it. \nTemazcal Room: I I am able to run submittals by less than a quorum of the board to assess if they’re satisfactory. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, I think that’s \nTemazcal Room: yeah. \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, well\, Nick\, you mean Chris has had her hand up. Okay. \nTemazcal Room: I had. Well\, one question for Jen. You mentioned that they were adding 2 feet of free board\, and I don’t think I heard that they were adding free board. I think they were just going to the 11.5 \nTemazcal Room: when you mentioned earlier that maybe 9 inches of deformation was okay\, since they were having adding free board. \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, add\, if I said\, adding\, that was a miss. \nTemazcal Room: a bad choice of words. They maintain 2 2 feet of free board in the ponds. \nTemazcal Room: So that’s my understanding. And and maybe you know\, cargo. You can comment that that the elevation of the water in the pond in the Mss. Ponds doesn’t get above 9 feet elevation. \nTemazcal Room: and if they raised the berms. Then it would. \nTemazcal Room: It would go up to 9.5 feet if they raised the berms to 11.5 feet. \nTemazcal Room: Got it? That’s super helpful. \nTemazcal Room: The other question I had or comment is\, we talked about the locations of the marsh channels\, and so \nTemazcal Room: I looked up. I looked at them\, and then I made my computer die\, so I shouldn’t have been doing that but there are some great maps that show the mark marsh channels\, and even on the 1993 aerial imagery\, if you go through Google Earth\, you can see some of the nice big ones. \nTemazcal Room: And they’re not at the sections\, and there is one that was to the right of Section C\, so I think if they are going to do some analysis. \nTemazcal Room: It would be good to look at the Marsh channel\, so I can send you Jen\, a link to what I was looking at\, so you can share that out. Later. \nTemazcal Room: And then my other question\, is that I was also seeing and looking at the image imagery. The large borrow pits around the inside of the berms. \nTemazcal Room: Cause when they were\, you know\, they excavated material from inside the ponds to build up the berms. \nTemazcal Room: But it didn’t look like in any of the sections that they were analyzing. It included that deep borrow pit\, and I am not a geotechnical engineer. \nTemazcal Room: so I wasn’t sure if that configuration impacts any of the analysis. If we should be considering the fact that there is that deep borrow pit on the pond side of the berms. \nTemazcal Room: So that’s it. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you. Chris Gail. \nTemazcal Room: Alright\, yeah\, we’ve \nTemazcal Room: we’ve made several requests\, some of which are \nTemazcal Room: adding conservatism and a couple of which are potentially \nTemazcal Room: reducing conservatism. \nTemazcal Room: And this is actually a question more for my geotechnical colleagues. \nTemazcal Room: and it has to do with the title Lag. \nTemazcal Room: And right. Now they’ve done it with high tide and low tide. Obviously. \nTemazcal Room: it looks like it’s \nTemazcal Room: but a 30% difference in most cases on the \nTemazcal Room: factors of safety. \nTemazcal Room: And I’m I’m used to looking at this for bulkhead design. But \nTemazcal Room: in a case like this. \nTemazcal Room: do you have a sense of \nTemazcal Room: how conservative or what is the likelihood of \nTemazcal Room: you know. \nTemazcal Room: considering the the low tide on the \nTemazcal Room: what is it? The high tide on the \nTemazcal Room: out inside\, and the low tide on the outside right\, which is obviously the most conservative. \nTemazcal Room: Is that necessary? \nTemazcal Room: They’ve given us results for both. Is that something where \nTemazcal Room: we could reasonably \nTemazcal Room: allow them to \nTemazcal Room: as as they do. These additional analyses \nTemazcal Room: do something either a Median Median tide. \nTemazcal Room: or \nTemazcal Room: consider \nTemazcal Room: no\, no title\, no title\, lag. \nTemazcal Room: In the analysis. Why\, I wanted the opinion of my \nTemazcal Room: geotech colleagues on this one. \nTemazcal Room: I think all of the critical \nTemazcal Room: circles that you looked at were sliding waterward right rather than land. Yeah\, they all were in. In that case low tide is going to always be \nTemazcal Room: conservative. \nTemazcal Room: but that’s again assuming \nTemazcal Room: inside the berm. \nTemazcal Room: The water table is high. Side is is that high tide right? \nTemazcal Room: Which is a \nTemazcal Room: which which assumes there’s a title lag. \nTemazcal Room: And I’m asking\, is that isn’t that what it is? Is that what causes it. I don’t think their title. I I don’t think their title. I think it’s just the static Waterloo. \nandrew barrett: The the pond stays at plus 9 feet\, nav. D. 88 at at all times. Essentially\, besides\, rainfall is my understanding. When the water is pumped out\, then to make it back to be at 9. So inside the pond\, at least in our models\, and the way it was told to us by the car representatives on site. \nandrew barrett: it stays at plus 9 all the time in the pond. \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, so that water level\, the water level inside is not \nTemazcal Room: driven by the tide. It’s driven by something that Cargill’s doing. \nandrew barrett: These ponds are completely removed from being connected. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nandrew barrett: To the tidal effects of the bay. Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. No. Title. Effects. Inside. \nandrew barrett: Trying to keep them that way. \nTemazcal Room: Okay? So then\, so then the then the question would just be. \nTemazcal Room: is it reasonable to \nTemazcal Room: use a meet? Use a Median tide if you will. \nTemazcal Room: or a mean tide. \nTemazcal Room: instead of low or high\, instead of low. \nTemazcal Room: If we\, if we\, if we want to allow \nTemazcal Room: something for reducing conservatism. \nTemazcal Room: question for the question for my colleague. \nTemazcal Room: and start with a low tide. \nTemazcal Room: and if it becomes problematic and expensive\, repairs are called for\, or something like that\, then fine it a little bit. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, just to comment on that. I think I heard that a was it a plus 2 tide was used \nTemazcal Room: plus 2 plus 2 for low tide\, and and that’s is that mean lower low water or Navd? Or are they about the same here? I can’t remember. It’s \nTemazcal Room: project datum. \nTemazcal Room: And Abd\, 88. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. So I mean\, a\, a really low tide is like\, minus 2 or something. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, yeah\, yeah\, just so it’s not. It’s not a \nTemazcal Room: yeah. The mean lower\, low water \nTemazcal Room: is 0. Let’s say that’s close to NAVD. \nTemazcal Room: In the South Bay. This the tide drops well below \nTemazcal Room: mean lower\, low water. That’s \nTemazcal Room: so. If you wanted to be really conservative\, you could add another 4 feet of height to your water difference \nTemazcal Room: which I’m not suggesting\, but I’m not sure. Was it quite as conservative as it may seem? \nTemazcal Room: You think they’re not being too conservative by using. Well\, I don’t know I it just as a coastal person. It made sense to me to assume a low tide on the outside \nTemazcal Room: as a conservative measure. What water elevation were you using \nTemazcal Room: 2 \nTemazcal Room: elevation\, too? Yeah\, in in the remember\, this is in the seismic analysis I’m talking about. So that was part of our reasoning is like a seismic is a distinct\, you know\, momentary event. So \nTemazcal Room: what’s the likelihood of that? Overlapping with an extreme low tide? We used to then we did it with 0 as well. It didn’t change much. We have not run it at minus 2. That would. That would definitely be a compounding of I’m not suggesting that you do. I just wanted to point out that the tide can be a lot lower. \nTemazcal Room: I’d \nTemazcal Room: it’s it’s a it’s it’s on the low end of the title cycle. \nTemazcal Room: It’s not a low tide. \nTemazcal Room: It’s just \nTemazcal Room: it’s a dropping tide. \nTemazcal Room: So \nTemazcal Room: yeah\, it’s below Msl\, and and what they’re getting at is the joint probability. Right? Like\, if you’re looking at a yeah\, 475 year\, I I think I think it’s okay. \nTemazcal Room: Sure\, okay\, \nTemazcal Room: okay\, Nick\, you had you had your hand up earlier. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, Mr. Chairman\, actually\, I was going to make a motion\, but I’ll let go ahead before. \nTemazcal Room: I have my hand up. \nTemazcal Room: Yes\, but Bob has his hand up as well. \nTemazcal Room: I’m I’m I’m going to talk coastal stuff\, so I’ll let if it’s geotech. I think you need to go ahead. \nTemazcal Room: I’m not suggesting that \nTemazcal Room: different levels of earthquake shaking should be used\, but these are not the largest levels either. So there is some inherent. If there is some conservatism somewhere else. We’re not \nTemazcal Room: looking at the largest level of shaking either\, so that I’m I’m not suggesting that you should. But just put it in context as well. \nTemazcal Room: Dima. \nTemazcal Room: continuing the geotax. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, Michael\, I don’t remember whether you mentioned he said anything about cpage. \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, I I actually I all I said about seepage was when I was talking about our \nTemazcal Room: conclusions regarding the effects of keying in the berm. \nTemazcal Room: where we really didn’t see any appreciable strength increase in the berm. \nTemazcal Room: but because of our \nTemazcal Room: observations of the keyed material in place\, it’s apparent level of compaction\, which which is not a huge amount of compaction we discussed\, but \nTemazcal Room: but there is compaction that has occurred that we see\, and our observations of the material used. \nTemazcal Room: that it’s our conclusion that \nTemazcal Room: that should improve seepage \nTemazcal Room: just based on that alone\, you may minimize seepage. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, minimize seepage\, minimize seepage. Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: alright. \nTemazcal Room: that that’s our conclusion based on what we see. \nTemazcal Room: Okay? And then. \nTemazcal Room: from the perspective of the overtopping presentation. \nTemazcal Room: I think you alluded to \nTemazcal Room: the material being used to top the broom. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, I should minimize scarring. \nTemazcal Room: I think it should be pretty resistant to scouring. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, if you had waves hitting it\, for\, you know\, days upon days\, of course\, but \nTemazcal Room: for a short \nTemazcal Room: wave over topping event. I think that with that compacted material \nTemazcal Room: and the gravel servicing\, I think that’s going to resist scour pretty well. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, I mean\, I think maybe. \nTemazcal Room: Now\, what happened where? \nTemazcal Room: I’ve \nTemazcal Room: perhaps not. I think maybe that should be something that you should \nTemazcal Room: formalize as a recommendation to address the issue of of our observations about its apparent resistance to a wave over tapping scour. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: do that? \nTemazcal Room: Thank you\, Jima. Bob. \nTemazcal Room: Yes. So from the coastal side. I’d be interested in seeing \nTemazcal Room: selected profiles of the one or more transects \nTemazcal Room: showing the static and dynamic water levels and other parameters used. \nTemazcal Room: That would be for Jeremy. I don’t know if he’s still on the phone \nTemazcal Room: and then I’d also like to see those values tabulated. Some representative \nTemazcal Room: portion of all the wave run up\, runs \nTemazcal Room: tabulated\, so I can see what the wave heights\, water depths. \nTemazcal Room: dynamic water\, level\, etc\, are. \nTemazcal Room: or a representative number of the calculations. \nTemazcal Room: I I don’t think that’s that hard to do. It’s it is something that Fema did for their flood studies and in their intermediate data submittals. And I think the software probably allows you to do that. \nTemazcal Room: But separate from that. \nTemazcal Room: I wanted to say that I think \nTemazcal Room: Chris and I\, \nTemazcal Room: Chris May and I could \nTemazcal Room: look over what you get on that topic and work with you\, Jen\, or one of us. \nTemazcal Room: If if we didn’t want to bring it back. So I I don’t know that. \nTemazcal Room: That might. That might make it easier. \nTemazcal Room: But I had an overall question\, and I’m sorry I’m not if I’m supposed to be up to speed on this. But my concern with this \nTemazcal Room: situation \nTemazcal Room: is that \nTemazcal Room: the material \nTemazcal Room: is \nTemazcal Room: has salt levels and certain types of salt levels that could adversely affect wildlife \nTemazcal Room: if released into the bay. \nTemazcal Room: That’s what I\, my concern\, has been \nTemazcal Room: more than a life safety. \nTemazcal Room: and I thought I heard somebody say that that’s not really a concern\, because the material the \nTemazcal Room: Mss. \nTemazcal Room: Just \nTemazcal Room: dissolves immediately or something\, and I’m not sure I understand that \nTemazcal Room: is. Is\, am I \nTemazcal Room: wrong to be concerned or wrong to not understand that it dissolves \nTemazcal Room: right away? \nTemazcal Room: Listen to that while we’re here. It depends on the concentration. \nTemazcal Room: So it it depends on how much is is\, you know. It’s a it’s a concentrated salt\, right? So. \nTemazcal Room: But the\, but the concentrations themselves are are quite high because it’s crystallized\, and some of it might be \nTemazcal Room: more soluble than others\, but certainly. \nTemazcal Room: if it was a hundred parts per 1\,000\, which I think is \nTemazcal Room: lower than it is\, and it was liquid\, and that was released. I think that could probably kill fish\, couldn’t it. \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, I I just trying to understand how serious this is if we have a release which is an important consideration in terms of what the criteria are. \nTemazcal Room: and I don’t know the exact levels. But if you put a bowl of this and dissolve the mix sea salts in it\, and then put the fish in it. Yeah\, the fish wouldn’t \nTemazcal Room: wouldn’t be good\, but that’s a big difference than a little bit getting out into the ocean and diluting. \nTemazcal Room: I do remember working on the Napa Salt Ponds. Of course that was way a long time ago\, and I think everyone’s learned a lot more since then\, but we had a pond with up to maybe 100 parts per 1\,000 pond 3\, \nTemazcal Room: and there was quite a bit of concern about diluting that before it was released. \nTemazcal Room: That was one of our major challenges\, and we got through that in 2\,005. \nTemazcal Room: But Newark slew has a number of \nTemazcal Room: protected species in it. \nTemazcal Room: So I I have to admit that I haven’t analyzed this or read everything about that. But what I’ve seen is not really satisfied me. \nTemazcal Room: In terms of my concern\, and we don’t have a biologist on here. So I’m I’m wondering what the implications are. If the implications are serious\, then this could be a risk level that is higher \nTemazcal Room: than we think. \nTemazcal Room: which case\, if it was a new project\, it might have to be designed to a higher standard than what we’re talking about. \nTemazcal Room: So\, on the other hand\, I think \nTemazcal Room: it needs to be managed. Cargo has a lot of experience. \nTemazcal Room: you know. They they should be able to maintain. This is in everybody’s interest. \nTemazcal Room: But I’m \nTemazcal Room: a little unclear on how serious the situation is. \nTemazcal Room: and I don’t know is that generally\, just because I didn’t read everything\, or is there? \nTemazcal Room: No\, just I mean to recap a little bit in the very 1st meeting of the ecrb Ecrb asked Cargill to present information on the risk of \nTemazcal Room: the mixed sea salts on the ecology and human health. \nTemazcal Room: and \nTemazcal Room: instead of providing that information\, Cargill said that instead they would model the most conservative scenarios. \nTemazcal Room: And so that’s that’s where we’re at \nTemazcal Room: the most conservative levy failure or defamation scenarios or release scenarios. \nTemazcal Room: But there’s been no modeling of the okay. \nTemazcal Room: So I I just think that’s an important context. And \nTemazcal Room: for me\, anyway\, if somebody’s worked around the bay a lot on restoration projects and around Newark Slough in particular\, and \nTemazcal Room: sufficient wildlife\, reserve\, etc. \nTemazcal Room: So I just think that’s something \nTemazcal Room: to think about\, and why I would like to \nTemazcal Room: review the wave\, run up information again. \nTemazcal Room: even though I don’t doubt the Cargill’s judgment that some wave overtopping probably has no significance. \nTemazcal Room: And so I appreciate that viewpoint quite a bit. Actually. \nTemazcal Room: sure\, if I could just add the reason we didn’t do the you know environmental assessment\, because. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, the studies indicated that we went to have\, we would not have a breach\, or we would not have mixed. See salt \nTemazcal Room: going out into the pond\, which is why. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, that’s why we didn’t proceed with doing an environmental \nTemazcal Room: assessment. You didn’t think that\, you know there’s no breach. It’s not going to be in a \nTemazcal Room: any ecological impact. \nTemazcal Room: That’s kind of the reason why we didn’t. Do you know\, further environmental. So so I think in that case\, I just want to be more sure that we understand what the wave run up and overtopping potential are\, and \nTemazcal Room: how that feeds into the geotech\, and how the \nTemazcal Room: would apply to our judgment regarding whether or not \nTemazcal Room: the analysis indicates that this somewhat ambiguous failure\, scenario of \nTemazcal Room: possibly some levee erosion or possible breaching and release that’s undefined is likely not to be exceeded. \nTemazcal Room: So that’s kind of where I am. I want to be more careful. \nTemazcal Room: so I would like to see the wave run up \nTemazcal Room: information. \nTemazcal Room: And I would like the geotech to be comfortable with the situations\, too. Recognizing \nTemazcal Room: that impacting ecology is a big deal. \nTemazcal Room: Thanks. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: Think that’s that’s it. Now\, \nTemazcal Room: so it sounds like. \nTemazcal Room: everybody is okay with \nTemazcal Room: additional information and clarification from Cargill. \nTemazcal Room: that we’re okay\, recommending approval of the permit \nTemazcal Room: ending \nTemazcal Room: the middle of clarifications and information \nTemazcal Room: to the satisfaction. Yeah\, right? And and so \nTemazcal Room: I think we would\, Jen\, you’d have to pick \nTemazcal Room: 4 of us who are\, you know\, so we don’t have a quorum issue. \nTemazcal Room: But you know I would suggest \nTemazcal Room: Bob and \nTemazcal Room: Jim \nTemazcal Room: remain\, and \nTemazcal Room: probably \nTemazcal Room: Nick \nTemazcal Room: to\, or maybe\, or maybe\, if somebody’s not interested\, I I would be \nTemazcal Room: a good person to help. \nTemazcal Room: But one of 4 of those 5 names \nTemazcal Room: would be \nTemazcal Room: reviewers of the information and pending that set\, you know\, pending our satisfaction to that\, then we would recommend \nTemazcal Room: approval \nTemazcal Room: of a permit. \nTemazcal Room: Can I? Have a little discussion? Chris did. Were you interested? Or \nTemazcal Room: so it’s 5 for the quorum. So it’s like one coastal\, and which is probably enough. But it could be Chris or I. But if there’s room it might be good at both of us. Okay\, 4. \nTemazcal Room: See yourself. \nTemazcal Room: That’s all right. \nTemazcal Room: But for the coastal part. \nTemazcal Room: anyway\, I can go either way with it. I just wanted to give Chris an opportunity to \nTemazcal Room: to weigh in. See how interested she is. And no\, I’m I’m happy to review the coastal part. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: but I don’t think I think the geotech issues are \nTemazcal Room: our significance. I don’t think they could have both of us if we only have 4 got it. \nTemazcal Room: So either one whatever. Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: okay. So do I have a motion? \nTemazcal Room: Second. \nTemazcal Room: all in favor. \nTemazcal Room: or do we? Do you need to do a \nTemazcal Room: a roll call\, or can we just do a voice? Vote? Jen. \nTemazcal Room: let’s do a roll call just \nTemazcal Room: to be thorough. \nTemazcal Room: we are going to have a roll call vote now on the motion which is \nTemazcal Room: to \nTemazcal Room: request additional information based on our discussion today. \nTemazcal Room: and if it seems like it satisfies \nTemazcal Room: our our concerns. Then the Ecrb will find that the safety issues have been addressed by cargo. \nTemazcal Room: Okay \nTemazcal Room: Roddy washedatch here. Aye. \nTemazcal Room: Jim\, French \nTemazcal Room: Bob Italia. Yes. \nTemazcal Room: Jima Kasali. \nTemazcal Room: Chris May. \nTemazcal Room: Yes. \nTemazcal Room: Rameen Golisarki. Yes. \nTemazcal Room: Nick Sitar. Yes. \nTemazcal Room: Gail Johnson. Yes. \nTemazcal Room: and Patrick Ryan. Yes. \nTemazcal Room: right. Yeses have it. \nTemazcal Room: I have another. So we will. \nTemazcal Room: Jen\, I assume you’re going to put together minutes and the \nTemazcal Room: the request for information. Additional information and clarification will go to Cargill right? And \nTemazcal Room: copied to \nTemazcal Room: the ecrb. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. So what I’ll do is I’ll draft a letter summarizing the information request. \nTemazcal Room: I’ll probably run a draft of it by \nTemazcal Room: couple of people on the ecrb\, maybe the chair\, the chair and vice chair. \nTemazcal Room: and then \nTemazcal Room: and then send it off. \nTemazcal Room: We will all to Cargill. Try to do that in \nTemazcal Room: in a week. \nTemazcal Room: And then this meeting\, which is being recorded\, will also be posted. \nTemazcal Room: On our website at the meeting. Notice? \nTemazcal Room: Right? \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: okay. \nTemazcal Room: okay\, thanks. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. There. A motion to adjourn. \nTemazcal Room: Second\, okay\, all those in favor. \nTemazcal Room: Aye. \nTemazcal Room: okay\, thank you. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you. Cargill. Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: for speaking and pushing the buttons to turn it on and off. \nTemazcal Room: rod you want to share here. \nTemazcal Room: Jim French vice chair. Sure. \nTemazcal Room: Bob Natalia. \nTemazcal Room: Here. \nTemazcal Room: Jima Kasali. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: Chris may \nTemazcal Room: here \nTemazcal Room: Rameen Gosarky. \nTemazcal Room: Here. \nTemazcal Room: Nick Sitar. \nTemazcal Room: Present. \nTemazcal Room: Gail Johnson. Hello. \nTemazcal Room: Patrick Ryan. \nTemazcal Room: Here. \nTemazcal Room: Cherry Washta. We have a forum of at least 5 present. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, thank you. Jen. We have a quorum present. So we are duly constituted to conduct business. \nTemazcal Room: we may have some alternate board members who may be participating as members of the public. \nTemazcal Room: Names I see listed are Thalia\, Travaceru\, Philip Trevetti. \nTemazcal Room: Justin Van Diever\, and Bill Tremaine and I now call the meeting to order. \nTemazcal Room: I wanna \nTemazcal Room: Carrie Washer Robert Batali would like to speak. He has his hand raised. \nTemazcal Room: I’m sorry I didn’t know how I had my hand raised. I was trying to figure out how to get myself on the \nTemazcal Room: video on Zoom\, oh\, yeah. Okay. \nTemazcal Room: okay\, okay. Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. I want to start with some instructions\, and how we can best participate \nTemazcal Room: in this meeting\, so that it runs as smoothly as possible. \nTemazcal Room: First\, st everyone\, when you are not involved in the active discussion. Please make sure \nTemazcal Room: you have your microphones or phones muted to avoid background noise \nTemazcal Room: for board members. If you have a camera\, please make sure that it is on during the meeting. So everyone online can see you. \nTemazcal Room: Every now and then I may refer to the meeting host Margie\, who is working behind the scenes \nTemazcal Room: to ensure that the technology moves the meeting forward smoothly and consistently. \nTemazcal Room: And \nTemazcal Room: please be patient with us if it’s needed. \nTemazcal Room: Ex parte communications \nTemazcal Room: as set forth in the Bcdc’s regulations. A member of the Ecrb. \nTemazcal Room: Shall not have any oral or written communication regarding a proposed \nTemazcal Room: project or other matter that has been noticed \nTemazcal Room: to be considered at an Ecrb meeting with a project proponent permit applicant\, prospective applicant \nTemazcal Room: or member of the public\, except on the record during an Ecrb meeting \nTemazcal Room: Board members\, in case you have inadvertently forgotten to provide \nTemazcal Room: the staff with a notice on any written or oral ex parte communications. \nTemazcal Room: I invite you to report on any such communications at this point by raising your hand and unmuting yourself. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, I don’t see any. \nTemazcal Room: for the record. No hands have been raised. \nTemazcal Room: And \nTemazcal Room: Jen\, are you going to talk about the timing of this\, the room and and all of that? Okay. \nTemazcal Room: then let’s have a staff update \nTemazcal Room: from senior engineer and board. Secretary\, Jen Hyman. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you\, Cherry Washta. \nTemazcal Room: I would like to provide an update on upcoming meetings \nTemazcal Room: on September 25\, th the Ecrb will have a second meeting with the Representatives from the San Francisco International Airport on their shoreline protection project. \nTemazcal Room: On October 23\, rd the Ecrb will review and discuss the updated regional shoreline adaptation plan or Rsap guidelines. \nTemazcal Room: At the end of that meeting\, Bcdc. Council\, Michael Ng. Will give a legal training to Ecr Ecrb members on regulations and policies of the Ecrb \nTemazcal Room: and board members. I would like to \nTemazcal Room: let everyone know and app permit applicants today that we building management asked us to vacate the room at 5 o’clock sharp\, because\, that’s the end of their workday\, and we’re getting their assistance in running this meeting\, and they have to leave so hopefully\, we can try to\, if possible\, wind the meeting up by around 4 30 today. \nTemazcal Room: yeah\, if need be. If we have to go beyond 5 o’clock\, then we’ll \nTemazcal Room: probably all just log into zoom without any of the screens or anything. \nTemazcal Room: if if need be. \nTemazcal Room: Those are all my announcements\, Cherry Rashta. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, thank you\, Jan. \nTemazcal Room: Before we move on to the presentation. Are there any announcements from board members. \nTemazcal Room: Okay? Seeing none. Let’s let’s move on \nTemazcal Room: to agenda. Item\, 3 \nTemazcal Room: Cargills\, solar sea salt system\, maintenance and operations project firm stability. \nTemazcal Room: So the main agenda item related to the permit application for Cargill Cargills. \nTemazcal Room: solar sea salt maintenance or system\, maintenance and operations. Our discussion will focus on the stability of the berms surrounding the mixed sea. Salt or Mss. Ponds. \nTemazcal Room: p. 12\, p. 2\, 12\, and p. 2\, 13. \nTemazcal Room: Mixed tea salts are also referred to as Bittern \nTemazcal Room: Jen\, the Board Secretary and Senior engineer for Bcdc. Has a slide presentation for us \nTemazcal Room: with an introduction and a bit of background \nTemazcal Room: since is. This is this is the 3rd meeting on this topic \nTemazcal Room: during the presentation. It is fine for board members to ask clarifying questions. \nTemazcal Room: I would like to ask board members and presenters to please turn on your cameras for any discussion \nTemazcal Room: during or after the presentation. \nTemazcal Room: and I will now turn it over to Jen to begin her presentation. \nTemazcal Room: I’m just going to give some brief introductory slides on the Project \nTemazcal Room: and the Permit history and the history of the Ecrb meetings for this project. \nTemazcal Room: Cargill salts\, current maintenance and operation activities are regulated by Vcdc. By a 10 year permit \nTemazcal Room: that was issued by Bcdc. In 1\,995. \nTemazcal Room: This permit has been extended numerous times. \nTemazcal Room: Cargill has applied to renew the 10 year Permit and staff plan to present the new permit to the Commission. In December of this year \nTemazcal Room: Bcdc. Has prepared a draft environmental assessment \nTemazcal Room: to comply with Ceqa assessing the potential impacts from Cargill’s maintenance and operational activities. \nTemazcal Room: The draft Ea is currently out for the 30 day public comment period right now. \nTemazcal Room: and that comment period will be ending on September 21\, st \nTemazcal Room: the Ea can be accessed at the Bcd Bcdc. Website. \nTemazcal Room: The link is provided in the slide. But there’s also a link on Bcdc’s homepage. \nTemazcal Room: The Engineering Criteria Review Board’s review \nTemazcal Room: has been. \nTemazcal Room: and today we’ll focus on the stability and safety of the earth and berm surrounding ponds. P. 212 and p. 213. At Cargill’s Newark plant number 2. \nTemazcal Room: These ponds store mixed sea salts\, which \nTemazcal Room: we you will hear the acronym Mss. For these mixed sea salts \nTemazcal Room: due to its high salinity\, and the fact that its Ionic balance differs from bay water. \nTemazcal Room: Mss. \nTemazcal Room: Could contribute to potential environmental impacts if overtopping scour and erosion caused a release of brine to the bay. \nTemazcal Room: Important to note\, however\, that once Mss. Is diluted with seawater. \nTemazcal Room: it no longer exhibits toxicity. \nTemazcal Room: The static and seismic stability of the berms is also a concern. \nTemazcal Room: The Ecrb’s engineering review today has prompted some draft permit conditions\, and Bcdc. Is in the process of drafting \nTemazcal Room: the updated permit. Right now. \nTemazcal Room: these are some examples. \nTemazcal Room: Argill will be raising the berms around the Mss. Ponds to an elevation of 11.5 feet. \nTemazcal Room: nabbed 88 by the end of the 10 year permit period. \nTemazcal Room: Cargill has also proposed to raise the external berm at Pond\, p. 212 to 11.5 feet at a slightly earlier date. Because that’s the berm \nTemazcal Room: of all the of the of the 2 ponds that is facing the bay. \nTemazcal Room: They’re proposing to do that earlier by 2029 \nTemazcal Room: cargo will track and report potential seepage from the Mss. Ponds annually. \nTemazcal Room: The permit \nTemazcal Room: will present the Ecrb’s concluding assessment of the Mss. Burn safety to the Commission. \nTemazcal Room: The other \nTemazcal Room: function that Ep\, the Ecrb’s input has had on the permit is Cargill’s technical reports that were requested by the Ecrb have informed portions of the environmental assessment. \nTemazcal Room: This map shows a location of the Mss. Ponds\, p. 2\, 12 and p. 2\, 13\, \nTemazcal Room: close to Newark. \nTemazcal Room: and along the shores of San Francisco’s South Bay\, south of the Dumbarton Bridge. \nTemazcal Room: The Ecrb meetings on the topic of stability of the mixed sea. Salt Pond berms \nTemazcal Room: were previously held\, first\, st on November 16\, th 2022\, \nTemazcal Room: and a second meeting was held on August 30\, th 2023. \nTemazcal Room: The remaining issues to discuss today are as follows. \nTemazcal Room: updated sea level rise\, risk assessment focusing on wave run up and wave induced firm erosion \nTemazcal Room: results from the geotechnical investigation of the berms \nTemazcal Room: using Cone penetrometer testing. \nTemazcal Room: also known as Cpt. \nTemazcal Room: that was performed just this summer. \nTemazcal Room: Updated stability analyses for the Mss. Berms based on the new geotechnical data. \nTemazcal Room: including \nTemazcal Room: post slope and non-circular failure surfaces. \nTemazcal Room: seismic and funny scenario \nTemazcal Room: firm keying and layering scenarios. \nTemazcal Room: firm displacement and settlement\, analysis \nTemazcal Room: a consideration of settlement \nTemazcal Room: of the Nss. Palm berms \nTemazcal Room: and questions regarding seepage of the Mss. Out through the berms. \nTemazcal Room: Those were all the results \nTemazcal Room: that all the comments that the Ecrb had made \nTemazcal Room: on the issues at the last meeting. \nTemazcal Room: So \nTemazcal Room: I’ve put together these questions for the Board to consider for this 3rd meeting. \nTemazcal Room: Number one is Cargill’s plan to maintain the berms to a crest elevation of 11.5 feet. \nTemazcal Room: plus inspections and maintenance adequate to address the risk posed by sea level rise and and waves \nTemazcal Room: did the field investigation adequately characterize the subsurface. Geology and geotechnical parameters \nTemazcal Room: are the scenarios and criteria in the static and seismic berm stability analysis adequate for assessing the risk of berm failure at the Mss. Ponds \nTemazcal Room: do the updated static and seismic stability calculations for the berms adequately characterize and model the berm stability. \nTemazcal Room: including any berm raising \nTemazcal Room: possible subsidence and sea level rise predicted for 2030\, and 2040 \nTemazcal Room: for the stability analyses that indicate areas where the berms do not meet. The 1.1 factor of safety are the risks adequately addressed? \nTemazcal Room: Does the presentation on Mss. Seepage and Berm coring adequately address the concerns and comments from the Ecrb? \nTemazcal Room: Do the do the results of the updated berm stability\, modeling\, utilize adequately conservative assumptions and meet adequate levels of safety\, so that an ecological and human health risk analysis is not needed. \nTemazcal Room: This was a statement made by Cargill in the second Ecrb meeting. \nTemazcal Room: responding to the Ecrb’s request in the 1st meeting to provide a risk assessment. \nTemazcal Room: And lastly\, does the Board have any other concerns regarding burn stability that have not been addressed. \nTemazcal Room: and that’s the end of my \nTemazcal Room: presentation. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, thank you\, Jen. \nTemazcal Room: Now Jeremy Mull\, of Aecom will make a presentation on behalf of Cargill. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Hey\, everybody! Can you hear me? Okay. \nTemazcal Room: Yes. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Okay\, great. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): I’m gonna share my screen. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): And someone confirm that they’re they can see a Powerpoint presentation up on the screen. \nTemazcal Room: Yes. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Okay\, great\, thank you. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): My name is Jeremy Mull. I’m a coastal engineer with acom. Thank you. Everybody for attending and listening. Today I’m going to give a brief presentation on the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): The wave run up \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and overtopping analysis that we perform for Cargill. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): I’ll note that Justin Vannever was the coastal engineering lead for this project. But because he’s part of the the ecrb that I’m presenting. \nTemazcal Room: Excuse me\, Jeremy\, can you? Do you mind turning on your camera. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Not at all. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Can you guys see me now? \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yes\, okay\, thanks. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Okay. So just a a quick background on the project. I know some of this was outlined by Jen and her presentation. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): In 2\,020 and 2\,021\, Cargill prepared a sea level rise assessment \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): to support his long-term operations and the Bcdc. 10 year operations and maintenance permit renewal. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): This assessment included a mapping of the shoreline and the England berms\, including some assets of the site. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): An evaluation of sea level rise impacts for the year 2\,100 \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the identification of vulnerable berm segments. That could be \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): vulnerable to us\, overtopping from storm surge. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): vulnerability and risk assessment\, for you know\, some of the assets on Cargill side\, including operations and and the environment. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): And then a conceptual phase\, sea level rise\, adaptation\, approach. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): That included adaptation considerations. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Then\, in December 2022 Bcdc. Requested that Cardio evaluate. The impacts of wave run up and overtopping\, including future sea level\, rise on the bayfront berms. So those are the berms between the ponds and shoreline of San Francisco Bay\, and this was based on requests from the Ecrb. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): In August 2023\, Cargill presented preliminary wave run up methods and findings to Dcrb. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): worth noting that the the methodology and the results largely haven’t changed since this presentation. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): And then in 2023\, through 2024 we run up an overtopping analysis. Memo was prepared and then submitted \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): to the the Bcdc \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So these slides are just going to be a high\, level overview of the project. It’s my understanding that \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the presentation that was done previously had a pretty detailed overview of the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the methods and findings\, and then those are also included in a lot of detail in in the technical memo \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): so prior sea level rise assessments\, those focus on impacts of of high tides and combined the storm surge and more of a overtopping from the still water level of the berms. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): This assessment evaluated the potential for way run up and overtopping on those bayfront berms. For existing conditions\, and then future conditions with sea level rise under a no action scenario. And what that means is the analysis assumed that the berms would not be elevated from their their current elevations. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): we developed 2 kind of metrics to evaluate the impacts of waves. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): The 1st included the duration of the berm toe exceedance \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): by the total water level with a wave height greater than one foot\, and we calculated the average hours per year that this might occur. So this was kind of a proxy for the amount of time that the waves \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): excuse me that the berms would be exposed to significant wave energy in a year we then looked at the frequency of berm crest overtopping and we evaluated this\, based on the return period\, \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): for different storm events. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So these results are helping Cargill identify and prioritize maintenance \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): for the burn segments that may experience\, increased exposure \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): to wave impacts due to sea level rise. It also can help inform the development of a long term adaptation management plan for these Burns. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Okay\, so just a quick overview of the technical approach. This\, the approach is detailed or presented more detailed report. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): This slide just conceptually shows each of the steps in the technical analysis. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): starting with step\, one on the top left\, and then all finishing up \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): with the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the firm. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): sorry I have something on the screen\, the firm exposure metrics on the bottom. Right? So\, \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): starting in step one\, we applied a 1-dimensional transact based analysis. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Where transects are spaced. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): perpendicular \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): perpendicularly to the the berm\, we place transacts \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): based on segments of berm with different \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): exposures to wave energy. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Then all of our empirical equations to calculate over top and run up and overtopping were applied in in one dimension. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): In step 2. We extracted \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): cross shore profiles from topographic and bathymetric data\, and then identified the key features of the berms that were used in our our engineering calculations. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): In step 3. We assigned representative transects to each berm segment. So the berms \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): we’re divided into short segments. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and the results of the analysis were then compared to the elevations of each burn segment. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So each berm segment came with a representative transect. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): As it’s described in the report\, we rely primarily on \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): a a multi decatal wave and water level model that was used in a fema coastal flood. Study of San Francisco Bay. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Model was built by dhi and had waves and water levels\, I believe\, every 15 min for over 50 years. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So each transect was paired with a model output station. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): We then calculated \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the total water level at each of those time steps \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): for the entire hindcast and use statistical extreme value analysis \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): to come up with the conditions for storms for different return periods. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Finally\, with the results of the total water levels at each transect\, we map those spatially onto the the berm segments with different different elevations and presented those results as \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): as results. Maps. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Okay\, so just a quick like overview of what the total water level is this is just a conceptual slide and hopefully helps orient Orient people to the total water level because it drives a lot of flooding in San Francisco Bay\, so the total water level consists of several different components. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): It includes the astronomical tide sometimes referred to as predicted tide\, which ranges about 6 to 8 feet in the bay \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and includes storm surge\, which is composed of \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): yeah atmospheric pressure events\, winds\, atmospheric pressure effects\, wind setup\, and El Nino effects. It ranges on the order of like one to 3 feet in the bay. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): It also includes wave components like wave setup and wave wave run up. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and those range about 2 to 5 feet. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and then you add that all up and you get the total water level. Extreme total water\, total water level events on the Bay range from about 10 to 15 feet \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): any vd\, 88\, depending on the storm conditions you’re looking at. And each\, you know. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): areas exposure to wave energy and things like that. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): In the cartoon on the bottom. You can see how all these components add up. You see the tide. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): How time and storm surge add up to the still water level\, and then\, if a segment of the berm is exposed to wind waves\, those waves usually propagate up. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): propagate through the marsh\, and then \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): break \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): near\, or at the Bernto\, and the uprush \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): of water can come up the outward side of the berm\, and then potentially over top levee \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): so we did incorporate future sea level rise\, and that would be that was incorporated into the still water level in which we \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Then we ran all of our total water level calculations. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Okay\, so just an overview of some of the results. These figures are all \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): presented in the report. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): we’re focused on Pond 12 today. Which is shown in the upper left of all the figures. It’s highlighted in the 1st figure. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): The 1st figure is the baseline conditions\, which are \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): approximately from the year 2\,010\, and then the results. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): The different figures show the results for 6 inches\, 12 inches and 36 inches of sea level rise. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): We are using the sea level rise estimates from the Ocean Ocean Protection Council report. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): From 2\,024 you can see the timing of those different amounts of sea level rise in the bottom right there. This table. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): so \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): just as an example for 12 inches of sea level rise that could occur as early as the year 2\,050. If you’re looking at the intermediate high scenario\, it’s likely by 2\,055\, if you’re using the intermediate scenario. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So these the slides show the results for the berm toe exceedance. Remember\, this is the average number of hours per year that the total water level \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): would exceed the burnt tow with a wave height \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): of at least one foot. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So it’s kind of a measure of how often the outboard the bayfront firm is being impacted by waves. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Up in the upper left. You have the baseline conditions\, and you can see all. Jeremy. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah\, go ahead. \nTemazcal Room: Can I ask? This is Bob Battaglio. Hi\, Jeremy. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Hey! Bob! \nTemazcal Room: I’d like to ask a question. \nTemazcal Room: so \nTemazcal Room: I was a little surprised by this slide\, because if I understand it correctly. \nTemazcal Room: Under existing conditions the toe of the berm\, which is the base \nTemazcal Room: on the bay side. \nTemazcal Room: is exceeded by the total water level. \nTemazcal Room: Less than 1 HA year is\, am I interpreting this correctly? \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Mostly. So remember it’s 1 \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): hour per year\, combined with a wave height greater than one foot. \nTemazcal Room: Okay? \nTemazcal Room: So the toe of the berm is in places is fronted by Marsh\, which is around me. High water\, I mean higher high water. \nTemazcal Room: so just the still water level alone should exceed the tow \nTemazcal Room: of the lev of the levy like 8% of the time\, or something like that is that \nTemazcal Room: just just because of the tide\, not including non tidal residuals. So \nTemazcal Room: it just seems like this is. \nTemazcal Room: there should be waves \nTemazcal Room: during some of those 8% of the time. So \nTemazcal Room: it seems like the total water level would be \nTemazcal Room: higher. So I have a concern about that. I don’t know if you wanna \nTemazcal Room: address that now or. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah\, I mean\, I I guess I can just speak conceptually to that. It’s it’s it’s a good question. And I think \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): you have to. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): I imagine it’s through a combination of \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): high tides combined with \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): exposure. So waves approaching at the right angle to attack. You know the burn you kind of think about like \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): every firm has a little bit different. Exposure in this firm. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): you know\, is really only vulnerable to ways that are \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): coming in\, you know\, a bit from maybe the South Southwest here. So it would be those times when you have a combination\, the high tide. So the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): sorry advance the slide\, so the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the tide\, like you said\, is coming up above the berm toe\, but then that also has to coincide with a wind event\, where the wind’s approaching from the right direction to to generate those waves. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, so it sounds like the way you’re filtering it. The waves are not above one foot \nTemazcal Room: when the tide is above the marsh in her high water \nTemazcal Room: more than 1 HA year\, if I understand that correctly. And again\, that just seems \nTemazcal Room: less than I would expect. \nTemazcal Room: So I you know I just have a concern there. Can I? Ask you another question? \nTemazcal Room: How was the wind setup computed? Was it \nTemazcal Room: extracted at the offshore wave location. \nTemazcal Room: or was it \nTemazcal Room: recomputed\, based on the profile \nTemazcal Room: towards shore\, towards the tow. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Are you asking about the wave set. \nTemazcal Room: By the wind. The wind set up. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Okay. Sorry. \nTemazcal Room: Start with. The wind setup. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah\, it’s good question. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): I would have to go \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): back into the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): dhi methodology for the model. What? \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): I? So we didn’t \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): adjust \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the still water levels at all. We took them straight from the model output. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): They ran my \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): my 21 \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): about the the water level wave conditions. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): And so we extracted those from\, you know\, each each output station in the transects I would have to \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): not familiar enough with to say offhand exactly how they handled when set up in the model. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, no\, that’s okay. I I just I’ll make a point here that \nTemazcal Room: The wind setup increases with \nTemazcal Room: proximity to the shore\, because the wind blows the water on shore\, and as it gets shallower the return flow \nTemazcal Room: is suppressed. So you get a setup. \nTemazcal Room: So the wind setup profile is not horizontal\, it should actually increase as you get closer to the levee \nTemazcal Room: and your offshore way of reference point is not \nTemazcal Room: close to the total levee\, so I think the water depth would be higher. \nTemazcal Room: Then\, perhaps\, is being modeled\, which\, of course. \nTemazcal Room: allows larger waves to propagate \nTemazcal Room: landward to reach the toe. \nTemazcal Room: which may also be contributing to this very low \nTemazcal Room: wave total water level exceedance at the toe of the berm. I think I’ve made my point\, but I had. That’s that’s 1 of the concerns I have. And we can discuss more. \nTemazcal Room: In the discussion. \nTemazcal Room: Is is that okay? \nTemazcal Room: Okay? Thanks. Jeremy. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Sure. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): so let’s see\, we this slide. We’re looking at the berm tail exceedance. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and that’s the average number of hours per year\, where the total water level is exceeding the berm tail with a wave height greater than one foot. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So under baseline conditions\, you can see in the upper left. The levee is completely colored and green\, and that’s \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): for \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): entire berm. Sorry. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): And so that’s less than 1 h per year. The legends\, the color legends here. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): to interpret the different colors. You look at \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the 6 inch sea level Rise scenario\, which is what we’re considering to be the the 10 year sea level rise amount \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the berm is still mostly green with some yellow\, so that would bump the segment of berm up into the one to $12 per year. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): That it’s been impacted by these waves\, and then you can look at the results for the higher sea level rise scenarios of 12 inches and 36 inches sea level rise. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): The next thing we looked at was the frequency of crest overtopping by waves. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): And we looked at the approximate return period. Total water levels. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): That would result \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): in in overtopping. So these would be \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): from events as frequent as 2 years. So a total water level with 2 year term period \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): through 1050\, and then on up to \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): 100 years. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): I’m \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and same as before. Baseline conditions are shown here in the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): upper left\, and then \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): on 36 inches of sea level rise. Most extreme scenario shown here on the bottom right? So for baseline conditions. You can see here. Most of the the berm is shaded in orange\, which \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): indicates that it’s vulnerable to \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): overtopping from a storm with a roughly 10 to 50 year return period. There is a small segment in red which is more vulnerable to the light red\, so that’s vulnerable to \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): to 10 year. Total water level with 6 inches of sea level rise. More of the berm here is colored in red meaning. It’s more vulnerable. Obviously\, to to storms \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): with lower return periods. So it happened more frequently. \nTemazcal Room: Hey\, hey\, Jeremy? This is Bobby again. Sorry. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: Ha! The dynamic water level\, or the wave set up\, you know\, like the wind setup is \nTemazcal Room: sloping upwards towards shore. \nTemazcal Room: A lot of the same physics. \nTemazcal Room: The wave setup? Was it \nTemazcal Room: associated with \nTemazcal Room: the wave height at the toe of the levee\, or with the wave\, the largest wave breaking farther offshore. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): That’s a great question. And \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): it really I I guess it depends on the wave condition. So I’ll kind of walk you through what we did. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): We generally follow the the engineering guidance\, and that the Fema \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Pacific Islands. So \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): guidelines for the west coast\, and so for \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the 1st step in the run up calculation. We use the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the Bim equation\, the direct integration method equation to calculate both \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): wave setup \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and we run up \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and then we looked at the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the dynamic water level so that would be \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the still water level plus static wave set up\, and the dynamic wave set up. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and then\, if that exceeded the berm toe\, we switched to \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the tar equation\, which is a wave wave wrap equation for steep \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): coastal barriers. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): And then we did a check. So we use the the near shore wave height \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): shoaled to the depth of the toe. If that exceeded \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the depth limited wave height we would use the depth limited wave height\, until\, if it did it\, we would use that wave height to calculate \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): way round up with tall. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. So I I think that all sounds good. I’m I’m familiar with that methodology. It makes. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: So I mean\, I think the question is\, where was the what wave was used? At? What pansec location offshore \nTemazcal Room: to calculate the way it’s set up. \nTemazcal Room: The dynamic water level. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Sorry. So you’re are you asking what wave I was used in tall\, or what? What wave height. \nTemazcal Room: I know. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Extracted from the the model to start the calculations. \nTemazcal Room: No\, I think I understand that the wave height for the run up calculation using the paw equation \nTemazcal Room: was the maximum expected. \nTemazcal Room: That’s limited or otherwise wave height at the toe of the levee. \nTemazcal Room: But the question is. \nTemazcal Room: what wave height was used to compute \nTemazcal Room: the way it’s set up. \nTemazcal Room: which may be a wave that’s bigger farther offshore. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah\, I I think I get what you’re saying. So we use the near shore wave. I extracted from the the dhi model. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah\, so it wouldn’t be an offshore wave. And people are being a nearshore wave. \nTemazcal Room: So it’s the offshore. It’s at the extraction point. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Right. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Sure. \nTemazcal Room: Maybe. Can I? Ask one question as well\, Jeremy? \nTemazcal Room: I don’t know if it’s you\, but we’re using. You’re using overtopping \nTemazcal Room: as kind of the measurement metric for \nTemazcal Room: for the hazard. And can you maybe just explain what \nTemazcal Room: that that \nTemazcal Room: what that does to the the bittern? And \nTemazcal Room: ultimately\, I think we’re concerned about release \nTemazcal Room: of the bittern from into the bay\, right? And so \nTemazcal Room: is there like a sequence of that happens. \nTemazcal Room: That you know that that causes you to use the overtopping as \nTemazcal Room: the \nTemazcal Room: the measurement of the risk. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So I I think what you’re asking is like\, what’s the impact of wave over topping to the the the contents of the Mss. Fund. \nTemazcal Room: Yes\, what I mean. I assume that’s the hazard that we’re that we’re all concerned about\, right. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Right. So we so we considered. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): I I guess. We looked at Wave\, overtopping as really \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the the risk from like a flooding standpoint. And as I guess\, really\, for just a like a \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): a metric on how vulnerable upon \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): would be to \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): storm conditions and then future sea level rise. We didn’t do any \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): detailed analysis on\, like what the actual impacts of the overtopping would be. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, so my name is Matt Pitcher. I’m the operations guy for Cargill. So the overtopping can scour the top of the berms so it wouldn’t be. One wave wouldn’t do anything right. And one wave going into the pond is just a drop\, right\, you know. I mean. So there! There’s plenty of free board in the pond\, so it would take many waves \nTemazcal Room: scouring the top to erode the top of the berm\, so that then the level in the pond was higher than whatever got scoured\, so that that would be the risk. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, thank you. And and then it’s just the release of the bittern into the bay\, and I’m understanding that \nTemazcal Room: the dilution it dilutes. But there is still \nTemazcal Room: is there like a time\, hazard\, or or a hazard in \nTemazcal Room: a short period of time\, as the the matrix is released. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. So the the hazard would be. Yes\, the bitterin getting out of the pond and getting onto the vegetation\, or coming in contact with a aquatic species out there\, or or whatever but it dilutes. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, with all the water out there\, so it dilutes quickly. But it it all depends on how much of a release. It is right. \nTemazcal Room: The the majority of the Mss. Pond is a solid \nTemazcal Room: salt \nTemazcal Room: or different types of salts\, but there is a liquid component in it\, too. That’s in inside the matrix. And so that’s really what you’d be worried about is that liquid component because it would take a lot to dissolve the salt and then get \nTemazcal Room: that high of a concentration. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. I’d I’d like to follow up on that discussion. I I understand what you were saying that. \nTemazcal Room: The ponds are very big\, and so if there’s a couple of waves that come over\, it really doesn’t provide that much \nTemazcal Room: water volume\, and it doesn’t necessarily raise the water level that much\, yet \nTemazcal Room: I think I understand that the plan is to continue to \nTemazcal Room: increase the the amount of what is it? Mss. \nTemazcal Room: Whatever in these ponds\, so that the water level is going to go up over time. Right? Correct. We are still using the the ponds for the Mss. To to store the Mss. So so the water level is going to go up over time\, and then with sea level\, the amount of wave overtopping is going to increase over time. And so \nTemazcal Room: I think what Rod’s question is\, you know\, how does all this translate to the \nTemazcal Room: threshold? Criterion for \nTemazcal Room: the ponds not overflowing\, or \nTemazcal Room: you know\, it’s hard for us to have a feel for that. It doesn’t seem like that was analyzed. Yeah\, there’s a there’s. There’s \nTemazcal Room: feet of free board\, you know\, a couple of feet at least at the minimum inside the pond\, so it would take a large amount\, and your accumulation per year is \nTemazcal Room: less than a half inch. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, yeah. So I think it sounds like it’s apparent to you. I guess it’s just not apparent to us. But I appreciate. Thank you for the answer. I I understand. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, this is Chris. \nTemazcal Room: My understanding is the purpose of what Jeremy is presenting is less \nTemazcal Room: accumulation of bay water in the Mss. Ponds. But looking at the risk to these berms of being \nTemazcal Room: eroded or made less stable by the wave overtopping\, so it’s the risk of damage to these \nTemazcal Room: which would then allow for a larger release. \nTemazcal Room: So that’s why we’re looking at like the wave impacts. And the overtopping is that going to damage \nTemazcal Room: these burns and cause a larger release. \nTemazcal Room: Is that is that right? \nTemazcal Room: Yes\, that’s correct. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, yeah. I mean\, yeah\, to to get a large release of it. You would need a lot of scouring \nTemazcal Room: which would take \nTemazcal Room: it would take a lot of waves\, and all those waves would have to happen at a high tide \nTemazcal Room: with surge to to get there\, because you’ve got you’ve got a large amount. It’s hard to see in the picture\, but there’s a large amount of marsh in front of here\, so the marsh\, the only time the marsh gets covered would be like a king tide. \nTemazcal Room: so it would have to happen during a king tide. All the other high tides\, you know\, or the majority of the high tides during a year don’t even cover the marsh. \nTemazcal Room: so you’d have your waves would break up before they ever got through the mark. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, yeah\, I mean I. And then I understand that you’re looking at \nTemazcal Room: into the future with different rates of sea level rise right? So that the risk increases as you move forward in time. \nTemazcal Room: Correct? Yes. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. Sorry for the interruption. Please please continue. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): No\, no problem at all. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): I let’s see. I think that I had covered the results for the the baseline conditions. Here\, and then the 6 inch sea Level Rise scenario which we’re considering that the sea Level Rise scenario for the next 10 years. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): And see that \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): roughly. I mean\, there’s there’s different spots. But roughly\, we’re switching from \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): overtopping\, occurring from a \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): 10 to 50 year. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): return period total water level. Then to one with a \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the term period of 2 \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): to 10 years. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): so this slide has a little bit of the same information. But it’s just kind of more of a focus on on \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): or a summary of the results\, I guess\, for point 12. So we’re obviously focused on. Here’s 1 12. Here’s the the bayfront. Berm and \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So if you’re reading the report\, you’re curious what transects were used for this section. We looked at transacts. 2122. Well\, 21 through 24\, and they’re shown here in the snapshot \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): on the right. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): The existing Bay front crest elevations for this firm range generally from 11 to 12 feet. Any vd\, 88. See that in the picture and also in the report\, there’s a \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): color index here shows that the different elevations you’ve got some high spots\, some low spots. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): The majority of the pond. 12 burn crops are above the 100 year. Still water elevation\, which is roughly around 11 feet \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and DVD 88 \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and just a summary set for baseline conditions. Wave overtopping. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Generally occurs for a 10 year storm and greater \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and as a reference\, the 100 year \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): total water level is 11 to \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): 13 feet. Any vd\, 88 \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): just as a note\, we’ve been referring to storms in terms of return period. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): The 10 year storm is actually a 10\, a storm with a 10% \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): annual chance of occurrence. And so \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): on average\, we would expect it to occur once \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): every 10 years. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): so for future conditions\, that’s 6 inches of sea level rise\, wave overtopping roughly occurs\, and for a 5 year storm. So it’s more frequent. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): That has about a 20% annual chance of occurrence\, and under your total water level is \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): 12 to 13 feet. Any Bd 88. With that amount of sea level rise. \nTemazcal Room: Hey\, Jeremy? Sorry to interrupt again. This is Bob again. \nTemazcal Room: So you’re saying that the the levee crest elevations are somewhere around the 100 year. Still water level SW. EL. \nTemazcal Room: Of about 11 feet in Avd. \nTemazcal Room: So that means there’s really no free board. \nTemazcal Room: Essentially \nTemazcal Room: so with sea level rise. \nTemazcal Room: Wouldn’t it be possible that \nTemazcal Room: at that 100 year water level water would \nTemazcal Room: spilled over the levee. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah\, so that right now. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the the bird crests are above the 100 year. Still water level elevation\, the majority of them. It’s around 11 feet. So nothing. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): If if there was no raising of the firms\, yes\, there would be \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): potentially subject to to flooding \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): but a hundred years still water level. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So what happens. \nTemazcal Room: Okay? And then my other comment is\, it seems that the total water level 100 year listed there of 11 to 13 feet \nTemazcal Room: doesn’t seem to be \nTemazcal Room: that much higher than the 100. You’re still water level of 11 feet\, and I understand that the bigger winds and waves don’t happen necessarily during the 100\, you’re still water level. But still. \nTemazcal Room: or even so \nTemazcal Room: again\, the total water levels seem a little low to me. \nTemazcal Room: And I don’t know if that’s because of the wind setup computation or other computation. But \nTemazcal Room: And furthermore\, usually you would like to have free board unless \nTemazcal Room: there’s no consequence to\, I guess\, the overtopping in terms of \nTemazcal Room: the internal water levels or the levee erosion\, etc. So I know. \nTemazcal Room: So \nTemazcal Room: I think that’s still a concern that I have\, both in terms of the total water level\, seeming a little low to me. \nTemazcal Room: and also the implications of the apparent overtopping that will will occur. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah\, I I think\, it’s a it’s a good comment. And you know it. It could potentially be due to yeah\, the exposure like we talked about different orientation of the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): that \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): you know\, segments of berm. And then how much \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Windfash they’re exposed to. And then the frequency that you actually get big wind events time with those high still water levels that \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): we’re actually able to generate waves. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: Rod\, can I ask a question? Too? \nTemazcal Room: Sure. Yeah\, Jeremy\, this is Gail Johnson \nTemazcal Room: actually had a similar question to Rod about the \nTemazcal Room: what are the actual \nTemazcal Room: hazards associated with the overtopping? \nTemazcal Room: And Chris mentioned about erosion? \nTemazcal Room: maybe this is a question for Cargill. We saw photographs from Jen’s staff. Report of \nTemazcal Room: that. You trench in the center of the berm \nTemazcal Room: and put some kind of a slurry mix. \nTemazcal Room: And and you’ve created kind of a \nTemazcal Room: interior wall\, if you will. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. So it we’re just putting dirt in there. So it’s it’s just. It’s nothing\, nothing that. No\, it’s not. It’s not hardens it\, so to speak. No\, okay\, no. \nTemazcal Room: And but we are compacting it. And his \nTemazcal Room: oh\, sorry and historically\, when you have had \nTemazcal Room: overtopping in the past. \nTemazcal Room: is it? Has it been in the form of \nTemazcal Room: massive breaches or over extensive lengths? Or what what is it? What’s what’s the his history of \nTemazcal Room: of damage that’s occurred. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, from from single\, from single storms. Assuming you can do repairs. \nTemazcal Room: It’s been very minor. I I mean you can. You can tell where some water has gone over\, you know\, but it’s not. I mean\, we haven’t even lost. \nTemazcal Room: I wouldn’t even see an inch \nTemazcal Room: of material off the top of it. \nTemazcal Room: Just you can. You can just sort of see where the where the waves came over. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. Yeah. Cause I was\, I was having a hard time envisioning \nTemazcal Room: what would cause them. \nTemazcal Room: Ms. Has to \nTemazcal Room: come out of the levee. Because just water going in \nTemazcal Room: isn’t the hazard. As far as I can see\, that’s what that’s why\, I was a little confused. \nTemazcal Room: Thanks. \nTemazcal Room: My name is Don Brown. I’m the land resources manager for Cargill. So \nTemazcal Room: they asked me to cover this slide. \nTemazcal Room: What we’re going to do with this information that we received. It really allows us to. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, identify those specific areas for inspection and maintenance. \nTemazcal Room: and that allows us to \nTemazcal Room: work our maintenance plan to prioritize\, you know\, working on those. \nTemazcal Room: perhaps more vulnerable segments of of those firms. \nTemazcal Room: And and this is in addition to what we already do with regard to you know\, we’re we’re out there. \nTemazcal Room: you know. Matt’s team is out there inspecting the berms all the time\, especially after storms identifying any area that may need some additional maintenance \nTemazcal Room: and inspection. \nTemazcal Room: And again\, this the the study here was under what Jeremy explained as a \nTemazcal Room: no action scenario. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, we’re we’re planning on increasing the height of those berms. So we’ll increase it to 11.5. \nTemazcal Room: Nabbed \nTemazcal Room: 88 by 2034. \nTemazcal Room: We’ve worked with BC. Bcdc staff on on how we’re going to do that. \nTemazcal Room: We are going to prioritize the pond. 12 firms. \nTemazcal Room: We’ll have that \nTemazcal Room: up to that 11.5 by the end of 2029\, and\, in fact\, we’ve already started working on it. Matt’s team is out there already \nTemazcal Room: is is increased \nTemazcal Room: small segments of those berms \nTemazcal Room: already to that that height. So \nTemazcal Room: and and we’ll continue to. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, evaluate any impact that overtopping might have as far as scouring or having any impact to to the berms. \nTemazcal Room: So and anything that might anything that might impact firm stability. \nTemazcal Room: You know\, we’ll be closely monitoring. \nTemazcal Room: And and then during the next 10 year period\, we’ll have a longer term \nTemazcal Room: adaptation plan. How do we? How do we make sure that those those berms around those mixed sea salt palms \nTemazcal Room: remained \nTemazcal Room: stable and and safely \nTemazcal Room: hold that that Mss. \nTemazcal Room: Can I ask? Can I ask a question. Oh. \nTemazcal Room: oh\, you go ahead. \nTemazcal Room: So we should see a 5\, 6 inches of sea level rise by 2\,034. So it seems like you would be building a system that would be \nTemazcal Room: too short by 2\,034\, since we’re supposed to have\, it’s highly likely that we would have 11 inches of sea level rise by 2\,050 \nTemazcal Room: so it would seem like it would be more prudent to build now for a 2050 condition instead of building. Now \nTemazcal Room: for a condition that you’re going to start exceeding already by 2\,034 with that 100 year. Fill water \nTemazcal Room: something we’re going to look at in the next 10 year. Permit period the issue would be\, you start getting too high. You might have to build horizontally out in order to support the height. \nTemazcal Room: So one thing that we’ll be looking at the next 10 years is \nTemazcal Room: is really that long term adaptation plan. This is just a commitment we want to do to stay ahead of sea level rise. But \nTemazcal Room: we will. That will be part of a long term plan that we look at. How do you actually. \nTemazcal Room: make sure that those berms\, you know\, withstand again\, even higher sea level rise? \nTemazcal Room: I think you would need to start implementing your long term plan by 2\,029. So I\, yeah\, that that just concerns me. I guess. Yeah\, I I had a follow up. I had a similar question. So how was the 11.5 elevation \nTemazcal Room: that you’re going to raise the levies to? \nTemazcal Room: How was that selected? \nTemazcal Room: I was 11.5. \nTemazcal Room: It was just based on sea level rise projections\, on what \nTemazcal Room: you know\, as far as the vulnerability of having wave overtopping \nTemazcal Room: so that that was based on\, I guess. \nTemazcal Room: a projection from the existing condition which you consider to be \nTemazcal Room: okay. \nTemazcal Room: And then \nTemazcal Room: a certain amount of sea level rise like half a foot or something like that. \nTemazcal Room: I’m sorry. So it sounds like you’re using the existing condition\, plus \nTemazcal Room: something like half a foot of sea level rise. Is that? Or how? \nTemazcal Room: Yep. Yeah. So that \nTemazcal Room: I think that’s what we’re struggling with a little bit. What are the criteria for? The initial \nTemazcal Room: levee crest elevation rise. \nTemazcal Room: and \nTemazcal Room: it sounds like it might actually be limited by geotechnical factors rather than \nTemazcal Room: something that was developed\, based on the hydraulics\, the hydraulic exposure. You mentioned the concern that if you raised it higher than that now\, which is what Chris was suggesting. \nTemazcal Room: That that might be problematic\, necessarily problematic. But it’s something that we’re just not permitted to do in our our current maintenance. So it’s that’s why we want to spend the you know. \nTemazcal Room: during that 10 year permit period \nTemazcal Room: term. And you know\, if we want to\, if we need to build it even higher or raise them even higher\, how would you go about doing that because you know that we can raise it to 11.5 under. You know\, that’s part of our existing maintenance that we \nTemazcal Room: that we do every year. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): That is all that we have for this live presentation\, unless there’s any more questions. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, thank you\, Jeremy. \nTemazcal Room: Are there any \nTemazcal Room: further comments from the board? \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, Jen\, yes. \nTemazcal Room: I have a comment question. Do these analyses depend? Did they take into account the dampening \nTemazcal Room: effect from the tidal marshes that are there. \nTemazcal Room: so that if the tidal marshes\, for example\, either eroded or were not able to create\, to keep up with sea level rise. Would that change the outcome of the modeling. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So the answer to your 1st question is\, no\, that \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): on \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the analysis did not. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): did not account for the dampening of of the marsh\, except for the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): You know the elevation of the marsh\, so that \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the way we \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): calculated way to set up and run up is purely. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): purely based on \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): I guess\, depth and and elevations only. So it considered. Like the you know\, the the flooded depth of the the toe of the berm \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): which is impacted by the marsh elevations. But it didn’t account for \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): any any kind of like future \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): changes to the marsh. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): like the marsh\, potentially rising to keep pace with sea level\, rise. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): A marsh actually potentially dampening the waves a little bit to drag and friction \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): stuff like that. \nTemazcal Room: This is this is Chris again. \nTemazcal Room: When I look at figure one of your wave analysis. Memo. It looks like you are accounting\, at least in that figure for the dampening \nTemazcal Room: of the wave height. Under existing conditions. That’s what the figure shows. But I think then\, when you’re adding the 6 inches of sea level rise or \nTemazcal Room: higher. In your analysis\, I’m assuming you’re just keeping that marsh plain edits \nTemazcal Room: existing condition. So\, not accounting for the rise that it could have. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah\, that’s a good point. So that we’re accounting for the dampening that might occur. Due to shallow water of the marsh. So as the waves come in. You know they could potentially break \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): you know\, and the the shallow water and you get death limited waves at the tail of the firm. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and the marsh elevation is not changed for the with future sea level rise\, so it stays the same\, and we add sea level rise into the calculations. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): But there’s no dampening like to the marsh. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): or from the marsh grass. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): right like providing friction and stuff like that \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): that make any sense\, Chris. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. Got it? Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. Thank you\, Chris. Any any other questions from the board? \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: thank you\, Jeremy. You \nTemazcal Room: see next page of the script. \nTemazcal Room: Now Michael Whalen\, of Anchor Qea will make a presentation \nTemazcal Room: on behalf of Cargill. \nTemazcal Room: Hello! \nTemazcal Room: Yes. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, hello! My name is Michael Whalen. I am with the firm anchor. Qea. I’m a principal geotechnical engineer. I will be leading this \nTemazcal Room: presentation. \nTemazcal Room: should I \nTemazcal Room: log in and do it from my screen\, or is there a more? What would be the most practical way to go through the \nTemazcal Room: okay? I haven’t actually \nTemazcal Room: logged in. So let let me let me do that. \nTemazcal Room: and I’m I’m joined on the virtually by my colleagues\, Andrew Barrett and Cole bales. \nTemazcal Room: I’m a i’m Andrew performed a lot of the analyses under my direction. \nTemazcal Room: and Cole and I have been \nTemazcal Room: the folks to review it and put it all together. \nTemazcal Room: So let me \nTemazcal Room: let me get get myself logged in to this. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, I got. I got that. \nTemazcal Room: I have 45 slides. I do\, and I will. I do want to be conscious of time. And I know folks may have comments as I go. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: yep\, okay. I’m I’m getting. I’m getting in there. \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, yeah. \nTemazcal Room: just \nTemazcal Room: okay. \nTemazcal Room: And there’s me. \nTemazcal Room: okay? \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, join as panelists. Right? \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: there’s me. Okay. \nTemazcal Room: And then if I share my screen. \nTemazcal Room: we \nTemazcal Room: we’ll be good \nTemazcal Room: share screen. \nTemazcal Room: Mike\, yeah\, let us know when you’re ready\, Michael. But I think we want to wait for the board members to okay to show up. Sure. \nTemazcal Room: Yep\, okay\, I I will. That’s I’m all set. And I will. \nTemazcal Room: I will hold up. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, Michael. I think we’re we’re back now. So \nTemazcal Room: okay. \nTemazcal Room: very good. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, thanks again. Yeah. Michael Whalen\, principal geotechnical engineer\, anchor. Qea. I. I spoke in the in our last 2 engagements on this topic. \nTemazcal Room: and I will go through our updated analysis of \nTemazcal Room: static and seismic stability for the for the Pond\, p. 2\, 12 and p. 2\, 13. Firms. \nTemazcal Room: And I will start \nTemazcal Room: with a short recap of what you heard from us last summertime. \nTemazcal Room: where we had obtained all the available information on the sub service conditions that existed at the time performed by other parties. \nTemazcal Room: Several borings 24\, and\, to be exact\, were had been done. We had access to that information. \nTemazcal Room: I’m including 2 deeper ones to 80 feet. \nTemazcal Room: We had quite a few cone penetration tests or cpts to use \nTemazcal Room: many of them with hydraulic profiling tools. \nTemazcal Room: although those tended to go to depths of like around 20 feet. So there were some limitations on how deep into the subservice we could obtain information\, but we used what we had. \nTemazcal Room: and developed a model \nTemazcal Room: of the subsurface and performed stability analyses for the berm for the berms. \nTemazcal Room: And you’ll remember our technical memo. We discussed it. Our conclusions at the time was that the berms showed an adequate level of \nTemazcal Room: stability\, factors of safety under static and seismic conditions. \nTemazcal Room: and we did the analysis for 2 distinct earthquake \nTemazcal Room: magnitudes a 50 year earthquake and a 475 year earthquake \nTemazcal Room: and \nTemazcal Room: We discussed it\, and one of the takeaways from our engagement with the Board was that you’re at. You were recommending that \nTemazcal Room: a a \nTemazcal Room: further series of field investigations be performed \nTemazcal Room: specific to this type of analysis. \nTemazcal Room: focusing on Cpts\, getting to greater depths\, etc. \nTemazcal Room: And so that’s what we put together. And you saw our work plan \nTemazcal Room: right at the end of the year last year. \nTemazcal Room: and\, as was mentioned early in this conversation in this meeting. \nTemazcal Room: we performed that work plan. The investigations described in that work plan \nTemazcal Room: late this spring. We got out there as soon as we could\, and we we had to wait through difficult weather and rain conditions\, but we got out there and did the work. We’re finished by May 3\, rd \nTemazcal Room: and again consistent with the work plan that we prepared. We did \nTemazcal Room: 24 Cpts \nTemazcal Room: to as much as 100 feet below below ground surface. Oftentimes\, though\, they didn’t actually get that far. \nTemazcal Room: they got to 64 to 65 feet\, and then kind of refusal\, but significantly deeper than what we had before. \nTemazcal Room: 2 of them were seismic cones\, which is\, which is a useful way to get an understanding of \nTemazcal Room: some of the seismic properties that came into our analysis\, as you’ll see in a in a few minutes. \nTemazcal Room: We did one deeper boring to help us understand seismic properties. In the subsurface \nTemazcal Room: we obtained a handful of undisturbed samples by pushing Shelby tubes. \nTemazcal Room: and used those as well as \nTemazcal Room: the samples we obtained \nTemazcal Room: from the deep boring to perform a series of laboratory tests \nTemazcal Room: strength test for the triaxial equipment. You’ll see that comes into play in some of this presentation\, and some various index properties of the subsurface\, elasticity\, grain\, size\, moisture\, content. So all in all\, we’re able to successfully execute the program that was described in our \nTemazcal Room: in our work plan. \nTemazcal Room: And this is a map \nTemazcal Room: of \nTemazcal Room: the 2 ponds in question. \nTemazcal Room: and I could zoom in if folks\, and maybe as we go through this\, there may be opportunities to zoom in and take a look closer. But there’s a number of things that are depicted on this map. \nTemazcal Room: You see\, a whole string of little circles\, and that is\, showing both \nTemazcal Room: the preceding existing explorations that we had used for last year’s analysis \nTemazcal Room: as well as \nTemazcal Room: in the\, in the darker color. I I realize that \nTemazcal Room: they’re a little small here\, but \nTemazcal Room: the new ones that we did. \nTemazcal Room: and I guess the the takeaway I wanted to show all of you is that we \nTemazcal Room: we got information all along these these berms \nTemazcal Room: around these ponds. On the bayward side\, and between ponds 12 and 13 on both sides of plumber slough. So \nTemazcal Room: we were able to get to all these places and get our information. Another thing that appears on this map in our report is \nTemazcal Room: the fact that as we discussed a few minutes ago in the in the preceding presentation. \nTemazcal Room: Cargill has performed the keying process where the the trench is excavated and then imported\, fill\, controlled fill is put back in a in a compacted fashion. \nTemazcal Room: and \nTemazcal Room: This map includes the areas that were \nTemazcal Room: keyed over the last 5 years\, and our series of explorations included going right through some of the keyed areas and also going through places that had not been \nTemazcal Room: need. So we’re able to\, you know. Look and compare. And I’ll I’ll talk about that in a \nTemazcal Room: in a few minutes. What what did we learn from that? \nTemazcal Room: Can I ask a question before you change the slide? \nTemazcal Room: when you get further in the presentation section CC is\, gonna be kind of right on the line. It looks like \nTemazcal Room: and so my question is\, can you tell us a little bit more about how you selected these critical sections. Yeah. And how do you know there isn’t 1 that’s worse. \nTemazcal Room: And just from a very simplistic perspective\, it looks like down to the right of CC. The berm gets narrower. \nTemazcal Room: which would seem to indicate\, you know\, more vulnerable. So can you tell us a little bit about that. Sure? Yeah\, thanks that I really should. As a matter of fact\, because you do see the 5 sections that we selected on these maps \nTemazcal Room: the what we used to select these 5 sections was\, \nTemazcal Room: a combination of things \nTemazcal Room: we had. Even before we went out in the field we had existing Lidar survey. Information allowed us to see how high is the berm\, how wide is the berm? \nTemazcal Room: Does it vary? Are there places where it’s higher than in other places. \nTemazcal Room: what we. \nTemazcal Room: So we looked specifically at places where \nTemazcal Room: the top of the berm elevation \nTemazcal Room: and the the \nTemazcal Room: the adjoining low spot\, whether that’s the toe of the berm\, or\, in fact\, something even deeper than the toe of the berm\, notably the the bottom of plumber slough. \nTemazcal Room: Thus kind of being a change in elevation. We looked for places where that change of elevation was \nTemazcal Room: largest \nTemazcal Room: and closest. In other words\, where do we have the biggest\, most abrupt change from bottom to top. \nTemazcal Room: That was a big factor\, in fact\, that ended up being the primary factor in how we chose these sections. \nTemazcal Room: We were also on the lookout for indications of \nTemazcal Room: might. There be places geographically where we’re finding \nTemazcal Room: softer material than in other places? If we had seen such things that would have been a really important part of our selection. But we didn’t really see a a trend of softer geographies. \nTemazcal Room: So what these ended up being was really based on. \nTemazcal Room: shall we say? Abruptness of \nTemazcal Room: elevation change from top to bottom? \nTemazcal Room: And \nTemazcal Room: well\, there are 5 \nTemazcal Room: lines on this map. We actually \nTemazcal Room: looked at 7 sections. And the reason I say that is because. \nTemazcal Room: sections B and C cross all the way across plumber slough and include both the the flanking berm. So our models are set up to to evaluate \nTemazcal Room: 7 sections. But \nTemazcal Room: it was. It was the changing grade that would that ended up being the primary driver for us to \nTemazcal Room: choose these places for our analysis. So so is there anywhere that’s worse than C. \nTemazcal Room: Not not that we can tell. \nTemazcal Room: not not from the evidence that we saw. \nTemazcal Room: And you are right. C is is the more critical player as as we’ll talk about in a bit. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: Michael\, I have. another question that I was. \nTemazcal Room: Since we’re talking about this now I’ll go ahead and jump in. \nTemazcal Room: I hope. \nTemazcal Room: and it’ll come back again a little bit later on\, about 8 slides further ahead\, I think\, but the southwest corner there at the south side of the \nTemazcal Room: Greek or channel whatever that is. \nTemazcal Room: Cpts 8 and 9. \nTemazcal Room: so 2 questions\, I guess \nTemazcal Room: part of it is related to \nTemazcal Room: to the geometry. It looks like\, since you have. You know\, the southwest corner there is kind of west southwest\, the creek. It looks like there might be. Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: yeah. Aq. Cpt and 9 Ccp\, 8 and 9. Okay\, yeah\, the 2 yellow ones I I had misspoke. By the way\, folks that yeah\, the yellow ones are the new ones. But anyway\, it looks to me I’m I’m curious. Why\, you cut off Bed Bay mud at 30 feet when it looks like those 2 have Bay mud at 32 and 36 feet. Oh\, yeah\, is one question. That sort of okay. \nTemazcal Room: related to a few slides further down the road. But it also looks like this particular geometry might be a more critical one\, because you have that that channel out in front of you. There\, that \nTemazcal Room: have you? \nTemazcal Room: Have. You looked at the geometry \nTemazcal Room: sort of going left from Cpt. 9\, I guess. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. Are you describing how \nTemazcal Room: like the slough is relative to the berm? When you when you say that. Is that what you’re but also\, as you move\, just sort of straight west\, you get that wider water body. I’m not sure if that’s \nTemazcal Room: Creek channel\, or what? That is exactly. But those guys\, you have a wider water body that \nTemazcal Room: looks like it might be deeper channel. Okay? Less. Cpt. 9\, \nTemazcal Room: as it looks to me like bay mud bottom is about 36 feet rather than 30 feet\, which make it \nTemazcal Room: potentially\, geotechnically more critical\, but also\, maybe geometrically more critical. Sure. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. Well\, I understand what you’re saying. \nTemazcal Room: it is. It is possible. I I will admit it’s possible that there could be some places whose combination of factors is somewhat different\, or even worse\, than our selections. I think our selections are are pretty solid\, that in this case and and I’m able to speak from having gone through the analyses. One thing\, couple of things we found\, and we’ll be looking at this soon when I\, you know\, should we look at all the slip services? \nTemazcal Room: The slip services? \nTemazcal Room: I I think it’s fair to say Andrew is gonna ping me if I say this wrong\, but \nTemazcal Room: that the slip surfaces that were critical for analysis didn’t go so deep that the the acknowledged fact that young bay mud does sometimes go below 30 feet. You’re absolutely right. There’s places 32\, 34\, 36 feet deep. \nTemazcal Room: We haven’t seen that that \nTemazcal Room: has translated to where the critical slip services end up. Being \nTemazcal Room: so true though it is\, I don’t know that it \nTemazcal Room: affects the the conclusions we’re drawing. \nTemazcal Room: Similarly\, I I understand your observation about the the slough and the water bodies offshore from these locations. \nTemazcal Room: I’m thinking. \nTemazcal Room: And again\, I’ll you know\, as we go through\, and Andrew might speak up on this when we’re kind of going through some things. But \nTemazcal Room: I think that still may be far enough away from the berm that \nTemazcal Room: that water body\, even if it ends up\, being really deep over here on the left. \nTemazcal Room: I don’t know that that is\, would end up affecting our results very much. That that’s my suspicion about how those might play out. \nandrew barrett: Michael\, that’s pretty much exactly what I was. Gonna say. At at Cbt. 9 and Cbt. 8. You do see that the young Bay mud is deeper than the 30 feet that we used as our average in our models. \nandrew barrett: But one thing that we found is that the critical region\, I guess you could call it in terms of stability in terms of strength is between 10 and 20 feet\, where we saw a lot of failure services go through. \nandrew barrett: So one of the things you’re gonna notice is that what. \nTemazcal Room: I’m sorry\, Andrew\, do you mind turning on your camera when you’re talking? \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. \nandrew barrett: Oh. \nandrew barrett: hello! \nandrew barrett: And that was that was all I had to say. We we noted that the the critical area\, the critical region \nandrew barrett: of the strength parameters in the models was between 10 and 20 feet. \nandrew barrett: So that deepening there around the the 30 to 36 range \nandrew barrett: didn’t seem to have any effect on the the overall stability. \nTemazcal Room: I have a few more questions about stability. Maybe we can wait until we get down to the stability section of the presentation. Okay? I mean\, it’ll sort of follow on these. But I wanted to jump in and \nTemazcal Room: about some \nTemazcal Room: geometry here. Good. Yeah\, that that makes sense. Okay. So I’ll keep moving up\, moving forward. Alright. \nTemazcal Room: But oh\, yeah\, let me clear in my mind \nTemazcal Room: you had Lidar information to give you the the crest of the burns\, if you will. Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: So \nTemazcal Room: the toe of the berms \nTemazcal Room: did. You have also lighter information about that? \nTemazcal Room: We did we? We did have Lidar information. But one thing I should mention \nTemazcal Room: it’s in my notes is that part of our field engagement wasn’t just to do all these cpts and boardings\, but we also did. We didn’t take a survey crew out there\, but we checked manually all the dimensions out there in terms of berm width\, and maybe even more notably berm height\, just to do a ground check on what we had from the Lidar. \nTemazcal Room: which was really helpful to us. Because the berms aren’t all that high as you’re as you’re standing there and kind of looking at them\, and we needed to make sure we had that right in the cross sections we set up. So I guess what I’m saying is we had Lidar\, but we also. Field checked it. \nTemazcal Room: That that’s the issue that in my mind I I want to make sure that \nTemazcal Room: you’re saying you’re \nTemazcal Room: analyzing the steepest slopes. \nTemazcal Room: Correct? Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: that that is our intent. Yup. That’s right. Okay\, that’s fine. I I want to \nTemazcal Room: understand it better for myself. How the toe was\, I mean\, how did you measure it in terms of height or elevation\, and and kind of the inclination to say\, Hmm. \nTemazcal Room: this is the steepest at this location. Yeah. And I should. I should probably clarify that a little further\, because what we measured in the field was the observable \nTemazcal Room: berm. \nTemazcal Room: But \nTemazcal Room: plumber slew particularly\, being a really important factor in this whole evaluation for our selection of \nTemazcal Room: steepness. We didn’t go into plumber\, slew and measure that that was from the Lidar\, for sure. That’s where we and and that kind of goes back to what I was kind of \nTemazcal Room: describing in our selection. It turned out that our selection isn’t based on like \nTemazcal Room: standing there and and seeing the burn be steep. It was based on recognizing that plumber slew out here or bay waters offshore. \nTemazcal Room: Those are getting deep faster. \nTemazcal Room: And so \nTemazcal Room: that ended up to us being the the real critical definition of \nTemazcal Room: what’s the most critical place. Where is it steepest? If if that makes sense? I I in other words\, I’m I’m describing steepness\, not just at the the immediate face of the of the berm as is visible. But all the way out to the nearest deep water. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, continue forward. And we can obviously revisit these things as we go. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, berm cross sections developed for analyses. Let me start with just some very generic ones. I don’t know like I’d rather focus more on the the scaled ones we did. You’ve you may remember seeing these \nTemazcal Room: before. I haven’t even changed these for this presentation\, although in reality we have made some updates till we actually modeled. \nTemazcal Room: But the general geometry of things \nTemazcal Room: stays the same. Really. What I wanted to show everybody is our understanding of what the deal is with these berms. \nTemazcal Room: They’re built out of densified fill upon young bay mud. That’s the real point I’m trying to make. Here you see the mixed sea salts on the left. \nTemazcal Room: You see the berm crest\, and I didn’t say the stirring \nTemazcal Room: Jeremy’s earlier talk\, but \nTemazcal Room: I feel like the the fact that the surface of this\, these densified fill berms and the and the cover with the \nTemazcal Room: the surface and gravel. Sh! I’m not going to try to quantify that and what I’m saying. But surely that has some innate resistance to wave overtopping erosion. \nTemazcal Room: Just want to make that side observation. But any case just wanted to show this\, and also\, as I scroll to the next \nTemazcal Room: slide \nTemazcal Room: the this keying activity that Cargill has been performing where \nTemazcal Room: a trench\, his dog and and compact and material placed back. \nTemazcal Room: So that that’s the general concepts. I think this is all familiar. We’ve \nTemazcal Room: gone through all this before. \nTemazcal Room: What I wanted to do next was just run through \nTemazcal Room: the 5 critical sections that we selected and modeled. \nTemazcal Room: Those of you who are familiar ask real quick question. I think it’s be easy. The keying is to cut off seepage\, or for stability or settlement\, or what \nTemazcal Room: I I think it’s primarily driven by cutting off seepage right primarily to reduce permeability \nTemazcal Room: to reduce permeability. Sorry. \nTemazcal Room: yeah. And we’ll comment in a few minutes about what might that imply for stability? And see? Bitch? Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: have a question about the previous slide. \nTemazcal Room: Is that slide? Is this slide intended \nTemazcal Room: as schematic? Or\, I mean. This has elevation on it\, it has \nTemazcal Room: exaggeration on it. \nTemazcal Room: It is intended as a schematic. \nTemazcal Room: it it definitely is intended as a schematic. I say that because we didn’t put this into our model. \nTemazcal Room: We put what I’ll show next into our model. I mostly want. This is a schematic\, and it’s true. This has \nTemazcal Room: various elevations described on it. It’s a it can be a little confusing\, I realize\, because \nTemazcal Room: we developed it with a different kind of \nTemazcal Room: one data. And then we used aecoms findings. So \nTemazcal Room: I I want this to be considered as a schematic. That’s why it’s intended. Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: These. So this is the 1st of 5. \nTemazcal Room: these aren’t schematic. I mean\, these are literally what we put into our \nTemazcal Room: slope stability model. Those of you who are familiar with this slope stability software recognize that \nTemazcal Room: nowadays\, when you build this model\, you can very quickly run all sorts of different combinations of situations\, all sorts of different water levels\, you can vary the strengths of the soils. You can do a lot of these things. And the reason I say that is because. \nTemazcal Room: what you are seeing in this slide set. And frankly\, what you see in our report isn’t everything we run. We ran a lot of things because you can do it quick. \nTemazcal Room: So\, for example. \nTemazcal Room: these all show a certain assumption of water levels. \nTemazcal Room: But I think\, as as you are all aware\, you know\, part of our work was to study the effects of different water levels. So these are just selected images. The real thing I wanted to show is just is the geometry \nTemazcal Room: of the berm\, and and you see \nTemazcal Room: there’s the berm in the middle. \nTemazcal Room: But as you go out to the left the outside of the pond\, now you’re dropping out into the the offshore area to the north \nTemazcal Room: of \nTemazcal Room: of the pond at this particular location. \nTemazcal Room: And the reason\, I say that is because when I was talking a few minutes ago about you know how we define this\, the top to the bottom at the closest proximity. \nTemazcal Room: We’re kind of looking at. Where might this overall slope that I’m tracking with my cursor be most dramatic? And how might that be our critical second? \nTemazcal Room: Anyway. \nTemazcal Room: there’s location a \nTemazcal Room: I’ll comment on the sub service in a minute here\, because\, you see all these colors\, I just have a quick question\, what are the units of the X and Y axes on these. \nTemazcal Room: Those are in feet. \nTemazcal Room: elevation and feet. \nTemazcal Room: and \nTemazcal Room: a arbitrarily selected horizontal location and feet. \nTemazcal Room: Was\, was there another \nTemazcal Room: question. \nTemazcal Room: okay\, you know what? Let me let me hang on this one just a little further\, because \nTemazcal Room: there! There’s some colors that we use\, that I will. I I \nTemazcal Room: I want to explain. \nTemazcal Room: we have young bay muds everywhere below the berm. \nTemazcal Room: and then\, as you get lower on the figures \nTemazcal Room: there\, there’s green bands for young bay muds. \nTemazcal Room: and then all the way down to the bottom of the figure. \nTemazcal Room: In in reality \nTemazcal Room: Although\, as I was saying a little bit ago\, and and Andrew also said this. \nTemazcal Room: the you know\, the the young bay mud\, reaching depths of 30 feet or 34 or 36\, didn’t really affect our analysis. So once we found that out\, these graphics were simplified. \nTemazcal Room: But the point is\, everything’s young bay mud with kind of down below. There’s an old bay mud floor. \nTemazcal Room: and all the action that we’re talking about here happens\, of course\, in the young bay muds. \nTemazcal Room: I also want to explain why we have this different color scheme protruding down below the berm. \nTemazcal Room: where you see like green and pink. \nTemazcal Room: If if you’re seeing the colors \nTemazcal Room: that that’s the information we picked up and used from our analyses directly\, and I’ll explain in a few minutes how we\, you know\, came up with these layers \nTemazcal Room: versus the places to either side of the berm that are just kind of this consistent kind of dark blue. \nTemazcal Room: The the dark blue on either side of the berm is where we applied kind of the worst case strength parameters. And the reason we looked at it this way is because we expect that the presence of the berm has \nTemazcal Room: probably cause some strength gain that we’re observing\, and we shouldn’t expect that that strength gain exists to either side of the berm. \nTemazcal Room: We’re we’re really trying not to. \nTemazcal Room: We’re just trying to stay appropriately conservative with our assumptions and not \nTemazcal Room: not be overly optimistic about things. And that’s why the colors appear \nTemazcal Room: the way that they do. There’s just a distinction. But below the berm versus not below the berm. \nTemazcal Room: anyway. \nTemazcal Room: Very similar storyline for these other locations. \nTemazcal Room: There’s location B zoomed in. \nTemazcal Room: Here’s Location C\, where you can actually note that plumber slough is in the middle\, and we got \nTemazcal Room: we got some of the modeling on both sides of of the slew. But \nTemazcal Room: the critical situation was here right in the middle. What you’re seeing there? \nTemazcal Room: Location DA little smaller berm \nTemazcal Room: and location E\, and and again\, these are zoomed in just to kind of show you folks how we developed these these models and kind of the scale of of the size of the berms themselves\, because these are all the \nTemazcal Room: to scale. \nTemazcal Room: I I have a quick question. \nTemazcal Room: So \nTemazcal Room: I think the the purple line is the water level\, and I think your purposely have the water level high on the pond side and low on the outboard side for stability analysis. \nTemazcal Room: so on the pond side\, it seems like it’s \nTemazcal Room: not that far below the crest is that is\, that the existing condition? Or is this a more conservative. \nTemazcal Room: In other words\, the the free board on the inside seems kinda \nTemazcal Room: free. Board on the inside is not intended to be particularly \nTemazcal Room: conservative. \nTemazcal Room: But yeah\, what you’re seeing in this case is about. What is that about 2 feet of of height \nTemazcal Room: above ground surface\, each of those? Okay\, it’s 2 feet. Okay. \nandrew barrett: This is one of the examples of the existing marshes to be seen from the edge of Pond 12. Cross. Section Ede. Prime is on Pond 12. \nandrew barrett: There’s several 100 feet of soil. \nandrew barrett: you know\, that’s above the water line. This is at low tide. \nandrew barrett: the pond \nandrew barrett: water level. We were told by cargo that doesn’t change\, which stays roughly around 9 depending using pumps. And if there’s rainfall\, then they bring it back down. So in these models the the elevation is plus 9 nav. D. 88 for all of the ponds. Well\, all of the models that show the pond water side\, and then the elevation that’s changing is is the \nandrew barrett: the water level \nandrew barrett: on the bay side. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you. Which side is upon\, and which side is obey. \nandrew barrett: In this case this is a low water condition. So \nandrew barrett: if you’re looking at the screen\, the left side is the pond. \nandrew barrett: And and you’ll see. Generally speaking\, the water level being higher on the pond side is is the condition where we would expect to see the lowest factors of safety. \nandrew barrett: So you’ll see that a lot\, generally speaking\, in the models that are shown in this presentation \nandrew barrett: are the low tide conditions. \nTemazcal Room: Good thanks. \nandrew barrett: So you’ll see that the pondsight is usually higher. \nTemazcal Room: So \nTemazcal Room: one of the things that’s a little bit frustrating with this is that there’s no strings \nTemazcal Room: shown on these plots here. And so you’ve described what happens with the different shades of green and blue and \nTemazcal Room: and pink \nTemazcal Room: and even in your \nTemazcal Room: port \nTemazcal Room: I think 80% or more of the civility sections don’t have the strengths actually shown on them. There’s there’s a few that do. \nTemazcal Room: If we look at one of them that does \nTemazcal Room: it says that the pink \nTemazcal Room: has a strength of 2 75\, increasing by 15 psf. Per foot. \nTemazcal Room: It also says that the \nTemazcal Room: blue \nTemazcal Room: which is adjacent to the pink well. \nTemazcal Room: the dark blue\, the \nTemazcal Room: the thing to the left and right of the pink yeah\, teal. It’s different on my screen than on your screen than up on the wall there\, right. But what’s right and left of the pink \nTemazcal Room: says that it’s 2\, 75 \nTemazcal Room: increasing by 15 per foot. But if it’s 2\, 75 at the top\, and increases by foot by 15 per foot. \nTemazcal Room: By the time the blue gets down to an elevation of the height of the top of the pink. \nTemazcal Room: It’s going to be stronger than the pink. \nTemazcal Room: I think that you have cpt data that goes right down the middle of the levee. Right? Yeah\, and I think everything outside of the levee is inferred because you can’t drive rigs out over the that’s right. \nTemazcal Room: And I think that the reason you have that \nTemazcal Room: that trapezoid underneath \nTemazcal Room: levee is because you’re assuming there’s some consolidation that happens from the weight of the levee. That’s right\, right\, which means that the blue on the sides of the pink should be weaker than the pink. \nTemazcal Room: unconsolidating. You’re actually analyzing it. They’re stronger than \nTemazcal Room: well\, let’s if you give me a \nTemazcal Room: seconds you’d have to look at page 5 0\, 5. In your report \nTemazcal Room: I have 5 0\, 2\, \nTemazcal Room: which is another example. The same thing. \nTemazcal Room: But yeah\, hold on. Let me \nTemazcal Room: zoom \nTemazcal Room: share. \nTemazcal Room: You are talking about this. \nTemazcal Room: I think this table\, the company ha happened to be looking at a different page. Yeah\, same table. Okay\, I think I think this is 5. This is\, in fact\, 5 on you’re saying \nTemazcal Room: this lower row. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, actually\, so I’m looking at. \nTemazcal Room: I’m looking at Page. \nTemazcal Room: You maybe\, are you on? \nTemazcal Room: I need to move my little sorry folks for the all the \nTemazcal Room: flipping of pages. \nTemazcal Room: This this is. Page 5\, 0\, 1. \nTemazcal Room: Right here\, right here. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. Okay\, so 2\, 75 and 15 and 2\, 75 and 15 on both. \nTemazcal Room: 2\, 75 and 15. Yeah\, you’re talking about you guys. See what I’m doing there when I draw these little \nTemazcal Room: think\, yeah\, you’re talking about \nTemazcal Room: this right here\, right? And you’re comparing it to the I think the 275 is the strength at the top of the layer. \nTemazcal Room: and I see by that 15 \nTemazcal Room: Psf. Per foot. \nTemazcal Room: That’s right \nTemazcal Room: below the top of the layer\, and if you scroll down on this page\, then \nTemazcal Room: you can see where the the blue is higher. The top of blue is higher than the top of pink. \nTemazcal Room: which means that the 2 set the the blue starts at 2 75 at the top. \nTemazcal Room: and increase down so it will be \nTemazcal Room: 10 feet \nTemazcal Room: 10 feet. \nTemazcal Room: So by the. So you’re suggesting that the arithmetic works out such that by the time you’re down at the depth of the pink. \nTemazcal Room: You’ve actually got higher strengths on either side of the pink. \nTemazcal Room: I understand what you’re saying. \nTemazcal Room: I had a comment\, for later on\, again I would say\, I would suggest \nTemazcal Room: that you try putting these tables on every printout page. \nTemazcal Room: It’s it’s a little bit of a nuisance when you’re setting it up. But yeah\, once you get every run\, it shows on every run. So like you’re saying\, the software is awesome because you can do lots of runs. \nTemazcal Room: Once a table set up\, it follows you through on all the runs\, and I I think that’s as simple as a \nTemazcal Room: probably a button push to make it come out. Yeah\, it’s a little bit of a nuisance to set it up sometimes to get it okay\, scaled and formatted. And you have to move it left or right to get it out of the way of the \nTemazcal Room: safety factor pronounced. But \nTemazcal Room: sure\, okay\, that’s that. That makes sense that’s good. \nTemazcal Room: But by putting it on every one\, and you can just \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, we don’t have to \nTemazcal Room: flip around. I wonder what you’ve used on this particular one\, and one of the things that sort of alarms me now is the table you were looking at a second ago. Different page than this one has different numbers\, which means that I assume that every single table I wonder how many different \nTemazcal Room: variations there are. Sure\, and I can’t follow that at all as a checker. Okay. \nTemazcal Room: yeah. The other one. \nandrew barrett: What he was looking at was. \nTemazcal Room: Doing Andrew’s work won’t be able to tell what he’s doing\, either yeah or Cole’s work. Whoever’s doing. Sure. Sure. \nTemazcal Room: Go ahead\, Andrew\, you had a comment. \nTemazcal Room: I think that was Andrew. \nandrew barrett: Yeah\, yeah\, I was just gonna say\, the table that \nandrew barrett: the table that you were showing earlier. Michael was one of the checks that we ran using different parameters. That were found from the triaxial test data. So that’s why the values are different and that they are labeled on each page \nandrew barrett: what? You know which system we’re using. So I know it’s not super intuitive and can’t be seen right now on the screen. But it it is there. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, no\, I don’t mind. I don’t mind having different \nTemazcal Room: cross sections having different numbers on them. That would be \nTemazcal Room: probably expected. \nTemazcal Room: But yeah\, there’s most of the \nTemazcal Room: profile cross slope stability profiles that are shown in the report don’t have the table shown at all\, so I don’t know which table is applicable\, for which one \nTemazcal Room: I can assume that all the ones for B is the same as all the ones for B\, \nTemazcal Room: but \nTemazcal Room: but just print it out\, and then it’s there because I I know I’ve I’ve done thousands \nTemazcal Room: thousands of runs over the years\, and I know you. You tweak one. And it \nTemazcal Room: right? How can you prove? How do I know for sure\, when my Qc. Person is looking at it. \nTemazcal Room: that that tweak got carried through on every other right. I don’t have a residual B analysis \nTemazcal Room: that has the previous \nTemazcal Room: unodated. \nTemazcal Room: I I can appreciate that. I mean\, it’s 1 thing for Cole and I to work with Andrew and know everything’s spread out\, and what was done\, in what order we have that advantage. But as a reader and someone coming into this I can appreciate how\, if you’re missing that stuff\, it is nearly impossible to piece together. Why not just do it \nTemazcal Room: right. \nTemazcal Room: That makes sense 2 \nTemazcal Room: to follow on on Jim’s point. \nTemazcal Room: How would you distinguish \nTemazcal Room: these strength parameters that \nTemazcal Room: presumably \nTemazcal Room: on the \nTemazcal Room: left and right of the pink. \nTemazcal Room: is the natural material right? And then the the \nTemazcal Room: the key is this \nTemazcal Room: engineered material. \nTemazcal Room: presumably. \nTemazcal Room: When you say the key engineered key correct \nTemazcal Room: when you you\, too\, when you well\, it’s a tiny little thing. It’s basically above well\, but it’s shown in a way here that it implies that this trapezoid is the key. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, I that I don’t want to imply that cause. It’s not. But your point is that it could look that way right? And then it creates confusion with respect to all of these strength parameters that are being assigned particular layers. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, I certainly don’t want people to get the impression that’s intended to be the key\, but I suppose it does kind of look like key. That’s right. If you look at a certain way\, right? That’s another reason to. \nTemazcal Room: With this table on every printout\, because that table labels the pink as young bay mud. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. And so if you happen to look at one of the ones that has the table. \nTemazcal Room: then you’re set. \nTemazcal Room: but I think actually none of your presentation. But most of them don’t have the table. It is true there’s a whole bunch of them. And just if you had the table. \nTemazcal Room: But it yeah\, that that is not the key. \nTemazcal Room: But I I understand your point. That is that the key? \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, okay\, that’s that’s good. I mean these these. Okay\, I understand. \nTemazcal Room: where am I? Here? Okay\, so \nTemazcal Room: alright. So we’ve been talking about the sections and the analyses. \nTemazcal Room: I was next going to talk about how we came up with new strength parameters for these layers. \nTemazcal Room: Do. I need to be worried about timing as I go through this or just keep. We got lots of time\, I guess\, right. \nTemazcal Room: for now \nTemazcal Room: we’re we’re \nTemazcal Room: we’re on Slide 15 out of 45. So. \nTemazcal Room: I am just showing this \nTemazcal Room: graphic\, because this is what you saw. Last year. \nTemazcal Room: when we had 3 layers defined\, we identified Berm Fill. We had young bay mud. There was comments on how we were showing the strengths of the young bay mud. \nTemazcal Room: There was old bay mud\, that was it. We’ve taken that a step further now\, in 2\,024. So let’s let’s go on to what we did here in 2\,024. \nTemazcal Room: So the previous \nTemazcal Room: slides you where you’re shown with the the soil properties are those from \nTemazcal Room: before you’ve done the the Cpts or this new round of they’re for the new. They’re they’re all new. Okay. Thank you. What I’m about to show here explains how we came up with those \nTemazcal Room: you mean this\, this page here. \nTemazcal Room: Well. \nTemazcal Room: this is this\, let’s let’s let’s tackle that on in a couple of slides\, because then\, let’s \nTemazcal Room: let’s look at how we did it. This definitely doesn’t match. \nTemazcal Room: We. We have changed this. \nTemazcal Room: and here’s how we did it. \nTemazcal Room: This is a compilation of all the Cpts that were conducted. \nTemazcal Room: If you can see all the colors \nTemazcal Room: you’ll recognize. There’s a whole bunch of different colors\, and that’s because we just assign a different color to every Cpt. So all 2 dozen of the Cpts get its own color\, and we \nTemazcal Room: plotted them all up to see what it told us. And \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, there’s a lot of scatter\, but you also see some trends\, and and it suggested to us that it would be more precise for us to subdivide \nTemazcal Room: the young bay mud. \nTemazcal Room: And and so that’s what we’ve done\, and on the next slide. \nTemazcal Room: We \nTemazcal Room: you talking about here \nTemazcal Room: like this? \nTemazcal Room: Right? \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: bye. \nTemazcal Room: I’m sorry \nTemazcal Room: I can lean in \nTemazcal Room: sorry. You want me to start over again? No\, no\, I I mean I I’m getting it. \nTemazcal Room: No\, I well. \nTemazcal Room: you’re talking about Cbt. 8 and 9. So\, 8 and 9 \nTemazcal Room: you know\, everything is consistent. It looks like Cpt. 8 to 9. Go down with bay mud down to 32 feet down to 36 feet\, and it looks like really on that far west. \nTemazcal Room: southwest\, south\, south\, west\, southwest Point. \nTemazcal Room: It looks like that’s got deeper may but bay mud that stays with a nice smooth bay mud. \nTemazcal Room: strength\, profile. \nTemazcal Room: and and I’m wondering whether that geometry might look critical also\, and in any case\, even if it doesn’t\, I think that probably there needs to be some still stability done done \nTemazcal Room: with that location that shows it going to 36 feet. Okay\, I understand. It sounds like you\, unless you can explain to me why it shouldn’t be that way. That’s how it looks to me. \nTemazcal Room: And you’re. It sounds like you’re talking not only here about the depth \nTemazcal Room: there of of the young Bay mud\, but potentially also where it plots up on these graphs. \nTemazcal Room: yeah\, are you also? No\, I think that’s like it’s going to plot just nicely that it’s\, I assume\, that’s going at about 15 psf. Per foot. Okay. So if you just extend the bay mud an extra 6 feet\, you’d have that same profile going an extra. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, an extra 6 feet. I understand? You’re really making the point. There’s been some stability cases at least. \nTemazcal Room: I would expect that the circles are going to try and climb as deep as possible\, climb downwards as deep as possible. It looks like some of your spill analyses. If you just scan through \nTemazcal Room: the geotech report\, some of them go down to 30 feet. \nTemazcal Room: I think that those ones presumably bumped into something at 30 feet\, and if you allow them\, go to 36 feet and allow the Bay Ma to stay soft at 36 feet. I think they’ll extend a little bit deeper. They might go deeper\, and typically if it if it bottoms out at a depth\, and then you allow it to go a little bit deeper. The stability safety factor is going to go a little bit lower \nTemazcal Room: it. Yeah\, if it wants to bottom out and the bottom drops\, it’ll probably keep chasing it down so that could that could be the case. If if you’re allowing the circle to go as deep as you want and it and it \nTemazcal Room: finds a critical minimum safety factor. That’s higher than that. Then you say the \nTemazcal Room: the depth doesn’t matter that much\, but there were at least a few of the circles \nTemazcal Room: in your report where the bottom is 30 feet\, and I assume that that’s bottoming out\, because there’s some constraint that it bumps into right there. Okay. \nTemazcal Room: all of which is a an advocate you’re advocating that we might benefit by looking at what’s going on there in the \nTemazcal Room: that western \nTemazcal Room: edge where Cpts 8\, 9 are. I think it’s only relevant to Cpt. 8 and 9. Nothing else goes deeper than 30 feet. A lot of it’s more like 24 feet. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. Okay. But \nTemazcal Room: okay\, that could be I. I hear you. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. Well\, let let me just give an explanation of what we did with this information. \nTemazcal Room: We took. We broke it into the kind of subdivisions and the upper 5 feet. We looked at that. And for each of these subdivisions we did a probabilistic \nTemazcal Room: plot of strength versus how often it occurs. And that’s what this \nTemazcal Room: on the right is. It’s all the strengths plotted by the \nTemazcal Room: frequency of occurring. \nTemazcal Room: And it’s a pretty wide band. There’s a scatter \nTemazcal Room: and what we did was in the next. In this case\, and the next one\, we chose \nTemazcal Room: the 30 percentile level. In other words\, we chose a strength that 30%\, only only 30% of the day is below and the other 70% is above. We felt that was a reasonable way to \nTemazcal Room: come up with an estimated strength. \nTemazcal Room: Now for is particularly for wide ranges. \nTemazcal Room: and and the same is true. 5 to 10 feet below ground service. \nTemazcal Room: now 10 to 20 feet below ground service\, a little different\, in our opinion\, because there’s more of a clustering of the strengths. It’s not as broad. It’s not as much of a bell curve. It’s more of a sharp curve. \nTemazcal Room: and here we felt it was \nTemazcal Room: reasonable to choose \nTemazcal Room: the most typical strength. In other words\, the \nTemazcal Room: the top of the curve. \nTemazcal Room: That wasn’t done to try to get a high strength. It just like that. Seems like that’s the dominant strength. \nTemazcal Room: Alright! Let me jump in again. \nTemazcal Room: so averaging works nicely when the data \nTemazcal Room: is. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, if you’re if you have cpt variable data and you’re driving a pile through it. The pile is picking up a little bit of strength from 0 to 5. A little bit of strength from here\, you know\, and an average is an appropriate number. \nTemazcal Room: but if you look at some of those colors\, it looks like you’ve got straight down the far left edge of that all the way\, and so some profiles. \nTemazcal Room: some cpts at least\, are all the way on the left edge there. \nTemazcal Room: most of them. Maybe you nudge it up a few percent or so I don’t know. But really pretty darn close to that left edge is where some profiles are going to be. \nTemazcal Room: Some profiles aren’t going to be averaged \nTemazcal Room: over there. If you want to know whether the whole thing is going to slide or not\, then you can say\, Yeah\, at least 50% of the sections are not going to slide because we’ve used 50% Median value here. \nTemazcal Room: I don’t think we want 50% of the sections to be stable. I think we want all of them to be stable. And we’re looking for the worst. \nTemazcal Room: not the not the average case\, but aren’t by doing this. Aren’t we? Basically taken like down the middle of that? You’re right. I mean\, almost all of them are clustered there on the left. \nTemazcal Room: and there’s a bunch. There’s a bunch of stragglers off to the right. But \nTemazcal Room: aren’t we choosing the most prominent \nTemazcal Room: band \nTemazcal Room: through this approach? \nTemazcal Room: And that’s what we’re we’re we’re trying to rep. We’re trying to \nTemazcal Room: capture the fact that there is a definitive. \nTemazcal Room: a clustering of them on the left. \nTemazcal Room: and and certainly aren’t looking to go past that it does seem like the appropriate strength is \nTemazcal Room: right there in in the dentist part of the graph. \nTemazcal Room: I think\, for a stability analysis like this\, where you have some cones that are far. If you have data on each cone that’s scattered \nTemazcal Room: and the slope circle comes through all of those different layers\, and you average it. \nTemazcal Room: But I think if you got a single cone that’s \nTemazcal Room: straight down the left edge\, and you have actually. \nTemazcal Room: But \nTemazcal Room: it looks like you got 6 or 8 \nTemazcal Room: cones that are straight down the left edge. \nTemazcal Room: and I don’t know how you can be really confident \nTemazcal Room: that there’s not going to be some location out there where you have a slope circle that’s going to be able to find that weak spot. \nTemazcal Room: and maybe it happens to be offset a hundred feet from where you did your cross section. \nTemazcal Room: your cross section has to be representing \nTemazcal Room: the safety factor of 100 feet away from where you did your section. And I think I mean\, without having any geometry attached to the figure. \nTemazcal Room: I think that you gotta \nTemazcal Room: you gotta do something further left in your green 50 percentile. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, I understand what you’re saying. I will. I will mention. Although it’s not in this slide deck. I’m not even frankly sure if it’s in our report. \nTemazcal Room: because we can do these things so quickly and easily\, we did look to see what happens if we \nTemazcal Room: like\, take the 30 percentile version of this \nTemazcal Room: which is like 250 to 300 sheer strength. \nTemazcal Room: And I’m I’m interested in other geotechs because I’m I’m \nTemazcal Room: we’re a crowd here. But but I think that 30 percentile is \nTemazcal Room: pretty optimistic for \nTemazcal Room: this data with a slope stability analysis\, what would you choose? \nTemazcal Room: Like? 10% pretty close to the lower edge. \nTemazcal Room: But just so\, I make sure. I understand\, like the blue one is at maybe 200 or so. \nTemazcal Room: and the 50 percentile that you’ve chosen is more like 3\, 50 or something like that. Yeah\, so it’s not a geotech. But \nTemazcal Room: I am an engineer\, and I would think if you’re interested in the location where the blue one is\, you want to be at about 200. \nTemazcal Room: I’ll I’ll add some to that as well. \nTemazcal Room: I mean anything that you’re looking at really\, in this depth range that is beyond\, say\, about 500 Psf. \nTemazcal Room: these are sandy layers that you are. \nTemazcal Room: I mean all of those things. You’re not going to get a bay mud value. That is 2\,000 Psr. \nTemazcal Room: Those are sandy \nTemazcal Room: layers within the Baymark. \nTemazcal Room: Now\, if if you are modeling this as Bay MoD\, \nTemazcal Room: then \nTemazcal Room: I will agree with my friend Jim here that you are in a very tighter band\, that the upper bound of that tighter band is more like \nTemazcal Room: 400\, the lower bound would be more like \nTemazcal Room: 200\, something like that\, and that would represent \nTemazcal Room: more appropriately \nTemazcal Room: this young bay mud at these depth ranges that you are considering it \nTemazcal Room: all those other points to me. Yes\, they exist\, and they are \nTemazcal Room: what you measured\, but they don’t represent \nTemazcal Room: they mud in the context of what we are talking about. \nTemazcal Room: Right? The so what we’re using right now is about 3. \nTemazcal Room: So around 3 50 that the black line is about what reason? \nTemazcal Room: And when you you’re saying. \nTemazcal Room: what about? What if the Black Island were here? What if the black line were here. \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, that’s basically what we’re talking about\, right is\, where’s that line\, either? \nTemazcal Room: Strictly envelope the entire data set. \nTemazcal Room: But I think he ought to be somewhere towards the left edge. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, I mean 2\, 50 or something. I don’t know \nTemazcal Room: more toward the left edge. I mean\, I feel like we are kind of toward the left edge. But you’re saying \nTemazcal Room: maybe we should be worse for the left edge right? \nTemazcal Room: But put your 3\, your 3 50. What’s your vertical Median number that you have? That’s 3 \nTemazcal Room: like 325\, which would fall like\, I don’t know. I’m just obviously eyeballing\, but it’s about there. \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, man\, hold on \nTemazcal Room: so what this looks like is that \nTemazcal Room: you know at least \nTemazcal Room: 50% of your cross sections would be good \nTemazcal Room: 50% are worse than what your analysis shows. \nTemazcal Room: Statistics are awesome. \nTemazcal Room: but I think they’re \nTemazcal Room: have to be applied pretty cautiously \nTemazcal Room: with it. \nTemazcal Room: This type of \nTemazcal Room: analysis. \nTemazcal Room: I I agree with you there when we have\, when we have. \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, if every single cpt was jumping back and forth all over the place. \nTemazcal Room: you know that it maybe it’s different. But if you look at the Cpts themselves\, a lot of them are pretty smooth. \nTemazcal Room: yeah\, a linear \nTemazcal Room: linear tracks remain \nTemazcal Room: points out that a lot of those things that are further off towards the right are probably \nTemazcal Room: a sand. \nTemazcal Room: thin sand lenses that \nTemazcal Room: really appropriately or not even \nTemazcal Room: clay\, and shouldn’t be analyzed as a clay. But because A/C petite or coelec even \nTemazcal Room: analyzes these\, the thin layer factor doesn’t really \nTemazcal Room: those are all outliers right? And and so the strengths are are \nTemazcal Room: really not supposed to be averaged. \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, they’re not really part of the the su behavior of the material. \nTemazcal Room: What what are we? So what do we take? We’re taking by taking the 50 percentile \nTemazcal Room: we’re taking them. Are we doing a mode? Isn’t that a statistical mode like the \nTemazcal Room: I should be okay. I don’t want to turn this into probability statistics discussion\, but I do agree. The statist\, the use of the statistics is very important. We do need to do that very thoughtfully. I understand what you’re saying. \nTemazcal Room: The way we thought about that \nTemazcal Room: principle was when we said\, All right\, we’re we’re presenting the 50% tile like I’m showing here. \nTemazcal Room: We also recognized \nTemazcal Room: what if we just stay consistent with what we’re doing\, the other ones and use the 30 percentile. \nTemazcal Room: And we did do those runs\, and they don’t make that big of a difference necessarily. But \nTemazcal Room: there’s an argument to be made for doing that\, or even or even farther down. I think\, for instance\, I mean\, I’m curious\, I can’t tell\, but that left edge there \nTemazcal Room: looks pretty close to the same gray that’s at Cpt. \nTemazcal Room: 9\, \nTemazcal Room: yeah\, like goes to 36 feet. \nTemazcal Room: And so \nTemazcal Room: someplace that profile exists\, and if if you want you can. You can get a little more detailed and look at specific C specific \nTemazcal Room: profiles and say\, You know\, this one is averaged up and down it. But \nTemazcal Room: but averaging. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, composited a whole bunch of locations is \nTemazcal Room: well\, it’s a it is a simplification. It’s it’s at at the least\, it is a simplification \nTemazcal Room: right to average a bunch of locations. And \nTemazcal Room: and I understand the point that you know there are occasions when you want to bore 0 in on a specific \nTemazcal Room: location. I think that \nTemazcal Room: is part of where your comments are now\, maybe that you’ve got you’ve got a band there\, and maybe you look at some of your profiles\, and they \nTemazcal Room: cpts on both \nTemazcal Room: there and on both sides are. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, towards the right edge of your dense band there\, and maybe that \nTemazcal Room: profile you use a slightly better. \nTemazcal Room: you know. If you I mean ideally\, you look at some sort of geomorphological background and say\, Yeah\, we think it makes sense. This one’s a little bit stronger. This one’s a little bit weaker. It may well be that Cpt. 9 is a little bit deeper\, because it’s further out towards the bay\, and everything is just and does tends to slope that way. And \nTemazcal Room: yeah\, and maybe because it’s out further towards the bay\, maybe it happens to have been younger and less desiccation. And it all happened during the you know\, post gold rush. I was actually expecting to see more of that\, the bay muds there\, and so it really is weaker than all the others which might be a few 100 years old. \nTemazcal Room: I mean to be honest\, we were kind of expecting to see more of that than we did. We think we might end up in a situation where there was a strong signal that \nTemazcal Room: the Western Cpts are worse than the Eastern ones. I mean\, that wouldn’t have shocked us if we’d seen it. Now\, admittedly. Yeah\, there are some Cpts that \nTemazcal Room: are lower than others. You’re pointing out numbers 8\, 9. Those are in the same place. So is that a geographic trend? Maybe it is\, I mean. \nTemazcal Room: but it’s not one that we’ve seen propagated throughout the rest of them. But \nTemazcal Room: anyway\, your point\, your points are well taken about. \nTemazcal Room: Might there be more critical places\, both in going back earlier here. \nTemazcal Room: based on\, you know\, topography. \nTemazcal Room: And might there be more critical places based on \nTemazcal Room: specific Cpt logs \nTemazcal Room: understood. \nTemazcal Room: There might be \nTemazcal Room: cherry washta Nick would like to make a comment. He has his hand raised. \nTemazcal Room: Nick. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: please. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, so let me 1st put my geologist hat on \nTemazcal Room: I was as I was looking at all of this I was \nTemazcal Room: well\, I have this microphone on\, so I don’t worry. \nTemazcal Room: Putting my geologist hat on as I was looking. All of this. \nTemazcal Room: There surely are all channels underneath all of this that are sandy \nTemazcal Room: and that’s as was suggested. That may explain some of those very high \nTemazcal Room: or relatively high strengths that you see\, and possible\, even refusal \nTemazcal Room: would have been nice to map those out\, but you know\, that requires going through a whole lot of very old Usgs coastal maps\, and so on. \nTemazcal Room: I’m not necessarily convinced that that would help. Now\, when it comes to this kind of discussion of statistics. On on one hand\, I don’t see this as a life safety situation\, so necessarily taking the lowest strength is in my view\, not \nTemazcal Room: required. \nTemazcal Room: however clustering it like this\, while interesting\, is not really helpful when one looks at a long linear structure. \nTemazcal Room: And that’s what you have. You have a very long structure\, and what I would have liked to have seen\, and that \nTemazcal Room: well\, I I don’t know how this microphone works. So \nTemazcal Room: you know\, if I stick it in my mouth\, then \nTemazcal Room: maybe \nTemazcal Room: anyway. \nTemazcal Room: The the \nTemazcal Room: because it is a long linear structure. I would like to have seen this parsed out \nTemazcal Room: bisection. \nTemazcal Room: As you’re looking at the different sections where you put your cross sections\, I would have preferred to see this data presented for that particular section\, because you actually have a pretty good coverage of of field data. \nTemazcal Room: and that would allow you to do a better assessment whether you really have to go with the lowest strength\, or whether\, in fact\, the local variability is such that some higher value is is \nTemazcal Room: recommended rather than looking at all of the data in you know\, in an aggregate. So I think that would be \nTemazcal Room: my suggestion that that’s a much better way to approach it\, I think. \nTemazcal Room: seeing the scattering all of the data is is great. That’s that’s a beautiful plot. I love it\, you know\, if you if I present it for Young Bay mud\, then you can probably plot all the data that we have for Young Bay mud from the Bay Area\, and it will all nicely plot within this range. But \nTemazcal Room: because it’s such a long linear structure\, it would have been more \nTemazcal Room: informative and probably useful for you to \nTemazcal Room: look at the section where you \nTemazcal Room: the nearby data from the section where you actually did the slope stability analysis based on your criteria\, which I’m actually not taking exception with but looking at this discussion\, and\, as I said in my view. \nTemazcal Room: it’s not necessary to take the absolutely lowest value\, since this is not a life safety situation\, but at the same time there may indeed be a section where all the data is in this lowest thing\, which is what the Jim French suggested\, that there may be a section where all of the data nicely plots\, all on that low end\, in which case \nTemazcal Room: you have to use whatever you have. \nTemazcal Room: So that that would be my comment on on this whole. \nTemazcal Room: you know. Discussion. Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: No\, that that’s good. I mean\, I I understand what you are all saying. I understand that and there’s no doubt there is\, I’m sure\, more that can be gleaned from this data. This is a lot of data. And and you guys all well know part of our job. And our judgment is to say\, all right\, we got all the say\, what is the best amount of \nTemazcal Room: processing and analysis we should devote to this data to answer the question \nTemazcal Room: at hand. Now\, as we get into the latter part of this presentation. I think we’re gonna see. \nTemazcal Room: even with what we have done here. There’s some pretty clear answers becoming evident about \nTemazcal Room: the situation and and I\, I would imagine\, if we \nTemazcal Room: kind of chase down some of these additional levels of \nTemazcal Room: detail behind these analyses and \nTemazcal Room: maybe make less conservative assumptions. \nTemazcal Room: There may be more of that. That is possible. \nTemazcal Room: But but there’s no doubt there could be more analysis always done on this stuff. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, yeah\, Bob’s got a question. Yeah\, I just wanted to follow up on this. I I find this really interesting. Would you mind going back to that slide that showed the plan view\, and it showed some of the adjacent marsh. \nTemazcal Room: You know\, one of the things I’ve done a lot of is \nTemazcal Room: Wetland restoration\, and these dikes subsided\, Balens\, and you can see where there’s the existing marsh which is green in the upper left. \nTemazcal Room: You can see that there’s a \nTemazcal Room: a whole bunch of channels. \nTemazcal Room: and what we do find is when\, \nTemazcal Room: the water starts moving\, or whatever the the old channels are often reoccupi. The old channels are often reoccupied. \nTemazcal Room: Because they’re just more erodible. I’m not as familiar with the Mss. And \nTemazcal Room: it’s sheer strength or or erosion resistance. But \nTemazcal Room: The comment that Nick made\, that there may be some sections that cross \nTemazcal Room: old channels that aren’t otherwise apparent in the just the existing terrain. I think it’s a very good one. \nTemazcal Room: and \nTemazcal Room: One way to look at that would be to look at some old \nTemazcal Room: tea\, sheet maps or other maps which I think the South Bay Salt Ponds. People have that show where the the channels were. \nTemazcal Room: especially the you know\, the larger channels. \nTemazcal Room: and then that might affect your your section \nTemazcal Room: location selection. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, I will. I will say there’s no doubt there. There is evidence for lots of \nTemazcal Room: channels\, you know. There’s a lot. In other words\, there. There’s evidence for lots of sand lenses all through here\, and I I presume geologically\, that that’s just a representation of the \nTemazcal Room: ongoing meandering of them over\, you know\, millennia. \nTemazcal Room: and but the the way it looks to us is they’re just kind of like all over the place. There’s this \nTemazcal Room: a galaxy of little sand lenses\, and I don’t even know if we could map them. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, yeah. And I just want to state that it may be their sand lenses in in traditional dykes applied to Balens\, especially when they get \nTemazcal Room: wet and they’re managed ponds. You often have \nTemazcal Room: weaker material depositing in the old channels. It’s just \nTemazcal Room: organic or other stuff that really erodes in this case. If it’s sand\, maybe it’s less erosional. I don’t know. \nTemazcal Room: But a geomorphic interpretation of the \nTemazcal Room: subsurface might be might be helpful. \nTemazcal Room: Okay? Is my only point. Thanks. Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, I mean one of the takeaways. I’m I get from this. I mean you. You are all making you’re you’re observing. You’re pointing out \nTemazcal Room: the ways. We have simplified the analysis. \nTemazcal Room: No doubt we have taken the State\, and we have tried to find \nTemazcal Room: you have to simplify to some degree right to do an analysis\, there’s no way around it. So we’ve \nTemazcal Room: we’ve said\, all right. What’s the right amount of simplification to give us \nTemazcal Room: to tell us what’s going on here \nTemazcal Room: to a sufficient level of\, you know\, understanding to help everyone make decisions. And \nTemazcal Room: and so your your points about some of the additional ways we can. Analysis are well taken\, and and maybe that’s what we should do \nTemazcal Room: to better understand the story. I must say I’m \nTemazcal Room: really eager to hear your comments on the \nTemazcal Room: the end of this presentation\, because that’s I think we’re really the storyline is going to come through. \nTemazcal Room: are we? Are we? Good? \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, I think. So keep going. Yeah\, please. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, let me get. Let me catch this up to where I left us off. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, th\, this is what we ended up with. After all that statistical analysis and all that data. This is the new table we are now using where the young bay mud \nTemazcal Room: is subdivided into \nTemazcal Room: 4 layers. \nTemazcal Room: Really the lowest of these\, where it says\, Ybm. 20 feet below ground service\, and below\, that’s really 20 to 30 feet\, and Jim was making comments earlier about how \nTemazcal Room: there are some places. It’s deeper than 30\, that is true. \nTemazcal Room: But in our models. It goes to 30\, and then it’s underlain by old bay mud. \nTemazcal Room: and these are the properties \nTemazcal Room: we’ve used. \nTemazcal Room: There’s been comments about how it would be helpful to kind of map this onto all the slide outputs. But that’s that’s the that’s the new \nTemazcal Room: set of properties we’ve been using. \nTemazcal Room: And \nTemazcal Room: just to compare what we had last year to what we have now \nTemazcal Room: this graph \nTemazcal Room: compares them\, and and the real difference \nTemazcal Room: now versus last year \nTemazcal Room: is that \nTemazcal Room: we are now\, seeing evidence that the young bay mud \nTemazcal Room: stays \nTemazcal Room: soft to a greater depth \nTemazcal Room: than what we had expected from last year’s data. That’s the real \nTemazcal Room: take away from what we did. \nTemazcal Room: It’s not as good. \nTemazcal Room: it’s softer\, and it goes deeper. \nTemazcal Room: And the e even on the simplified profiles. That’s what you see. Now\, you know \nTemazcal Room: all the other comments acknowledged \nTemazcal Room: I mentioned. We also did triaxial strength testing in the laboratory \nTemazcal Room: on undisturbed samples \nTemazcal Room: which allowed us to develop a best fit \nTemazcal Room: strength\, envelope. \nTemazcal Room: or effective stresses. \nTemazcal Room: And as I’ll show you in a few minutes\, we used that as another form of our analysis to see what it tells us \nTemazcal Room: so. Those are the soil strengths we used\, and we used\, and we did it\, and and put into the \nTemazcal Room: put those into those cross sections I was showing you. And then we ran a whole bunch of stability analysis to figure out \nTemazcal Room: what are the factors of safety at this site? \nTemazcal Room: yeah. \nTemazcal Room: So \nTemazcal Room: before I get to that\, though\, let me let me go back to this concept of keying for a moment. That’s been an important subject \nTemazcal Room: for our evaluation. \nTemazcal Room: We\, as I said\, had explorations going through places that had been keyed\, and we had explorations that went through places that had not been keyed. \nTemazcal Room: And again\, with that we plotted all of those strength points together. \nTemazcal Room: this actually shows a comparison. If if you can pick it up between \nTemazcal Room: places that were keyed\, and dark dots and places that were not in light dots. And and really \nTemazcal Room: the the bottom line that we found from our explorations is \nTemazcal Room: minimal appearance of strength \nTemazcal Room: gain \nTemazcal Room: from King J. I’m just talking about strength gain. How much resistance did the cone pentromer experience? \nTemazcal Room: A a little bit more\, but almost not enough more to even put a number on it. That’s why I describe as minimal \nTemazcal Room: change. \nTemazcal Room: In other words\, he doesn’t seem to have that big of an effect \nTemazcal Room: on the strength \nTemazcal Room: in the berm. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: what kind of material are you using for the keying? You know\, in one of the write-ups somewhere \nTemazcal Room: read that. It was maybe your response to questions. \nTemazcal Room: from staff. \nTemazcal Room: It had some criteria that says \nTemazcal Room: doesn’t have \nTemazcal Room: deleterious material\, or some some sort of generic kind of thing\, but nothing about plasticity\, nothing about grain\, size\, distribution. Right? Is this some bay mud that you’re back filling again with? Or I mean\, it’s a bay mud\, or is it import gravel? Right? \nTemazcal Room: So ability. Obviously\, it’s not gravel. But you guys have your set of criteria. No deleterious material. It is a little bit broad like like you say that that’s the kind of rule book you guys use. But we did go out. I think it was a couple of years ago when \nTemazcal Room: surveyed all the it’s all imported material you have. \nTemazcal Room: and we did a a reconnaissance of it. We took samples. We characterized it. It is not a young bay mud. \nTemazcal Room: it is\, it is silty. It’s largely a fine grained mix of silt with some sand. If I remember what \nTemazcal Room: our results told us \nTemazcal Room: so. It was still a. It was still a pretty fine material\, but not \nTemazcal Room: not to the degree like a bay. Mud would be plasticity. \nTemazcal Room: I do not remember what the plasticity was. \nTemazcal Room: I do not remember what the plasticity was. I do recall\, though\, that \nTemazcal Room: in addition to the lack of deleterious material in it. \nTemazcal Room: It looked like a material that if under the right moisture\, conditions could be compacted. \nTemazcal Room: and from what we understand from your team and what we’ve seen on our explorations. It appears to be a well compacted matrix of \nTemazcal Room: sandy silt materials \nTemazcal Room: placed into the trench. Not a big difference in strength from what was there before. \nTemazcal Room: but in terms of the activity itself. \nTemazcal Room: and the way in which you you for the cargo team specifically goes after places that might \nTemazcal Room: have had some deleterious materials in them\, and replaced it with a better\, more consistent material. \nTemazcal Room: It appears to us \nTemazcal Room: that it’s going to have benefit of \nTemazcal Room: the intention of making it more suitable against seepage\, but not really with a \nTemazcal Room: a \nTemazcal Room: a change in strength. \nTemazcal Room: So I’m curious. Just I’m in a \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/september-11-2024-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240904T190000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240904T200000 DTSTAMP:20240909T224817Z CREATED:20240820T163813Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240909T224817Z UID:10000191-1725476400-1725480000@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:September 4\, 2024 Community Meeting for the Cargill Solar Salt System Draft EA DESCRIPTION:BCDC will hold a virtual public meeting on the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the application by Cargill\, Incorporated to continue existing 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 meeting will have a slide presentation explaining the EA\, have a period at the end for public comments\, and Notice of include a channel for simultaneous Spanish translation. (BCDC Permit Application 2021.003.00). \nPresentation \n(Sam Fielding) [415-352-3665; sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov] \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM\nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/89566656284?pwd=zg1T7nzew7HpLFLieynnvJLKyXnED8.1 \nMeeting ID\n895 6665 6284\nPasscode\n344427 \n \n \n \n \n Meeting recording & transcript\n Meeting recording\n \nTranscript \nYeah. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Tony\, I think you just froze. Oh\, there we go! \nJenn Hyman | BCDC: Do you think I should put \nJenn Hyman | BCDC: the little \nJenn Hyman | BCDC: heads in the \nJenn Hyman | BCDC: screen. \nJenn Hyman | BCDC: or will? Can people see them. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: People will see them on their own screen if they have it set up that way. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Yeah. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: should we wait till 5 after? Or would you guys like to get started. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Can wait till kind of after. \nHarriet Ross | BCDC: Yeah\, I think we should wait. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Hey? Let’s get started. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Hello\, everyone! And welcome to the community meeting for the presentation on the Cargill Solar. \nspanish interpreter 1: Sea salt system\, maintenance and operation. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Permit and draft environmental assessment. \nspanish interpreter 1: But. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: My name is Phoenix Armenta\, with the San Francisco. \nspanish interpreter 1: Be. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Conservation and Development Commission or B. \nspanish interpreter 1: Cdc. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: This meeting has live translation in Spanish\, and this slide explains how to access the Spanish interpretation in Zoom \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: at the bottom of the screen in zoom. There should be a globe icon with the word interpretation under it. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: If you do not see this icon immediately\, it may be. \nspanish interpreter 1: Under this. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: 3 dots. \nspanish interpreter 1: Labeled\, more. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Or \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: when you click on this you will have the option of selecting English or Spanish \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: choosing. \nspanish interpreter 1: Spanish. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Take you into a different channel with an interpreter translating. \nspanish interpreter 1: What is being said. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: English. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: If you’re having trouble with this\, please let us know by messing this. \nspanish interpreter 1: Message. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Us in the Q. And a. \nspanish interpreter 1: Area. \nspanish interpreter 1: I’ll give. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Folks a little time now. \nspanish interpreter 1: To figure this out. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: I’d like to tell you about what we will cover in this meeting. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: I want to 1st welcome everyone on this call\, and thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to participate in Bcdc’s work. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: We will next introduce you to the people in this presentation\, and provide an overview of Bcdc. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Then we will tell you about Cargill’s application for a permit from Bcdc. For operation and maintenance of their solar salt system and the environmental assessment document we have prepared on Cargill’s activities. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: At the end\, we will take questions and comments on the environmental assessment. The draft environmental. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Assessment can be down. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: From Bcdc’s website\, and is currently. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Help\, for public comment. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Our speakers tonight start with. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Myself. Phoenix Armenta. I’m the senior manager for climate\, equity\, and community engagement. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Following me will be Suzanne von Rosenberg of Gaia\, consulting. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: The preparer of the environmental assessment. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Our Spanish translators. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: In the Spanish. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Armory. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: And Christian from focus\, interpreting. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: On the Bcdc. Team. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Have Harriet Ross\, our Bcdc. Regular. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Tory director. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Julie. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Gary. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Bcdc. Bay Resources Program Manager\, Sam Fielding\, BC. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: DC. Permit and. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Analysts. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: And Jen Hyman. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: From a Bcdc. Scene. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Senior engineer. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Yeah. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: On the Cargill team. We have Connie Lee\, who’s a senior land management engineer. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Don Brown\, from? Who’s the lead? \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Andreese. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Sources\, manager. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: And Matt Pitcher\, a solar plant manager. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: representatives from the BC. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Cdc. Per. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Student team. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: And Cargill are. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Available\, following the presentation as needed to answer questions. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: The Mission of the San Francisco. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Go\, bay\, concert. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: And. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Development Commission is to Protect. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Fact and. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Enhance San Francisco Bay and encourage. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Bay is responsible and protective use for this and future generations. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: So what does Bcd. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: He do? \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Bcdc. Is a. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Great agency with. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: I’m reading. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Authority for projects in and. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Long. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: The San Francisco Bay. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Cdc enforce. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Is the bait. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Plans. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Pom\, pom. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Which records. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Guys the. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Unique value of the. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: All ponds. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Bcdc. And. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Forces\, other policy. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Policies\, include. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Including those that require projects. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: To incorporate public access to the. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Bay\, sea\, level\, rise up. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Adaptation\, safety\, environmental justice\, and protection of natural. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Resource. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: This. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Bcdc. Has regular. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Tory. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Jurisdiction. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Over the bay itself. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: 100. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Foot\, shoreline\, band \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: salt ponds\, and manage wetlands that cover. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: 9 K. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Counties. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: And over. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: 40 cities that touch bay waters. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Outreach to adjacent community. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Is\, a. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Opponent. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: The permitting process. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: In compliance. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: With the Bay plans. Environmental. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Justice\, and so. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Social equity policies. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: These maps show the vulnerable communities now. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Your car\, get. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Salt ponds\, which are filled. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Then in. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Like green. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: The name. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Areas highlighted in purple. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Our communities\, of. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: High social vulnerability. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: And high contamination. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: This includes parts of redwood. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: City \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: he’s called. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Which is adjacent to the pipeline. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: And parts of. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Newark\, which are. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Indicated as socially vulnerable. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Took special care to reach out to community. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Organ. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Nations. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: These communities as well. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: As tribal\, representative. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: There was. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: They’re on our mailing. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: List for the project. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: We have. We have added Spanish translation translators for our community meetings. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Specifically for these local communities. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Public outreach activities\, conduct. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: To date\, and so. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Port of the Perm. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: And applicant. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: In the environment. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Mental assault. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Include. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Thinks. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Hoping notices for the. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Draft of the. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Ea. In the newspaper. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: And. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Direct Mailing. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Said to call. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Argil neighbours. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: We conducted. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Tribal. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Reach to the list. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Provided by the native American. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Heritage. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Commission. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: And in 2020 and 2024. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Year 4 tribes responded\, and we were. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Working on. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Up a meeting with one. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Of the tribes. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: In 2\,021\, over. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: 400 notices were sent out to get public comments on the draft. Ea \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Ecrb meetings have been. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Held in 23. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: 2\, 2\,023\, and the 3rd is coming up on September. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: 11.th \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Next week. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Virtual community meetings are held. We’re held. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Similar to this one in 2\,023. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Few months ago over 2\,000 notices were sent out. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: For the research. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Related draft ea plus. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Emails. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: To an extent. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Interested party list. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: A virtual community meeting on the draft. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Ea was held last night. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Oh\, sorry this. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: And. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Meeting is. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Serving as a community. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Meaning\, to. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Receive. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: But comment \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: based on the. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Activity. We feel that Cargill has been a model. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: For what meaningful. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: We need engagement. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Look like \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: now for here. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: I will pass it. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: To Suzanne. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Thank you\, Phoenix. I’m now going to talk a little. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Bit about. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Argo. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Its activity. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: These \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: the Ea process and. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: The findings of the Ea. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Cargo currently. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Produces salt. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: The shores of San Francisco Bay cargo. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Current Maintenance. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And operations. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Activities are ready. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Regulated by a ten-year. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Issued by Bcdc. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: In 19. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: 95. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Permit has been amended. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: And extended numerous times. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And is set to expire at the end. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: And of 20. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: 24\, \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Cargill is seeking a new ten-year permit. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: To authorize their. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Activities. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Under. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Application\, 2\,021. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Point. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: 0\, 0\, 3. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Point 0 0. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Bcdc. Salt plant. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: salt pond policies or. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: I can’t know. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: That salt production is an economically important and productive use of waters of the bay. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: and also that salt is. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Important product. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: For the permit. Renewal. These. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Cdc is required to. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Evaluate the. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Potential App. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Virus and. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Mental effects. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Of the activities of. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Authorized in the permit. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Bcdc. Is the sequel leading. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Agency. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Because no law. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Call this. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Questionnaire. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Approved. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Rules are required. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Bcdc. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: A draft environmental assessment\, and Ea to comply with. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Ceqa. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Assessing\, potential impact. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: From cargo. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Maintenance\, and operate. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Racial act. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Activities. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: The Draft Ea. Was initially published in April of. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: 2\,021. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Following the 2\,021 preparation. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Of the drafting. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: There were several. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Changes to the price. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Description. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Bcdc. Has updated. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: At the draft Ea\, and is now. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Circular \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: drafty. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: To allow the public to review the changes to the project. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Description. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: As Phoenix mentioned earlier\, the recirculated draft eas. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Been published. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Can be done. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Loaded from the BC. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: DC website. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: you can also view a hard copy. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: At the Bcd. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: DC. Office. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: and the 30 day. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Public comment. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Period\, ends. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: September 21.st \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: I wanted to go over a couple of. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Special terms that relate to salt ponds. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: A berm is a raised soil\, and. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Like me. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Used to enclose a salt. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Aunt \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Brian. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Salt water. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Concentrated in the salt\, making process \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Bmp. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: These are best management\, practice. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Practices\, for environmental protection. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Crap is rock \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: and or repurposed\, concrete\, placed on. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: The side slope of a berm to prevent erosion from. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Waves. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Ceqa. The. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Umpital. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Quality Act requires the assessment of potential environment. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Impacts of a project. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And O. And M. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Refers to operations and maintenance. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Cargo\, solar\, salt system. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Occupied. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Ties 3 areas \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: in the southern part of San Francisco Bay. These areas. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Are referred to as plants. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Newark planned\, one. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Into. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Are located. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: From. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: East side of the bay. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: And the Redwood City plan is located. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: On the west side of the bay. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Cargill’s proposed Salt Pond maintenance\, activity. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: And. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Include adding replacement. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Seeing and repeat. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Pairing soil\, filter\, fabric. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: And rip rap on limited sections of. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Firms. They also include adding soil. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: To burn. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And grading the tops. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: So. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Address\, erosion adapt to sea level\, rise. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: And improve drivability. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: They further include\, maintain. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: And replacing. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And first.st \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Structures\, such as pumps\, tide gates\, and platforms. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Removing sediment and. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Pumping. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Intakes\, and installing. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Screw. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: On one\, or. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Pumps at their main bay\, water in. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Take on Alameda Creek. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Which is referred to as the Koya. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Intake. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: the recirculated draft Ea. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: You. It’s the potential impacts of. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: These maintenance and operation. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Activities. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Ea covers a broader scope than the. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Existing. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Cargo maintenance\, and off. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Permit\, and includes. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And now. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Else is. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Serve. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Enough. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Operations. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Including pump. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Water from the bay into the ponds. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Truck trips in and. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Out of the plants \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: and storage of highly saline brine and ponds. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Adjacent to the bay. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Now I’d like to show you. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: A little bit more. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Or about O. And M. Activities. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: One of the most important. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Activity. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Is maintaining and repairing\, burn. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Rooms. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: The photograph. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Off on the. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Right\, shows. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Repurpose. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Concrete rip wrap placed on. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Outboard slope of a. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Sing\, Sam. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Princess. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Bay. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: the Federal. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Graph. On the left. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Left. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Shows a rip. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Rep. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Here\, and. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Progress. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: As you can see\, the soil on the berm. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Been graded a black material. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Curious. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Called a filter fabric was placed over the soil to protect it\, and. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And concrete. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Repurpose\, concrete. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Being placed over the filter. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Fabric to hold it in place\, and put. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Protect the slope against wave erosion. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: This photograph shows a picture. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Oh! \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: One of the platforms. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: That Cargill uses to access equipment. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: This one. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Used for tide gates. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: As mentioned earlier\, Cargill. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Replacing fish screens on. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: One or more. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Pumps and. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Their main \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: water into. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Like \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: called the. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Coyote\, intake. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: The photo. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Graphs on the right show the location. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Of the coyote intake. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Top photograph shows the intake. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Looking. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: South across Alameda Creek. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Towards the intake. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Photograph. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: On the bar. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Bottom\, right. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Shows a view from the intake. Looking north towards. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Alameda Creek. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: the photograph. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: From the. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Left. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: shows. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Chronicle fish\, screens. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: These fish screens in the picture are located in the North Bay\, but are very. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Likely to be. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: but Cargill’s fish greens are very. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Likely to be similar to these fish. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Shown in the photograph. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: There are multiple benefits. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Of maintaining the solar salt system. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: It provides. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Its habitat for numerous species of fish. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And wildlife. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: and supports millions of wintering and migratory seabirds. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Shorebirds and. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Waterfowl. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: in addition to various special. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Status be. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Issues. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: It also protects. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Approximately 20 miles of public access trails. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And salt pronds serve as. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Buffer from bay waves and tide. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: During storms \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: the solar salts. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: System per. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Juices\, food grade. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: An industrial salt. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Products through. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Sustain. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Whole process. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: And it provides. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: It’s hundreds of. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Jobs and other economic benefits. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: To the region. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: The Ea incorporates numerous and. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Environmental protection. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Measures in the Ea. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: To address. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Safeguard maintenance and operate. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Activities. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Prior to performing work. Biological monitoring is performed where needed. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: To determine if special status. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: She’s our present \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: best management practices. Avoid and minimize impacts to special status\, wildlife. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Species. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And sensitive habitat present in and around the salt ponds \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: as many. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Pray. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Obviously Cargill will install fish screens for at least one of. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: It’s part. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Set the main bay water intake on Alameda. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Creek. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Cargo will also. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: So conduct\, monitoring to. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Assess the need. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: For fish\, protection. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Measures at other. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Makes. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: To avoid potential impact. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: To special status\, fish space. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: She’s \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: cargo will further evaluate risk to Msa. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Pond. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Burns from wave overtopping and berm keying. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Gaia is leading the environmental. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Consistent with Bcdc’s process for. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Environmental review under Ceqa. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: As discussed. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Previous. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Obviously the. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Circulated draft. Ea. Is currently posted on the BC. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: DC website and the 30 day. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Public comment. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Period. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: We’ll conclude. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And September 21st \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: common. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Received on the research. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Draft Ea will be considered in the final Ea Doc. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: A commission hearing will be held to consider the permit. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: But application \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: and final environmental assessment. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: In late 20. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: 24. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: The Ea may be used by other State. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Agency. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: To support their related. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: I made a. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: 4 volts. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: The key issues in the environmental assessment. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Relate to the potential effect. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Of maintenance activities. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Various. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: She’s in. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Sensitive. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Habits. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: That within an. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Jason to the cargo. Solar salts. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: System. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: As well as to the place. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: And of Rip\, rapid. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: New locations along the output. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Firm slopes. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Facing the bay. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: They also relate. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: To the potential effects of sea. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Will rise. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: And seismic events on Ms. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Us\, for. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Integrity. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: the. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Environmental assessment. Also. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Addresses. Potential effects of. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Water into. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Taken. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Sediment removed. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Hold on! \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Special status. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Fish\, species. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And the potential effects of maintenance. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Activities on. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Cultural and tribal. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Shoulder. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Resources. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Potential effects on Air Quality. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Greenhouse. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Gas Emissions Noise. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Track. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And water quality were also evaluated. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: And our General. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Lisa. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Similar to current. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Conditions. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: There are some limited changes. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: From the current. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Permit. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Cargill is making \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: made a change. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Just to its current. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Operations\, including installing. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: The fish screens. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: One or more problems as we’ve discussed. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: and Cargill is also increasing its use of amphibious equipment. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: which may substantially reduce. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Perhaps. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Assault. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Marsh\, habitat. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Changed Environmental Conditions. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Too threatened\, or. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Endangered fish. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Issues. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Were listed. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: After. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Cargo obtained its current permit. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: and these spears. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: She’s have the. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Potential to be present. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: In\, the. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Project area. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Environmental conditions have also changed because fish passage for threatened species has been restored in Alameda. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Creek. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Most potential impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: 9 potentially significant impacts were identified in the Ea 4 related to biological resources\, 3 related to cultural and tribal cultural resources. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: one related to geology\, soils\, and seismicity\, and one related to hydrology and water quality. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: The Ea concluded that all potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level with the mitigation included in the Ea. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: the proposed mitigation measures for biological resources \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: include minimization of the potential for brine seepage\, avoidance minimization and mitigation of impacts associated with the use of bay water intakes. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: minimization of potential hydroacoustic impacts due to impact pile driving which would be required for the installation of fish screens \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: and compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to state or federally protected wetlands and waters of the State. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: The mitigation measures to address. \nspanish interpreter 1: Potential impacts to cultural and. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Tribal Culture. \nspanish interpreter 1: Resources. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Consist of response processes. \nspanish interpreter 1: For inadvertent. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Encounter of undiscovered archaeological. \nspanish interpreter 1: To Congress. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Sources\, human. \nspanish interpreter 1: And or. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Tribal and cultural resources \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: for geology\, soils and size. \nspanish interpreter 1: The city\, the. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Requires evaluation and mitigation of. \nspanish interpreter 1: Potential effects of worm Keying. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Respect to hydrology and water quality. \nspanish interpreter 1: The Ea. Requires evaluation of the Mss. Pond. Firms vulnerable. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Ability due to wave\, run up and overtopping during. \nspanish interpreter 1: Storm\, events. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: The next steps in the Ea process is that. \nspanish interpreter 1: Bcdc. Will continue to receive public. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Comments\, there’s. \nspanish interpreter 1: September 21.st \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And we will then consider and respond to public comments. \nspanish interpreter 1: Prepaid. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Share\, the final Ea. \nspanish interpreter 1: And the. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Commission will review the final Ea. \nspanish interpreter 1: Consider the new permit. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: The comment review process incorporates a number of steps. We’re going to transcribe verbal comments. \nspanish interpreter 1: Comments\, from. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Meeting recordings. \nspanish interpreter 1: We’ll come back. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Pile verbal and written comments. \nspanish interpreter 1: Identify. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Common theme. \nspanish interpreter 1: Is. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And then evaluate the need for modifications to the project. \nspanish interpreter 1: And our mitigation measures. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: As a result of the comments\, will revise and finalize. \nspanish interpreter 1: The Ea\, with Modifications. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: As needed\, and we’ll provide a list. \nspanish interpreter 1: Thing of comments. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Responses. \nspanish interpreter 1: To\, the. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Comments. \nspanish interpreter 1: As an appendix to the Ea. \nspanish interpreter 1: Comments. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Provided in Spanish\, will be translated. \nspanish interpreter 1: To English\, and addressed in English. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: So to reiterate the next steps. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: or the continuation of the. \nspanish interpreter 1: Recirc. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Related. \nspanish interpreter 1: Draft\, ea. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Public comment period which. \nspanish interpreter 1: Ends on the. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: 21st of. \nspanish interpreter 1: September. \nspanish interpreter 1: will publish. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: The final Ea. \nspanish interpreter 1: December of 2\,024. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And the Bcdc. Commission will hold a hearing on. \nspanish interpreter 1: The permit up. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Occasion. \nspanish interpreter 1: And review. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: You the final Ea also\, in December. \nspanish interpreter 1: 2\,024. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: So now we’d love to hear your comments. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: You can provide verbal comment. \nspanish interpreter 1: Today you can provide written comments. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Stood. \nspanish interpreter 1: In the Q. And a. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Can also provide written comments by 5 Pm. \nspanish interpreter 1: In on September. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: 21st to Sam Field. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: or by mail. \nspanish interpreter 1: To Bcdc. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Cannot. \nspanish interpreter 1: Accept comments\, by telephone. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: There are additional opportunities for public. \nspanish interpreter 1: They call it. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Related to the pro. \nspanish interpreter 1: Process. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Or verbal comments on the proposed permit may be provided. \nspanish interpreter 1: To Sam Fielding at BC. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Cdc. At any. \nspanish interpreter 1: Time. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Until the Commission’s. \nspanish interpreter 1: Consideration of the permit. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Bcdc. Engineering criteria review board meeting. \nspanish interpreter 1: Thing will be. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Held on September. \nspanish interpreter 1: 7th to this. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Us Mss. Part. \nspanish interpreter 1: On firms. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Stability issues. The public can attend and come. \nspanish interpreter 1: And at that meeting. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: As mentioned on the previous slide\, the Commission will meet to consider. \nspanish interpreter 1: The final Ea \nspanish interpreter 1: and permit. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: In December. \nspanish interpreter 1: Of 20. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: 24\, the public can attend and comment\, and. \nspanish interpreter 1: That meeting as well. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: You can also contact Sam Fielding at Bcdc. \nspanish interpreter 1: Did you get. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Put on. \nspanish interpreter 1: Interested. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Party list. \nspanish interpreter 1: To get like. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Electronic\, notice. \nspanish interpreter 1: Of all public meetings on the. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Cargo permit. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Interpretation is available for individual. \nspanish interpreter 1: Preferring to comment. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: The language of the. \nspanish interpreter 1: Than inch. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And with that I’m going to turn it back over to Phoenix. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Okay\, so we are welcoming public comments now. If you would like. \nspanish interpreter 1: Like to give public comment. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: You have 3 min to speak. \nspanish interpreter 1: So in the zoom. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Can raise your hand\, or you can put your questions in the. \nspanish interpreter 1: Q. And a. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: And if you are on the phone you can press Star 9\, \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: and I see we already have. \nspanish interpreter 1: One ring. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Is \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: so. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Oh\, I didn’t see who it was. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Was I wrong that somebody raised their hand. \nspanish interpreter 1: Oh\, looks like Karen! \nspanish interpreter 1: How did you. \nHarriet Ross | BCDC: Karen’s hand is raised\, or \nHarriet Ross | BCDC: that went down again. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Alright. I see Karen Hi. \nCarin High: I’m I’m sorry the Q. And a function is not enabled. \nCarin High: and this may be more appropriate as a question I don’t have. I haven’t spent enough time with the Ea. To make any. \nspanish interpreter 1: It’s. \nCarin High: Public statements about it. I do have questions of clarification\, and I don’t know if that’s something. \nspanish interpreter 1: Should do directly with. \nCarin High: Sam\, or if I can ask them tonight. \nspanish interpreter 1: Right. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: You can ask them tonight\, and we’ll answer as best we can\, and we may have to follow up. \nCarin High: Okay. For example\, table 2. \nspanish interpreter 1: 8? Where? \nCarin High: You’re discussing. \nspanish interpreter 1: Projected annual average. \nCarin High: Maintenance\, activity. \nspanish interpreter 1: Quantity. \nCarin High: I just need to know what the range is\, because in some columns you have. \nspanish interpreter 1: 2 figures\, so. \nCarin High: Operated by a slow. \nspanish interpreter 1: Fashion. \nCarin High: Others\, you. \nspanish interpreter 1: Have 3. And so I’m trying. \nCarin High: To figure out what. \nspanish interpreter 1: Is\, the. \nCarin High: Figure. \nspanish interpreter 1: That you’re. \nCarin High: Actually. \nspanish interpreter 1: Drinking. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: So the slashes actually are referring. \nspanish interpreter 1: To. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Different measurements\, so. \nspanish interpreter 1: We’ll have. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Linear\, feet. \nspanish interpreter 1: Square feet. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Read \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: well\, so we’ll usually have a. \nspanish interpreter 1: Distance\, or. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Iracy. \nspanish interpreter 1: You. So that’s. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Flashes referred to\, and they follow in the order that. \nspanish interpreter 1: But \nspanish interpreter 1: those. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Are listed all the on the left. \nspanish interpreter 1: Can call. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Of the table. \nCarin High: Okay. \nspanish interpreter 1: I see that now I slash. Lf\, yeah. \nCarin High: Okay? And so when you’re saying 390 linear feet. \nCarin High: Cubic Yards. \nspanish interpreter 1: How does? \nCarin High: That equate to the 390 Lin. \nspanish interpreter 1: Here. \nCarin High: 8. \nspanish interpreter 1: Are you saying. \nCarin High: That you can put all the. \nspanish interpreter 1: Cubicy are. \nCarin High: I’m assuming. \nspanish interpreter 1: You’re not anticipating. \nCarin High: Baiting pudding on. \nspanish interpreter 1: Of that volume at this. \nCarin High: Locate. \nspanish interpreter 1: But I’m. \nCarin High: Not sure. \nspanish interpreter 1: How you look at the distribution and \nspanish interpreter 1: and it’s. \nCarin High: Important to us to under. \nspanish interpreter 1: Understand\, how. \nCarin High: Far out into the bay\, and how. \nspanish interpreter 1: Deep. You’re. \nCarin High: Going with the Riprap. So I’m just trying to get. \nspanish interpreter 1: And and. \nCarin High: Standing of that. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: So for that we would we would probably be better off. \nspanish interpreter 1: Discussing that \nspanish interpreter 1: in. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Separately. \nspanish interpreter 1: Because we’re getting into. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Some detail\, press. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Quantities we provided. \nspanish interpreter 1: Your feet\, and. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Volume of. \nspanish interpreter 1: Rip rap\, but we didn’t. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Specify a square footage. \nspanish interpreter 1: So we would. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: We’d have to go back. \nspanish interpreter 1: Can. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: That specifically with you. \nspanish interpreter 1: And. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: I don’t have that top of mind for all the different. \nspanish interpreter 1: Items. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: So\, okay. \nCarin High: And I guess the second question I’ll ask tonight\, and that may be it for tonight. \nspanish interpreter 1: Because I need. \nCarin High: Sit with. \nspanish interpreter 1: But. \nspanish interpreter 1: Fish\, green. \nCarin High: Issue. \nspanish interpreter 1: Who. \nCarin High: Right now. \nspanish interpreter 1: The proposal\, as I understand. \nCarin High: And oh\, yeah. \nspanish interpreter 1: Actually have to. \nCarin High: Questions. \nCarin High: 1st of all\, difference between. \nspanish interpreter 1: Bay\, water\, pump. \nCarin High: And intake pump? Are they the same. \nspanish interpreter 1: And they’re just named different. \nCarin High: Currently for some reason. \nspanish interpreter 1: And are. \nCarin High: Do they does that. \nspanish interpreter 1: But. \nCarin High: Is that associated. \nspanish interpreter 1: With volume\, so. \nCarin High: Water pump. Why\, in the figures. \nspanish interpreter 1: Where we look at pump\, logo. \nCarin High: Along the sloughs are some labeled. \nspanish interpreter 1: Water\, pump. \nCarin High: And others intake pumps. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: They would all be taking in bay water. So that that’s more of a labeling issue\, and. \nspanish interpreter 1: How \nspanish interpreter 1: probably car. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Has referred to them traditionally. \nspanish interpreter 1: Okay\, and. \nCarin High: I \nCarin High: I’m just curious about how. \nspanish interpreter 1: It was a. \nCarin High: Arrived at that. \nspanish interpreter 1: But \nCarin High: The only significant impact to \nCarin High: fish in terms of fish screen. \nspanish interpreter 1: Would. \nCarin High: At Kai. \nspanish interpreter 1: Cody\, coyote. \nCarin High: Slew or the Alameda County Flood Control Channel. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: That that’s actually not what the conclusion was\, and. \nspanish interpreter 1: And. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: So Cargill is committed to putting. \nspanish interpreter 1: Fish. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Screen\, on. \nspanish interpreter 1: Screens\, on. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: At least. \nspanish interpreter 1: Least one. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: At the coyote intake\, and then for the other. \nspanish interpreter 1: Intakes\, cargo \nspanish interpreter 1: will be conducting. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: A month. \nspanish interpreter 1: And. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Program. \nspanish interpreter 1: That will be. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Approved by the resource agencies to evaluate the need. \nspanish interpreter 1: 8. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Additional Food. \nspanish interpreter 1: Protect. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Measures. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: So at this point. \nspanish interpreter 1: The Ea does not require additional. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Kiss. \nspanish interpreter 1: Because it hasn’t been established\, at least. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: She’s our present. \nspanish interpreter 1: At the other intakes. \nspanish interpreter 1: And so that’s. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Basically. \nspanish interpreter 1: What we’re looking for is more information. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And then the response. \nspanish interpreter 1: That’s appropriate to that additional information. That’s. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Gathered. \nCarin High: It’s just interesting\, because. \nspanish interpreter 1: The South Bay. It just seems like it’s almost assumed that there are going to. \nCarin High: Be. \nspanish interpreter 1: To fisheries when you have intake pumps\, and so. \nCarin High: So I was just trying to get a sense of how that was. \nspanish interpreter 1: To do. \nCarin High: But I guess we’ll have to. \nspanish interpreter 1: Put that into our. \nCarin High: Ments \nCarin High: and and. \nspanish interpreter 1: Is. \nCarin High: So you don’t have any feedback from nymphs or Cdfw. At this point. \nspanish interpreter 1: In time regarding the need for fish screens. \nCarin High: On! \nspanish interpreter 1: More. \nCarin High: The identified \nCarin High: pump intake areas. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: So we have a detailed mitigation measure. That’s. \nspanish interpreter 1: Speaks to fish per. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Protection. \nspanish interpreter 1: At all of the intakes. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: the \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: so\, for in so effectively \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: for intakes that are on screen\, there are a series. \nspanish interpreter 1: Of steps. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: That Cargill can implement in order to address. \nspanish interpreter 1: Potential and. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Pats with the unscreened intakes. So Cargill can either provide documentation. \nspanish interpreter 1: That’s acceptable to their. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Resource agencies that \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: sensitive species are unlikely to be present at the time when. \nspanish interpreter 1: Water. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Taken in at those into. \nspanish interpreter 1: And that varies by intake. The pumping. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And is different. \nspanish interpreter 1: For some of the intakes. \nspanish interpreter 1: Alternative. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Lee \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: cargo. \nspanish interpreter 1: Can provide. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Okay\, so cargo can document that \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: fish. \nspanish interpreter 1: Not the. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Impacted also through showing. \nspanish interpreter 1: That sweep \nspanish interpreter 1: and. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: That that the velocities related to the fish screens would not likely affect. \nspanish interpreter 1: Fish. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: That the velocities at the intakes would not be likely to entreat. \nspanish interpreter 1: Fish. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And then. \nspanish interpreter 1: If. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Cargill can’t demonstrate that either the. \nspanish interpreter 1: Species are unlikely to. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Be present. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: or that the velocity. \nspanish interpreter 1: Into. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Velocities are unlikely to affect the fish. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: then the last step is to either. \nspanish interpreter 1: Do additional fish? \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Protection\, with. \nspanish interpreter 1: Could be fish. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Trains\, but there could also be. \nspanish interpreter 1: Other options. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: or provide compensatory mitigation. So there’s a tier. \nspanish interpreter 1: Approach. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: To addressing \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: fish impacts from unscreened intakes. We’re in. \nspanish interpreter 1: Not. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Suggesting. \nspanish interpreter 1: Nothing needs to. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: To be done by any means. \nspanish interpreter 1: Okay\, thank you. I don’t want a monopoly. \nCarin High: Place of time\, so \nCarin High: I’ll be in touch with Sam. \nspanish interpreter 1: Thank you. \nspanish interpreter 1: Sounds good. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Alright. I don’t see any more hands raised. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Actually\, Karen\, Hi would like to speak again. \nCarin High: I just have a quick question\, and. \nspanish interpreter 1: And made. \nCarin High: Be. This isn’t appropriate here. But I had been seeing the bitter. \nspanish interpreter 1: And. \nCarin High: Brian transfer proposal with Ebda\, and that. \nspanish interpreter 1: Seems to be on a \nspanish interpreter 1: more delayed time track now. \nCarin High: I thought. \nspanish interpreter 1: But I. \nCarin High: Saw a figure\, and I. \nspanish interpreter 1: Can’t find. \nCarin High: It now where that was kind of called out. \nspanish interpreter 1: As a set. \nCarin High: Brit. \nspanish interpreter 1: Project\, but. \nCarin High: Are there still \nCarin High: maintenance activities that would be. \nspanish interpreter 1: Cover. \nCarin High: This project in terms of ensuring that you know the levies are going to. \nCarin High: Void\, they will be resistant to overtopping. \nspanish interpreter 1: And. \nCarin High: Spillage of bittern. Is that still a component of the O. And M. Or are you looking to. \nspanish interpreter 1: Address that more through the Epta Project. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: So that’s a really good question\, Karen. So the Epta Project is focused on removing the Ms. \nspanish interpreter 1: Assess from the ponds. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: This operations in May. \nspanish interpreter 1: Men’s pro. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: It is focused on maintaining the firms. That’s. \nspanish interpreter 1: Around the ponds. \nspanish interpreter 1: Okay\, I think that act. \nCarin High: That answers. \nspanish interpreter 1: Thank you! \nCarin High: Thank you. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I believe that’s all we have\, Suzanne. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Alright. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Well\, with that \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: I’ll turn it back over to Phoenix to close the meeting. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Alright! Thank you all for joining us. \nspanish interpreter 1: This evening. We really appreciate. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: You! You’re. \nspanish interpreter 1: Tenants in your. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Comment. \nspanish interpreter 1: It’s. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: And we. \nspanish interpreter 1: Up\, to. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: See more. \nspanish interpreter 1: From you in the future. Thank you. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Thanks. \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-4-2024-community-meeting-for-the-cargill-solar-salt-system-draft-ea/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240821T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240821T170000 DTSTAMP:20240826T165730Z CREATED:20240726T162946Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240826T165730Z UID:10000189-1724245200-1724259600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:August 21\, 2024 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Engineering Criteria Review Board (ECRB) meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format. 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.   \nMetro Center375 Beale Street\, Board RoomSan Francisco415-352-3600 \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/86491112881?pwd=3YOXXTdjvxMayJlEtfD9hhLU6eObn1.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-50551 (816) 423 4282Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID864 9111 2881 \nPasscode472668 \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 and Meeting Procedure Review (5 minutes)\nStaff Updates (5 minutes)\nItem of Discussion: Applying Sea Level Rise Science to San Francisco Bay Fill Projects BCDC permit analysts and permit applicants rely on the “best available science” for applying future sea level rise\, vertical land motion\, tidal datums\, and waves to the design of San Francisco Bay projects. The Engineering Criteria Review Board will discuss and provide guidance to BCDC on these sea level rise science topics. The public may comment on the presentation at its conclusion.(Jenn Hyman) [415/352-3670; jennifer.hyman@bcdc.ca.govStaff presentation\nItem of Discussion: Consideration of Levee and Floodwall SafetyThe ECRB is charged with reviewing the design criteria of proposed Bay fill for major flood control projects to confirm the safety of the proposed Bay fill and structures thereon. The ECRB may also examine and require submittals on construction and maintenance. Therefore\, staff request input from the ECRB on requirements that can maximize project safety during the full life of a floodwall or levee. Staff will present floodwall and levee safety requirements from FEMA and USACE and also present lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina. The public may comment on the presentation at its conclusion.(Jenn Hyman) [415/352-3670; jennifer.hyman@bcdc.ca.govStaff presentation\nAdjournment \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Minutes\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Recording\n Meeting recording\nPart 1\n \nPart 2\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-21-2024-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting-2/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240724T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240724T170000 DTSTAMP:20240717T214720Z CREATED:20240130T055851Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240717T214720Z UID:10000155-1721826000-1721840400@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:July 24\, 2024 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting (Cancelled) DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/july-24-2024-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240626T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240626T160000 DTSTAMP:20240917T204053Z CREATED:20240130T055707Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240917T204053Z UID:10000154-1719406800-1719417600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:June 26\, 2024 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Engineering Criteria Review Board meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format. 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. \nPrimary Physical Location \nMetro Center375 Beale Street\, Temezcal RoomSan Francisco\, CA415-352-3600 \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/86888186253?pwd=PmYnQAEdOAHShtgJ584SZQbVpgdc8u.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-50551 (816) 423 4282Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID868 8818 6253 \nPasscode559089 \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 and Meeting Procedure Review (5 minutes)\nStaff Updates (5 minutes)\nIItem of Discussion: Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan Draft GuidelinesThe Engineering Criteria Review Board will hold its first review of BCDC’s draft Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan (RSAP) guidelines. When finalized\, the RSAP guidelines will be used by local jurisdictions for developing Subregional Shoreline Resiliency Plans\, required by Senate Bill 272 (Laird 2023)\, that effectively address local and regional sea level rise risks. The public may comment on the presentation at its conclusion.[(Dana Brechwald) [415/352-3656; dana.brechwald]Presentation\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Audio Recording & Transcript\n \nAudio video\n \n \n\nTranscript\n\n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON\, AND WELCOME TO THIS HYBRID\, IN-PERSON AND ONLINE ECRB MEETING. MY NAME IS ROD IWASHITA AND I’M THE CHAIR OF ECRB\, AND THIS MEETING WILL BE RECORDED. I’D LIKE TO ANNOUNCE THAT BILL HOLMES HAS DECIDED TO RETIRE FROM THE ECRB AND NOTIFIED US LAST WEEK. HE HAS SPENT HIS 50-YEAR CAREER AS A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER AND PRINCIPAL AT RUTHERFORD AND CHEKENE. HE WAS RECOGNIZED IN HIS STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND LEADERSHIP AND IMPROVING THE SEISMIC SAFETY OF BUILDINGS. HE HAS SERVED ON THE ECRB FOR 10 YEARS AND JENN WILL BE DRAWING UP A RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR THE BCDC COMMISSION. AND I’D LIKE TO HAVE US ALL GIVE HIM A ROUND OF APPLAUSE FOR HIS SERVICE. THANK YOU\, BILL. [APPLAUSE] \n>>WILLIAM HOLMES: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. \n>>V. CHAIR\, JAMES FRENCH: A PLEASURE WORKING WITH YOU ON THIS FOR THE LAST 10-ISH YEARS\, WHATEVER IT IS. \n>>WILLIAM HOLMES: WE HAD SOME INTERESTING SITUATIONS. [LAUGHTER] \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. LET’S SEE. WE WILL BE WORKING ON A REPLACEMENT STRUCTURAL ENGINEER TO FILL BILL’S SPOT. PATRICK RYAN IS HERE IN HIS FIRST ECRB MEETING AS AN ALTERNATE BOARD MEMBER\, SO I’D LIKE TO INTRODUCE HIM TO EVERYONE. PATRICK IS A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER AND PRINCIPAL AND CO-FOUNDER OF RYAN JOYCE STRUCTURAL DESIGN\, A SAN FRANCISCO-BASED ENGINEERING AND DESIGN FIRM. WELCOME\, PATRICK. I THINK IT IS KIND OF FITTING THAT PATRICK AND BILL BOTH GOT RUTHERFORD CHEKENE ROOTS SO THAT’S KIND OF NEAT. I’D ALSO LIKE TO INTRODUCE MARGIE MALAN WHO HAS TAKEN GRACE’S PLACE FOR ASSISTING WITH THE RUNNING OF THE MEETING ON ZOOM. THANK YOU\, MARGIE. OKAY. OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS TO CALL THE ROLL. BOARD MEMBERS\, PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELVES TO RESPOND AND THEN MUTE YOURSELVES AGAIN AFTER RESPONDING. JENN\, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. \n>>JENN HYMAN: ROD IWASHITA\, CHAIR OF THE BOARD. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: HERE. \n>>JENN HYMAN: JIM FRENCH\, VICE CHAIR. \n>>V. CHAIR\, JAMES FRENCH: HERE. \n>>JENN HYMAN: BOB BATTALIO. \n>>BOB BATTALIO: HERE. \n>>JENN HYMAN: GYIMAH KASALI. NOT HERE. KRIS MAY. I HEARD THAT SHE MAY BE JOINING US LATER REMOTELY. RAMIN GOLESORKHI. \n>>RAMIN GOLESORKHI: HERE. \n>>JENN HYMAN: NICK SITAR. HE’S OUT ON VACATION. GAYLE JOHNSON\, HE’S OUT SICK. THALEIA TRAVASAROU. DILIP TRIVEDI. JUSTIN VANDEVER. AND PATRICK RYAN. \n>>PATRICK RYAN: HERE. \n>>JENN HYMAN: AND I BELIEVE PROMOTING THE ALTERNATE MEMBER TO BOARD MEMBER TODAY. IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A QUORUM OF FIVE — AT LEAST FIVE PEOPLE PRESENT. [INAUDIBLE] \n>>WILLIAM HOLMES: ROD\, YOU’RE MUTED. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: SORRY. I SHOULD KNOW THIS. THANK YOU\, BILL. I WANT TO START WITH SOME INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW WE CAN BEST PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING SO THAT IT RUNS AS SMOOTHLY AS POSSIBLE. FIRST\, EVERYONE\, WHEN YOU ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THE ACTIVE DISCUSSION\, PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU HAVE YOUR MICROPHONE OR PHONE MUTED TO AVOID BACKGROUND NOISE. FOR BOARD MEMBERS\, IF YOU HAVE A CAMERA\, PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT IT IS ON DURING THE MEETING SO EVERYONE CAN SEE YOU. FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC\, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK DURING A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD THAT IS PART OF AN AGENDA ITEM\, YOU’LL NEED TO DO SO IN ONE OF THREE WAYS. IF YOU ARE HERE IN PERSON\, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND SO WE CAN CALL ON YOU AT WHICH TIME YOU MAY COME FORWARD TO THE ELECT — FORWARD TO SPEAK. IF YOU ARE ON THE ZOOM PLATFORM\, PLEASE CLICK THE HAND AT THE BOTTOM OF YOUR SCREEN. THE HAND SHOULD TURN BLUE WHEN IT’S RAISED. AND IF YOU ARE ATTENDING VIA PHONE\, YOU MUST PRESS STAR NINE ON YOUR KEY PAD TO MAKE A COMMENT AND STAR SIX TO UNMUTE OR MUTE YOURSELF. WE WILL CALL ON INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE RAISED THEIR HANDS IN THE ORDER THEY ARE RAISED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. EVERY NOW AND THEN I MAY REFER TO THE MEETING HOST\, MARGIE\, WHO IS WORKING BEHIND THE SCENES TO ENSURE THAT THE TECHNOLOGY MOVES THE MEETING FORWARD SMOOTHLY AND CONSISTENTLY. AND PLEASE BE PATIENT WITH US IF IT’S NEEDED. OKAY. A LITTLE BIT ABOUT EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS. AS SET FORTH IN BCDC’S REGULATIONS\, A MEMBER OF THE ECRB SHALL NOT HAVE ANY ORAL OR WRITTEN COMMUNICATION REGARDING A PROPOSED PROJECT OR OTHER MATTER THAT HAS BEEN NOTICED TO BE CONSIDERED AT AN ECRB MEETING WITH A PROJECT PROPONENT\, PROSPECTIVE APPLICANT OR MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC EXCEPT ON THE RECORD DURING AN ECRB MEETING. BOARD MEMBERS\, IN CASE YOU HAVE INADVERTENTLY FORGOTTEN TO PROVIDE THE STAFF WITH A NOTICE ON ANY WRITTEN OR ORAL EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS\, I INVITE YOU TO REPORT ON ANY SUCH COMMUNICATIONS AT THIS POINT IN TIME BY RAISING YOUR HAND AND UNMUTING YOURSELF. OKAY. FOR THE RECORD\, NO HANDS HAVE BEEN RAISED. OH\, NO\, I DO SEE ONE HAND. BILL HOLMES. \n>>WILLIAM HOLMES: YES\, MR. CHAIR\, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST TO RETIRE. I AM GOING TO GO GET IN MY CAR AND DRIVE NORTH AS WE SPEAK. SO I HAVE APPRECIATED SERVING BCDC AND ENJOYED WORKING WITH EVERYONE AND WE’LL SEE YOU AROUND ENGINEERING ASSOCIATIONS IN SAN FRANCISCO. THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. THANK YOU\, BILL. \n>>JENN HYMAN: THANK YOU\, QUESTION. \n>>V. CHAIR\, JAMES FRENCH: I HAVE A QUESTION\, QUICK. DO WE NEED BILL TO VOTE ON PATRICK OR DO WE LOSE A QUORUM? \n>>JENN HYMAN: NO. THERE’S NO VOTING ON PATRICK TODAY. \n>>V. CHAIR\, JAMES FRENCH: OKAY. BILL\, DRIVE SAFE. HAVE FUN. \n>>BOB BATTALIO: HAPPY TRAILS\, BILL. \n>>V. CHAIR\, JAMES FRENCH: I THINK HE’S GONE. [LAUGHTER] \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. AND NOW WE’LL HAVE A STAFF UPDATE FROM SENIOR ENGINEER AND BOARD SECRETARY JENN HYMAN. TAKE IT AWAY\, JENN. \n>>JENN HYMAN: THANK YOU\, ROD\, CHAIR IWASHITA. I’D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT UPCOMING MEETINGS. WITH REGARD TO UPCOMING ECRB MEETINGS\, THERE ARE NO PROJECTS SCHEDULED FOR THE JULY 24 OR THE AUGUST 21 MEETING\, BUT PLEADS KEEP THESE DATES OPENED ON YOUR CALENDAR IN CASE SOMETHING COMES UP AT THE LAST MINUTE. ON SEPTEMBER 25\, THE ECRB WILL HAVE ITS SECOND MEETING WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ON THEIR SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT. CARGILL SALT SAID THEY’D LIKE TO ALSO RETURN TO THE BOARD TO ADDRESS THEIR QUESTIONS FROM THE LAST MEETING\, ALSO IN SEPTEMBER. WE ARE THINKING OF SCHEDULING A SEPARATE MEETING FOR THAT ON SEPTEMBER 11 TO ALLOW YOU TIME TO REVIEW THE MATERIALS FOR THESE TWO COMPLEX PROJECTS OR WE COULD HAVE BOTH THE S.F.O. MEETING AND THE CARGILL MEETING ON THE SAME DAY\, ALTHOUGH THAT COULD BE A VERY LONG MEETING\, POSSIBLY MORE THAN FOUR HOURS. I WANTED TO SEE A SHOW OF HANDS FROM PEOPLE ON THE BOARD WHICH ONE YOU PREFER. SO SHOW OF HANDS OR SPEAK OUT IF YOU PREFER TO HAVE BOTH PROJECTS IN THE SAME MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 25? ONE PERSON. OH\, AND JIM. AND THEN WHAT ABOUT HAVING TWO DIFFERENT MEETINGS IN SEPTEMBER\, TWO WEEKS APART? PATRICK\, ROD\, AND BOB. HMM. ALMOST A TIE. OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT? \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: FROM ME? \n>>V. CHAIR\, JAMES FRENCH: I’M FINE WITH ALLOWING IT FOR MULTIPLE MEETINGS THOUGH I VOTED FOR ONE. \n>>SPEAKER: I THINK ONE IS BETTER IN LIGHT OF THE FACT HE TOLD ME NOT TO BE AVAILABLE\, BOARD MEMBERS TO ATTEND BOTH\, SO I THINK IT’S BETTER TO HAVE ONE. I UNDERSTAND THAT IT MAY BE A LONG MEETING\, BUT BE THAT AS IT MAY\, I THINK IT’S BETTER TO HAVE MORE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT THAN NOT. THANK YOU. \n>>JENN HYMAN: ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO HAVE FEELINGS ABOUT WHICH WAY TO DO IT? \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: SURE. I THINK BOTH OF PLEASE PROJECTS ARE PRETTY COMPLEX AND WE HAD A LOT OF QUESTIONS FOR THEM\, FOR THE APPLICANTS THE LAST TIME WE MET AND I’M SURE THIS WOULD BE MORE THAN A FOUR-HOUR MEETING IF WE TRIED TO ACCOMMODATE BOTH ON THE SAME DAY. AND NOTICING — \n>>V. CHAIR\, JAMES FRENCH: YOUR VOICE IS KIND OF FADING A LITTLE BIT. IF YOU COULD SPEAK UP A LITTLE BIT. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: AND JUST\, YOU KNOW\, TODAY’S — THE PARKING LOGISTICS HERE ARE SOMEWHAT\, YOU KNOW\, DIFFICULT. I’D RATHER — I THINK IT’S EASIER FOR SOME OF US TO COME IN TWO DAYS AND BE HERE FOR THREE HOURS\, SAY\, THAN COMING IN FOR ONE DAY AND BEING HERE FOR SIX HOURS BUT THAT’S JUST MY OPINION. \n>>JENN HYMAN: OKAY. IT SOUNDS LIKE YOUR CONCERN IS PEOPLE WON’T BE HERE ON THIS NEW DATE. MAYBE I COULD JUST SEE WHO’S AVAILABLE AND THEN WE CAN TAKE IT FROM THERE. \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH\, SURE. I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST MAYBE WE TAKE A POLL AND SEE HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE AVAILABLE AND THEN WE CAN MAKE A DECISION WHETHER ONE OR TWO. I DON’T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH TWO. I JUST THINK THAT THERE COULD BE PARTICIPATION ISSUES. \n>>JENN HYMAN: OKAY. I’LL MOVE AHEAD WITH THAT PLAN\, THEN. AND THOSE ARE ALL MY ANNOUNCEMENTS. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE PRESENTATION\, ARE THERE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM ANY OF OUR BOARD MEMBERS? RAISE YOUR HAND\, PLEASE. OKAY. I DON’T SEE ANY HANDS UP. SO LET’S SEE. LET ME TURN MY PAGE HERE. OKAY. NOW WE’RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE MAIN AGENDA ITEM WHICH IS THE PRESENTATION BY BCDC AND DISCUSSION ON THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN GUIDELINES\, ALSO KNOWN AS THE RSAP GUIDELINES FOR SHORT. FIRST UP\, DANA BRECHWALD\, ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR THE — EXCUSE ME — CLIMATE ADAPTATION — FOR CLIMATE ADAPTATION AND JACLYN PERRIN-MARTINEZ\, SENIOR CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLANNER\, WILL MAKE A 45-MINUTE PRESENTATION. DURING THE PRESENTATION\, IT IS FINE FOR BOARD MEMBERS TO ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. AT THE END OF THE PRESENTATION\, WE WILL OPEN THE MEETING FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS BASED — RELATED TO THE PRESENTATION. AFTER HEARING ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC\, THE ECRB WILL RESUME THE DISCUSSION WITH THEIR QUESTIONS\, COMMENTS\, AND FEEDBACK ON THE RSAP GUIDELINES. AT THE END OF THIS DISCUSSION\, I WILL ASK FOR FINAL COMMENTS AND THEN CLOSE THE AGENDA ITEM. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE BOARD MEMBERS AND PRESENTERS TO PLEASE TURN ON YOUR CAMERAS\, IF YOU CAN. RAMIN. FOR ANY DISCUSSION DURING OR AFTER THE PRESENTATION. I WOULD LIKE TO NOW TURN IT OVER TO THE BCDC PLANNING TEAM TO BEGIN THEIR PRESENTATION. \n>>DANA BRECHWALD: BEAR WITH US\, WE’RE SHARING ONE COMPUTER BECAUSE IT’S EASIER TO NAVIGATE TO SHARE THE PRESENTATION. GREAT. HERE WE ARE. SO GOOD AFTERNOON\, BOARD MEMBERS. IT’S REALLY A PLEASURE TO SHARE WITH US — WITH YOU — FOR US TO SHARE WITH YOU TODAY WHAT WE’VE BEEN WORKING ON. WE LAST SPOKE TO YOU LAST — I THINK IT WAS JULY OR AUGUST LAST YEAR\, ABOUT A YEAR AGO\, AND WE WERE REALLY JUST STARTING ON SCOPING OUT WHAT THESE GUIDELINES WOULD LOOK LIKE SO WE’RE HAPPY TODAY TO SHARE WHERE WE ARE AND WHAT OUR NEXT STEPS ARE THAT WILL GET US TO COMMISSION APPROVAL IN DECEMBER. SO WHEN JENN SENT OUT HER REPORT TO YOU\, SHE SENT YOU A DRAFT OF THE GUIDELINES AND ALSO POSED SOME QUESTIONS THAT WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE YOU CONTEMPLATE TODAY\, SO I’M JUST POSTING THEM HERE. I WON’T READ THEM OUT LOUD BUT JUST SETTING THIS UP AS A WAY OF FRAMING THE CONVERSATION THAT WE’RE HAVING TODAY. THERE ARE MANY COMPONENTS OF THE GUIDELINES THAT ARE MORE TECHNICAL IN NATURE THAT WE THINK YOU ALL CAN HAVE SOME PERSPECTIVE ON AND REALLY\, WHAT ALL THESE QUESTIONS ARE ASKING YOU FOR IS\, YOU KNOW\, IS THIS THE RIGHT LEVEL? ARE WE MISSING ANYTHING? IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU HAVE FLAGGED AS BEING ESSENTIAL TO MOVING FORWARD WITH THE GUIDELINES? SO WE’RE GOING TO START\, ACTUALLY\, WITH A VIDEO THAT OUR CONSULTANT TEAM PUT TOGETHER FOR US\, AND THIS WILL REALLY HELP TO FRAME THE CONVERSATION AND SHOW YOU WHY WE’RE DOING THIS PROJECT TO BEGIN WITH. SO LET ME — HMM. OKAY. HOLD ON. TECHNICAL — STOP SHARING. SORRY. WE’RE HAVING ALL THESE TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES BECAUSE WE LEFT AUDIO AND ALL THIS FUN STUFF. YOU’D THINK THE NUMBER OF TIMES WE HAVE DONE THIS PRESENTATION WE WOULD — WE WOULD — OKAY. NOW IT SHOULD — [LAUGHTER] QUICK QUESTION\, WERE THOSE OF YOU ON — CAN YOU MUTE THAT? WERE THOSE OF YOU ON VIDEO ABLE TO HEAR THAT VIDEO AS IT WAS PLAYING? \n>>V. CHAIR\, JAMES FRENCH: I DO NOT HEAR. SORRY. IS THERE A WAY TO SHARE AUDIO? IT TAKES A VILLAGE\, PEOPLE. \n>>SPEAKER: IN THE SAN FRANCISCO REGION\, ONE THING CONNECTS US ALL\, THE BAY. IT’S WHERE WE GATHER TOGETHER FOR FRESH AIR\, FOR EXERCISE\, FOR THE STUNNING VIEWS. WHERE MARSHES AND BEACHES ARE HOMES TO — HOME TO BIRDS AND FISH. THE BAY TRAIL LEADS US TO VISIT ONE ANOTHER. WHERE WATERLINES AND POWERLINES PROVIDES CRUCIAL SERVICES. IT’S WHERE WE LIVE\, WORK\, AND PLAY\, MAKING THE BAY AREA A ONE OF A KIND PLACE TO CALL HOME. \n>>SPEAKER: BUT ALL OF THAT IS AT RISK\, AS CLIMATE CHANGE CAUSES THE WATER IN THE BAY AND GROUNDWATER BENEATH US TO RISE. WITHOUT ACTION\, THOSE RISING WATERS WILL AFFECT ALL OF OUR DAILY LIVES. THE WAY WE TRAVEL TO SCHOOL OR TO THE GROCERY STORE\, EVEN FLUSHING OUR TOILETS WILL BECOME LESS RELIABLE. AIRPORTS\, BART\, AND UTILITIES ARE ALL VULNERABLE. WE ALL WILL FEEL THE EFFECTS EVEN IF WE DON’T LIVE IN A BAYSIDE COMMUNITY. SOME OF THOSE EFFECTS ARE ALREADY HERE. IN RECENT YEARS\, RISING GROUNDWATER AND MAJOR STORMS HAVE LED TO TRANSIT STATION CLOSURES AND FLOODED HOMES. OUR SHORELINE IS CHANGING. OUR COMMUNITIES ARE AT RISK. AND SO HOW WE COEXIST WITH OUR ENVIRONMENT ALSO NEEDS TO CHANGE. IT’S A CHALLENGE OF IMMENSE IMPORTANCE. IF WE DON’T ACT\, 190\,000 JOBS\, 83\,000 HOMES\, AND 20\,000 ACRES OF WETLAND ARE THREATENED WITHIN THE NEXT 40 YEARS. \n>>SPEAKER: BUT WE’VE DONE TOUGH WORK TOGETHER BEFORE. IN THE 1960’S\, WHEN THE BAY’S NATURAL AREAS WERE BEING FILLED FOR DEVELOPMENT\, CONCERNED COMMUNITY MEMBERS LED THE WAY\, FOUNDING SAVE THE BAY AND LEADING TO THE CREATION OF THE BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. AND NOW\, THE BCDC IS ORGANIZING AROUND COLLECTIVE ACTION ONCE AGAIN\, CONVENING REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY PARTNERS WHO ARE ALREADY WORKING ON SEA LEVEL RISE ISSUES WHILE SUPPORTING OTHERS TO GET STARTED. \n>>SPEAKER: WORKING WITH EACH OTHER AND WITH NATURE WE CAN HAVE A NEW SHORELINE THAT SUPPORTS THE UNIQUE NEEDS OF EACH COMMUNITY. \n>>SPEAKER: IT CREATES NEW WALKING AND BICYCLE TRAILS. \n>>SPEAKER: THAT ENSURES BAY NATURAL AREAS THRIVE INTO THE FUTURE. \n>>SPEAKER: AND SO MUCH OF OUR NEIGHBORS LIVE IN PLACES THAT ARE AT HIGHER RISK OR HAVE ALREADY ENDURED PREVIOUS HARM AND OUR DUTY IS TO MEET THEIR NEEDS FIRST. \n>>SPEAKER: BUT WE NEED EVERYONE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PLANNING\, BECAUSE THIS WILL AFFECT ALL OF US\, EVEN IF WE DON’T LIVE NEAR THE SHORELINE. \n>>SPEAKER: IT’S A CHALLENGE THAT CAN’T BE SOLVED IN A SINGLE GENERATION. WE NEED TO WORK OVER TIME TO PREPARE FOR THE FUTURE AHEAD. AND NOW YOUR COMMUNITY NEEDS YOU TO GET INVOLVED IN THIS UNPRECEDENTED OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE A FUTURE BAY THAT CAN SUPPORT ALL OF US FOR GENERATIONS TO COME. \n>>SPEAKER: TOGETHER FOR THE FRESH AIR\, FOR THE EXERCISE\, FOR THE STUNNING VIEWS. WHERE MARSHES AND BEACHES — \n>>DANA BRECHWALD: BEAR WITH US. I DON’T KNOW WHY IT’S PLAYING AGAIN. \n>>V. CHAIR\, JAMES FRENCH: IT WAS GOOD ONCE. IT WILL PROBABLY BE BETTER TWICE. \n>>DANA BRECHWALD: OKAY. WE SHOULD BE GOOD. SO MANY THINGS TO CLICK ON. OKAY. SO AS YOU SAW IN THE VIDEO AND YOU’RE PROBABLY AWARE\, THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO THE BAY AREA FROM SEA LEVEL RISE AND NOT JUST ALONG THE SHORELINE BUT ON THE SYSTEMS THAT WE RELY ON SO THIS IS JUST A SNIPPET OF SOME FACTS THAT WE SHARED IN OUR ART BAY AREA REPORT WHICH WAS PUBLISHED IN 2020 THAT TALKS ABOUT THE IMPACTS TO THINGS LIKE OUR REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM\, THE AREAS THAT WE’RE PLANNING ON GROWING FOR HOUSING AND JOBS\, OUR SOCIALLY VULNERABLE RESIDENTS AND OUR NATURAL HABITATS. THE POINT OF THIS SLIDE IS REALLY TO SHOW YOU THIS IS REALLY AN EVERYBODY PROBLEM\, IT’S NOT YOUR A SHORELINE PROBLEM\, AND SO THAT’S WHY BCDC HAS BEEN TAKING THIS ON AT SUCH A REGIONALWIDE SCALE. OUR MAJOR EFFORT RIGHT NOW THAT IS HELPING TO ADDRESS SEA LEVEL RISE ADAPTATION IN THE REGION IS OUR BAY ADAPT INITIATIVE WHICH WE BRIEFED YOU ON LAST YEAR AND THIS IS OUR CONSENSUS-DRIVEN STRATEGY THAT LAYS OUT THE ACTIONS NECESSARY TO ADAPT THE BAY AREA TO RISING SEA LEVEL TO PROTECT PEOPLE AND THE NATURAL AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT. THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN\, WHICH WE’RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY\, IS IMPLEMENTING SEVERAL TASKS THAT ARE OUTLINED IN THE JOINT PLATFORM. IT’S REALLY CRITICAL FOR US\, AS YOU SAW IN THE VIDEO\, AND THE SLIDES I SHARED TWO SLIDES AGO\, EVERYTHING IS INTERCONNECTED IN THE BAY AND THAT’S WHY WE NEED TO APPROACH ADAPTATION FROM A REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE AS OPPOSED TO A CITY-BY-CITY BASIS. WE NEED TO HAVE ADAPTATION PRACTICES AROUND THE REGION\, THAT WE’RE ESTABLISHING PRIORITIES AROUND THE REGION\, PARTICULARLY TO FRONTLINE COMMUNITIES AND THOSE LOST RESOURCE COMMUNITIES. WE ALL KNOW THE LONG-TERM HEALTH OF THE WETLANDS IS NOT JUST PARCEL BY PARCEL BUT IT DEPENDS A LOT ON INTERCONNECTEDNESS AND ALSO SPEED. THIS IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO PRIORITIZE NOW. WE KNOW THAT IT’S GOING TO BE VERY EXPENSIVE TO DO ALL OF THIS AND WE NEED TO BE REALLY STRATEGIC ABOUT HOW WE SPEND OUR DOLLARS AND IMPLEMENT PROJECTS AROUND THE REGION. WE WANT TO SET COMMON STANDARDS AND METHODS FOR ADAPTATION PLANNING IN THE REGION. WE WANT TO ESTABLISH A PIPELINE OF FUNDING AND KNOW WHERE THAT FUNDING WILL GO AND LASTLY\, WE NEED TO TRACK ADAPTATION AS A REGION. WE ALSO ARE NOW — BCDC IS NOW MANDATED TO FULFILL S.B. 272. THIS BILL WAS PASSED LAST FALL AND STATES THAT LOCAL JURISDICTIONS NEED TO DEVELOP SUBREGIONAL RESILIENCY PLANS AND BCDC IS THE AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR DEVELOPING THE GUIDELINES THAT THOSE PLANS MUST FOLLOW AND THEN REVIEWING AND APPROVING OR DENYING PLANS BASED ON CONSISTENCY WITH THE GUIDELINES. THIS BILL ALSO STATES THAT WE SHOULD PRIORITIZE STATE FUNDING FOR THESE PLANS AND FOR THE PROJECTS THAT ARE WITHIN THE APPROVED PLANS AND THAT THESE GUIDELINES SHOULD BE ADOPTED BY BCDC BY THE END OF THIS YEAR\, WHICH IS WHY WE’VE BEEN WORKING SO HARD IN THE PAST YEAR SINCE YOU’VE SEEN US LAST. SO OUR ANSWER TO 272 IS THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN\, AND WE ACTUALLY STARTED WORKING ON THIS BEFORE S.B. 272 WAS PASSED AND S.B. 272 JUST STRENGTHENS THE WORK THAT WE’RE ALREADY DOING. THE SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN IS A REGION-WIDE PLAN THAT CREATES — OF COORDINATED LOCALLY PLANNED SEA LEVEL RISE ADAPTATION ACTIONS THAT WORK TOGETHER TO MEET REGIONAL GOALS. SO WHEN WE SAY THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN\, THERE ARE ACTUALLY SEVERAL COMPONENTS THAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT. THE FIRST IS REALLY THE WORK THAT WE’RE DOING BETWEEN NOW AND THE END OF THIS YEAR. WE DEVELOPED A VISION THAT WILL — THAT WE’RE LEANING ON TO GUIDE WHAT ADAPTATION IN THE REGION SHOULD LOOK LIKE AND WE’LL TALK ABOUT THAT IN JUST A FEW SLIDES. THIS IS REALLY GOING TO DIRECT WORK ON THE GROUND. AND THEN ANOTHER KEY COMPONENT\, AND THE COMPONENT THAT MAKES THIS REALLY TRULY REGIONAL IN NATURE IS WHAT WE CALL STRATEGIC REGIONAL PRIORITIES AND THESE ARE AREAS THAT ARE CRITICAL TO THE SUCCESS OF ADAPTATION AS A WHOLE\, SOMETHING BIGGER AS A REGION\, BUT ARE DEPENDENT UPON ACTION\, VERY SPECIFIC ACTION IN LOCAL — IN CERTAIN LOCATIONS. AND JACKIE WILL TALK TO YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHAT THESE ARE IN A COUPLE OF SLIDES. SO THIS IS THE WORK WE’RE DOING THIS YEAR\, AND\, YES\, IT’S A LOT OF WORK\, BUT WE ARE REALLY RECOGNIZING THE FACT THAT THE MAJORITY — THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE WORK IS GOING TO HAPPEN AFTER WE ADOPT THE GUIDELINES AND ONCE THESE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLANS ARE ACTUALLY BEING DEVELOPED BY LOCAL JURISDICTIONS. THESE PLANS NEED TO BE FINALIZED BY JANUARY\, 2034\, ACCORDING TO S.B. 272\, ALTHOUGH WE ARE WORKING TO ENSURE CITIES AND COUNTIES DO THEM EARLIER SO THEY HAVE PLANS IN PLACE. AND OUR GOAL IS THEY WILL REALLY LEAD TO MEANINGFUL LAND USE CHANGES AND ADAPTATION PROJECTS ALONG THE SHORELINE. I’LL ALSO MENTION HERE THAT WE’RE DEVELOPING AN ONLINE MAPPING PLATFORM THAT WILL CONTAIN A LOT OF THE DATA LAYERS THAT JURISDICTIONS NEED TO DO THESE PLANS\, AND WE’RE ALSO DEVELOPING A TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM THAT WE’LL LAUNCH NEXT YEAR THAT WILL HELP US PARTNER WITH CITIES AND COUNTIES AS THEY INTERPRET THE GUIDELINES AND DEVELOP THESE PLANS. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: DANA\, ARE YOU PROVIDING GUIDELINES IN TERMS OF\, LIKE\, A TEMPLATE FOR WHAT THEIR PLANS SHOULD BE LOOKING LIKE? \n>>DANA BRECHWALD: THAT’S A GOOD QUESTION. WE’RE ACTUALLY SCOPING OUT THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM RIGHT NOW. WE HAVE LIMITED CAPACITY AT THIS TIME\, ALTHOUGH IT DOES LOOK LIKE IN OUR BUDGET FOR NEXT YEAR\, FROM THE GOVERNOR’S BUDGET\, THAT WE’LL BE ABLE TO STAFF UP OVER TIME TO FULFILL S.B. 272. SO WE’RE — WE ARE AIMING FOR THINGS LIKE WORKSHOPS\, WEBINARS\, ONE-ON-ONE ASSISTANCE\, BUT WE ARE ALSO AIMING TO PROVIDE SOME TEMPLATES. THE GUIDELINES WILL LAY OUT WHAT THE PLAN SHOULD LOOK LIKE\, BUT ANY TEMPLATES AND JOB AIDS WILL ALSO BE HELPFUL. SO I THINK WE WILL BE DEVELOPING THOSE OVER TIME. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY\, THANK YOU. \n>>DANA BRECHWALD: SO I’M SHARING HERE THE ONE — THE ONE BAY VISION THAT IS GUIDING THE PLAN AND THE GUIDELINES. I AM NOT GOING TO READ THE WHOLE THING HERE BUT THERE IS A Q.R. CODE HERE ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT IF YOU’D LIKE TO READ IT ALL YOURSELF. BUT OUR OVERARCHING VISION AS SEA LEVEL RISE\, WE TRANSFORM HOW WE LIVE\, WORK\, PLAN\, ADAPT ALONG OUR CHANGING SHORELINES. WE ALSO HAVE THESE EIGHT TOPIC AREAS THAT ARE HOW WE’VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT ORGANIZING THE ASSETS AND THE — OUR RESPONSES IN EACH OF THESE EIGHT CATEGORIES\, AND WE ALSO HAVE A ONE BAY VISION — A SPECIFIC ONE BAY VISION GOALS FOR EACH OF THESE EIGHT TOPIC AREAS. SO IF YOU CLICK ON THE Q.R. CODE THAT WAS ON THE LAST SLIDE\, IT WILL TAKE YOU TO THE WHOLE COMPREHENSIVE ONE BAY VISION. AND WHAT THIS VISION DOES IS IT REALLY SETS OUR DESIRED END STATE FOR ADAPTATION AND HELPS US DRIVE WHAT WE’RE ASKING PEOPLE TO CONSIDER AND WHAT WE’RE ASKING PEOPLE TO DO IN THEIR LOCAL ADAPTATION PLANS. SO THE GOAL IS REALLY AS EACH PERSON — AS EACH CITY AND COUNTY DEVELOPS THEIR OWN PLAN\, ALL OF THE ACTIONS IN THOSE PLANS WILL ADD UP TO MEETING THIS REGIONAL VISION. AND I’LL ALSO MENTION HERE\, WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS ON THE RIGHT OF HOW — HOW WE ACTUALLY CREATED THIS VISION. WE WENT TO 10 DIFFERENT POP-UP EVENTS AROUND THE REGION AND ASKED COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO PARTICIPATE AND ADOPT VOTING EXERCISE ON WHAT THEY CARED ABOUT NOW AND THE FUTURE AND WE ALSO HAD AN ONLINE SURVEY WHERE WE GOT RESPONSES FROM THE PUBLIC. AND THIS ALL HELPED US HONE IN ON WHAT THESE VISION STATEMENTS SHOULD BE. ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT IS NOT DEFINED IN S.B. 272 BUT THAT WE ARE REALLY DIGGING INTO HERE IS\, WHAT ACTUALLY IS A SUBREGIONAL SHORELINE RESILIENCY PLAN OR A SUBREGIONAL ADAPTATION PLAN? WE DON’T KNOW WHAT WE’RE CALLING IT QUITE YET\, ALTHOUGH WE HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT IT THIS MORNING. [LAUGHTER] OOPS. THESE ARE OUT OF ORDER. SO THE THREE BUCKETS WE HAVE BEEN FOCUSING ON HERE WHAT IS A SUBREGIONAL PLAN\, WHAT DOES THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS LOOK LIKE? AT WHAT SCALE SHOULD THESE PLANS OCCUR AND WHO’S RESPONSIBLE? HOW DO THEY ALIGN WITH EXISTING PLANNING PROCESSES? YOU KNOW\, WHO’S RESPONSIBLE FOR UPDATES AND ONGOING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN? WHAT’S IN A SUBREGIONAL PLAN? THERE ARE CERTAIN VERY MINIMAL\, LEGAL MINIMUMS THAT S.B. 272 LAYS OUT. WHAT WE ARE GOING TO TALK TO YOU A LOT TODAY IS THE PLAN GUIDANCE AND THE GUIDELINES THAT WE’RE DEVELOPING. AND THEN\, ALSO\, YOU KNOW\, HOW DO WE LEVERAGE AND EXPAND UPON EXISTING PLANS PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY DONE? AND LASTLY\, HOW IS A PLAN SUBMITTED\, ADOPTED\, AND IMPLEMENTED? HOW DOES IT GET APPROVED LOCALLY? HOW DOES BCDC REVIEW AND APPROVE IT? HOW DO WE TRACK PROGRESS AND IMPLEMENTATION ON THE PLANS? SO WE’LL TALK YOU THROUGH SOME OF THESE HERE. WE’RE STILL WORKING THROUGH A LOT OF THIS\, PARTICULARLY IN THAT THIRD BUCKET HERE. THIS IS A NONREGULATORY PLAN. IT DOESN’T REALLY GIVE BCDC ANY ADDITIONAL AUTHORITIES ON THE PERMITTING SIDE. THIS IS REALLY JUST A PLAN. AND SO WE’VE BEEN DOING A LOT OF INTERNAL THINKING ABOUT HOW WE MIGHT INCORPORATE THIS INTO OUR POLICIES AND INTO THE BAY PLAN IN THE FUTURE AND WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE AND WHAT THE COMMISSION WOULD NEED TO TAKE ON\, WHAT SORT OF PROCESSES WE NEED TO GO THROUGH? RIGHT NOW IT’S SEPARATED FROM THE PERMITTING AUTHORITY. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: DANA\, SORRY FOR INTERRUPTING AGAIN. \n>>DANA BRECHWALD: YEAH. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: IT SOUNDS LIKE BCDC WOULD NOT BE INVOLVED IN THE — IN HELPING IN THE EVALUATION OF THE PLANS OR IS THAT CORRECT? \n>>DANA BRECHWALD: I MEAN\, WE HAVEN’T ACTUALLY ADDRESSED THAT QUESTION SPECIFICALLY. I DON’T THINK THERE IS A FORMAL ROLE FOR THE ECRB IN EVALUATING THE PROJECTS IN THE PLANS. OUR — THE AUTHORITY THAT WE’RE GIVEN WE CAN APPROVE OR DENY THE PLANS BASED ON THE GUIDELINES THAT WE PUT OUT. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: RIGHT. \n>>DANA BRECHWALD: AND SO PRIMARILY I THINK WHAT WE’LL BE DOING IS CHECKING FOR COMPLETENESS OF THE PLANS AND ENSURING THEY’VE KIND OF CHECKED ALL OF THE BOXES. BUT NOT NECESSARILY REVIEWING INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS THAT ARE OUTLINED IN THE PLANS AND APPROVING OUR DENYING BASED ON THAT. THAT WOULD OCCUR\, OBVIOUSLY\, IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS. BUT WE DON’T REALLY HAVE A LEGAL MECHANISM AT THE MOMENT TO DO THAT IN THE PLAN ITSELF. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. AND JUST ONE QUESTION THAT I’M THINKING ABOUT IS — WHAT IF ADJACENT MUNICIPALITIES HAVE DIFFERING VISIONS OF WHAT THEY WANT TO DO AND THEY’RE NOT COMPATIBLE\, SAY — DOES THAT GET ADDRESSED LATER ON IN THE PRESENTATION? \n>>DANA BRECHWALD: A LITTLE BIT. WE’LL ADDRESS IT IN MULTIPLE DIFFERENT WAYS. IT’S A GREAT QUESTION. IF WE DON’T ADDRESS IT TO YOUR SATISFACTION\, FEEL FREE TO BRING IT UP AT THE END OF OUR PRESENTATION. ONE ANYTHING TO NOTE IS THAT\, YOU KNOW\, A LOT OF THIS — EVEN THOUGH IT’S LEGALLY MANDATED\, IT’S REALLY INCENTIVE-DRIVEN. THERE’S NO CONSEQUENCE IF A CITY OR COUNTY DOESN’T DO A PLAN. SO A LOT OF WHAT WE’RE REQUIRING IN THE GUIDELINES\, LIKE\, WORKING WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS\, SHOWING THAT YOUR ADAPTATION PATHWAYS ARE COMPATIBLE WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS\, WE’RE REALLY RELYING ON THE GOODWILL OF PEOPLE TO DO IT AND TO SHOW US THAT THEY’VE DONE IT\, BUT WE DON’T HAVE ANY FORMAL LEGAL TOOLS TO REQUIRE PEOPLE TO DO THAT ASIDE FROM WHAT WE’RE GOING TO BE SHARING IN THE GUIDELINES\, WHICH WE SHARED WITH YOU BEFORE AND THAT JACKIE CAN TALK LIEU A LITTLE BIT. — TALK THROUGH A LITTLE BIT. ONE OF THE WAYS WE’RE HANDLING THIS IS THE SCALE OF THE PLAN. SO WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS THERE ARE TWO SCALES OF PLANS\, A COUNTY PLAN THAT COVERS THE UNINCORPORATED PARTS OF THE COUNTY. WE’RE ALSO HOPING THAT THE COUNTY WILL COORDINATE AND ORGANIZE — WILL TAKE LEAD IN COORDINATING AND ORGANIZING LOCAL PLANS. THEN\, LOCAL PLANS WILL COVER\, OBVIOUSLY\, LOCAL JURISDICTIONS\, AND WE’RE OFFERING THE OPTION TO DO A SINGLE JURISDICTION LOCAL PLAN. SO THIS IS FOR\, YOU KNOW\, LARGE OR HIGH-CAPACITY JURISDICTIONS OR THOSE THAT ALREADY HAVE A PLAN IN PLACE AND DON’T WANT TO REDO IT. BUT WE’RE ALSO REALLY HIGHLY RECOMMENDING THAT CITIES DO A MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL LOCAL PLAN. SO THESE COULD BE EVERY CITY WITHIN AN OPERATIONAL LANDSCAPE UNIT OR THAT HAVE A SHARED LANDSCAPE FEATURE LIKE A WATERSHED OR SHORELINE REACH OR SOMETHING LOGICAL THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE FOR THEM TO PLAN TOGETHER. WE ALSO THINK THIS IS SUITABLE FOR SORT OF SMALLER JURISDICTIONS WITH LESS CAPACITY BECAUSE THEY CAN GO IN ON A CONSULTANT CONTRACT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT WHAT WE’RE REALLY ENCOURAGING IS FOR THE COUNTY AND LOCAL JURISDICTIONS TO DO THEIR PLAN TOGETHER. WE’VE BEEN GOING OUT TO ALL THE COUNTIES\, BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS AND TALKING TO ELECTED OFFICIALS AND A LOT OF WHAT WE HEARD IS PEOPLE ARE QUITE INTERESTED IN COMBINING THEIRS ALL INTO ONE. AND THIS IS A MODEL WE’VE ALREADY SEEN IN MANY AREAS FOR LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLANS. THEY’LL DO A COUNTY PLAN WITH LOCAL ANNEXES. SO WE’RE HOPING THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE TAKE THAT ON AND THAT WOULD HELP WITH THE COORDINATION ACROSS JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES. WE EVEN HEARD SOME COUNTIES MAY WANT TO PARTNER WITH ANOTHER COUNTY. SO THAT MIGHT MAKE SENSE IN THE NORTH BAY WHERE THE SCALE OF THE LANDSCAPE IS LARGE AND IT DOES MAKE SENSE TO PLAN OVER MULTIPLE COUNTIES. THERE WILL ALSO BE SOME REQUIREMENTS FOR PLAN UPDATES. SO THIS IS A CYCLE. PEOPLE OBVIOUSLY HAVE TO KEEP UPDATING THEIR ADAPTATION PLANS. ADAPTATION IS NOT STAGNANT. THERE’S SO MUCH WE DON’T KNOW THAT’S GOING TO CHANGE IN THE FUTURE\, IN THE SCIENCE\, AND HOW WE SEE THAT SHORELINE PROTECTIONS FUNCTION OVER TIME. SO WE’LL BE ASKING PEOPLE TO DO — AFTER THEIR INITIAL ADOPTION\, THEY’LL DO A FIVE-YEAR LIMITED UPDATE THAT WILL ACCOUNT FOR UPDATED SEA LEVEL RISE SCIENCE OR PROJECTIONS\, CHANGES TO MAJOR PLANS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL THAT WOULD IMPACT EITHER DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE SHORELINE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IF THERE’S ANY NEW LEGISLATION OR MANDATES\, WE CERTAINLY ANTICIPATE S.B. 272 IS NOT THE END OF WHAT’S GOING TO BE COMING OUT OF THE STATE. NEW TRIGGERS OR THRESHOLDS THAT HAVE BEEN CROSSED. AND PROGRESS ON PROJECTS. AT THE 10-YEAR MARK\, EACH CITY WILL DO A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY WHERE THEY’LL UPDATE EVERY ELEMENT OF THE PLAN AND THAT WILL TRIGGER THIS CYCLE ONCE MORE. SO I’M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO JACKIE NOW AND SHE’S GOING TO TALK YOU THROUGH THE ACTUAL ELEMENTS OF THE GUIDELINES. \n>>JACLYN PERRIN-MARTINEZ: GREAT. THANK YOU\, JACKIE PERRIN-MARTINEZ. SO DANA PROVIDED A NICE OVERVIEW OF BAY ADAPT AND KIND OF WHERE WE’RE STARTING FROM IN TERMS OF THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN AND ITS COMPONENTS. I NOW WANT TO SPEND A LITTLE BIT OF TIME KIND OF AN OVERVIEW HIGH LEVEL THROUGH THE DOCUMENT THAT YOU ALL RECEIVED. SO YOU ALL RECEIVED WHAT WE’RE CALLING DRAFT ONE OF THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN. AND WHAT YOU’RE SEEING ON THE SLIDE IS WHAT THAT DRAFT LOOKED LIKE. WE’LL HAVE MULTIPLE VERSIONS OF THIS BEFORE WE BRING THIS TO COMMISSION — BCDC’S COMMISSION FOR VOTE ON ADOPTION IN DECEMBER. AND THE PURPOSE IS TO MAKE SURE WE’RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT THESE DRAFT GUIDELINES WITH A VARIETY OF STAKEHOLDERS TO MAKE SURE WE’RE DEVELOPING THEM APPROPRIATELY TO ADDRESS THE NEEDS AND REALLY RESPONDS TO THE RISKS. SO IN THIS FIRST DRAFT\, WE REALLY ASKED OUR STAKEHOLDERS AND ADVISORS TO FOCUS ON THE SECOND HALF OF THIS DRAFT BECAUSE THIS IS WHERE THE NEWEST CONTENT IS. FOR THOSE WHO HAVE RECEIVED THIS\, WE’RE GOING TO BE CONTINUING TO REFINE THE INTRODUCTION AS WELL AS FURTHER DEVELOP OUR PRIORITIES. WE WERE ASKING FOR FEEDBACK ON THE SUBREGIONAL ADAPTATION PLAN SO SOME OF THE CONTENT THAT DANA JUST SHARED ON THE PLAN REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS THE ACTUAL PLAN ELEMENT GUIDELINES WHICH I’LL GO OVER AT A HIGH LEVEL AS WELL AS OUR MINIMUM STANDARDS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH REALLY SUPPORT THE PLAN GUIDELINES AND PROVIDE MORE DEAL ON HOW TO ACHIEVE THOSE GUIDELINES. SO TO JUST HELP ORIENT YOU TO THIS DOCUMENT\, WE HAVE AN INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT. WE WILL BE UPDATING THAT IN FUTURE — IN THE FUTURE. INCLUDED IN THIS DRAFT ARE ONE BAY VISION WHICH DANA TALKED ABOUT. WE SHARED THIS WITH BCDC’S COMMISSION BACK IN FEBRUARY AND GOT KIND OF THEIR SUPPORT THAT THESE SERVED AS REALLY IMPORTANT LANGUAGE TO DRIVE THE REST OF OUR WORK. WE WILL KIND OF BE IN OUR FINAL ITERATIONS\, LOOKING BACK ON THIS VISION AS WE DEVELOP THE GUIDELINES THAT THEY LINE UP APPROPRIATELY. THERE MAY BE SLIGHT ADJUSTMENTS TO THIS BUT WE FEEL LIKE THIS STANDS AS OUR REMAINING GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR THIS WORK. AND THE STRATEGIC REGIONAL PRIORITIES\, DANA MENTIONED\, AND I HAVE A FEW MORE SLIDES TO FURTHER ELABORATE WHAT THOSE ARE. IN THE DRAFT YOU RECEIVED\, IT WAS A BIT OF A LIGHT TOUCH ON WHAT THESE ARE BECAUSE WE SPENT SOME TIME SINCE THAT FIRST DRAFT REFINING THEM FURTHER. BUT IN CONCEPT\, THEY’RE REALLY AREAS THAT WE ARE ABLE TO IDENTIFY REGIONALLY\, KEY ASSETS AND LOCATIONS WHERE WE THINK ADAPTATION SHOULD BE PRIORITIZED AND THESE ARE LOCAL PLACES THAT CONTRIBUTE TO A REGIONAL GOAL OR A REGIONAL SYSTEM. AND THE WAY THEY FIT INTO THE GUIDELINES\, IF A JURISDICTION CONTAINS ONE OR MORE OF THESE\, WE ASK FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT HOW THAT REGIONAL PRIORITY IS BEING ADDRESSED IN THE LOCAL PLANS. TO MAKE SURE WE’RE ACHIEVING THAT REGIONAL VISION FOR THOSE PARTICULAR ISSUES. IN TERMS OF THE SECTIONS THAT WE ASKED FOR THE MOST FEEDBACK ON\, AGAIN\, WE’VE ALREADY GONE OVER THIS\, BUT REALLY THIS SECTION\, CHAPTER 4\, DEFINES\, YOU KNOW\, WHAT IS A SUBREGIONAL PLAN\, WHO LEADS IT AND WHAT’S BCDC’S PROCESS FOR APPROVAL AND SUBMISSION? THE PLAN ELEMENT GUIDELINES THEN REALLY DEFINE WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS THAT WE WANT TO SEE IN THESE LOCAL PLANS. SO TO YOUR POINT EARLIER\, IN SOME WAYS THIS IS A BIT OF A TEMPLATE IN TERMS OF THE CONTENT WE WANT TO SEE IN THE PLAN. AND THIS IS THE TYPE OF LANGUAGE THAT IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED AND SUBMITTED IN YOUR PLAN. WE ALSO HAVE A CHAPTER CALLED MINIMUM STANDARDS AND RECOMMENDATIONS\, AND YOU CAN KIND OF THINK OF THIS AS AN EXTENSION OF THE GUIDELINES AND FOR THOSE WHO HAVE LOOKED AT IT\, YOU SEE THAT THE MINIMUM STANDARDS ARE REFERENCED WITHIN GUIDELINES. THEY PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DETAILS NECESSARY FOR HOW TO MEET THE GUIDELINES. SO HOW TO MEET — WE HAVE SOME EXAMPLES OF THERE ARE CERTAIN GUIDELINES THAT MIGHT ASK FOR A REQUIREMENT FOR DEVELOPING EQUITABLE ENGAGEMENT PLAN THAT MUST MEET OUR EQUITABLE ENGAGEMENT STANDARDS AND THAT LANGUAGE LIVES IN THE SECOND CHAPTER. IT PROVIDES MORE DETAIL. IN TERMS OF THE OVERVIEW OF THE STRATEGIC REGIONAL PRIORITIES\, I THINK WE’VE COMMUNICATED THIS PRETTY WELL ALREADY BUT\, AGAIN\, THEY ARE REGIONALLY IDENTIFIED PRIORITIES. WE’VE IDENTIFIED ONE STRATEGIC REGIONAL PRIORITY FOR EACH OF OUR EIGHT TOPIC AREAS\, AND THEY REALLY THEN ALLOW BCDC TO SET SOME PRIORITIES OF WHAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE ARE ELEVATED AND INCLUDED IN THESE LOCAL ADAPTATION PLANS. OUR CHAPTER 5 ON THE PLAN ELEMENT GUIDELINES REALLY PROVIDE A PROCESS FOR LOCAL JURISDICTIONS TO WORK THROUGH A SET OF ISSUES AND THEIR LOCAL VULNERABILITIES AND IDENTIFY LOCAL PRIORITIES. SO WE PROVIDE A LOT OF GUIDANCE AND SUPPORT ON HOW LOCAL JURISDICTION MIGHT IDENTIFY THEIR OWN PRIORITIES. WE\, THEN\, ADD ON THE REGIONAL PRIORITIES\, AND THEY ARE ALL SPATIAL. SO IN THIS WAY WE’RE ENSURING IF A LOCAL JURISDICTION DIDN’T\, FOR EXAMPLE\, IDENTIFY ONE OF THESE AS THEIR PRIORITY\, WE’RE ENSURING THAT IT’S A PRIORITY THROUGH THE WAY THAT WE’VE MAPPED THEM. SO REALLY\, THE IDEA IS A LOCAL PRIORITY IS SET AND THEN WE OVERLAY OUR REGIONAL PRIORITIES SO THAT IN THESE LOCAL SUBREGIONAL RESILIENCY PLANS\, AGAIN\, WE’LL REFINE THE LANGUAGE\, WE HAVE BOTH. \n>>SPEAKER: MARGIE\, COULD I ASK YOU ONE OF THE REGIONAL PRIORITIES AND — \n>>JACLYN PERRIN-MARTINEZ: I HAVE THE FULLEST. SO I WON’T READ THROUGH ALL OF THEM AND I WILL NOTE WE ARE ALL HAVING THIS MEETING WITH YOU KIND OF IN OUR TURNING POINT FROM DRAFT ONE TO DRAFT TWO. WHAT YOU’RE LOOKING AT IS STILL DRAFT ONE AND WE’VE ADVANCED THESE FURTHER IN OUR OWN INTERNAL TEAMS AND WE WILL BE SHARING DRAFT TWO IN THE COMING WEEKS. BUT THEY’RE NOT SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT. JUST A CONTINUED REFINEMENT OF THEM. SO AN EXAMPLE\, WE CAN JUST USE THE FIRST ONE. WE HAVE A TOPIC AREA ON CRITICAL SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE. OUR VISION IS THAT CRITICAL SERVICES ARE RELIABLE AND OUR STRATEGIC REGIONAL PRIORITY IS WE CAN IDENTIFY AND PROTECT REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE THAT’S VITAL TO THE REGION’S PUBLIC HEALTH AND ECONOMY. THAT ONE MAY BE MORE OF AN OBVIOUS ONE. THE NEXT ONE I CAN MENTION IS HEALTHY ECOSYSTEMS. AS DANA MENTIONED\, SOME SYSTEMS ARE NETWORKED SYSTEMS AND THEY RELY ON AREAS THAT CROSS JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES. AND HABITATS I THINK IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THAT. HEALTHY BAY REQUIRES HABITATS ACROSS THE WHOLE LANDSCAPE. AND SO IN THE STRATEGIC REGIONAL PRIORITY WE WANT TO ENHANCE AND ACCELERATE WETLAND RESTORATION AND HABITAT CONNECTIVITY. SO WHAT WE’VE DONE IN OUR FURTHER ITERATION OF THIS WHICH KIND OF GOES BEYOND WHAT YOU SAW IN YOUR DRAFT GUIDELINES\, IS WE’VE IDENTIFIED SPECIFIC DATA LAYERS FOR EACH OF THESE\, WE MAPPED EACH OF THESE. FOR A LOT OF THESE WE’RE ALSO TRYING TO WORK WITH PARTNERS. SO FOR THE HABITAT ONE IN PARTICULAR\, THERE’S A LOT OF WORK THAT THE SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY INSTITUTE HAS DONE. THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY JOINT VENTURES. WE’VE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM ABOUT HOW TO MAKE SURE ALL THE WORK YOU’RE DOING IS REFLECTED HERE AND THAT WE’RE ALIGNING THESE REGIONAL GOALS? SIMILARLY\, WE’VE BEEN IN CONVERSATION WITH M.T.C. ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD AND REALLY WORKING — MAKING SURE WE ALIGN WITH THE GROWTH GEOGRAPHIES. SO FOR TIME SAKE I WON’T CONTINUE TO READ THROUGH THESE BUT YOU ARE WELCOME TO. OH\, GO FASTER. OKAY. OKAY. SO THIS IS JUST AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT THE DRAFT GUIDELINES SECTIONS LOOK LIKE. SO YOU ALL SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO THIS IN THE DRAFT YOU RECEIVED. AND THEN AS I MENTIONED\, WE ALSO HAVE A LIST OF OUR MINIMUM STANDARDS. AND THESE\, AGAIN\, ARE — THEY SET REQUIREMENTS FOR HOW THEY MEET THE GUIDELINES AND THEY PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE TO SHARE HOW WE STRUCTURE THE GUIDELINES. SO DANA MENTIONED THE LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN\, AND WE’VE REALLY LOOKED AT THE WAY THEY LAID OUT THEIR GUIDELINES AND SEEN IT AS A BIT OF A MODEL. SO THIS REPLICATES THEIR APPROACH IN SOME WAYS. WE HAVE A MAIN GUIDELINE. YOU CAN SEE THAT HERE. THIS IS THE EXAMPLE A-4 AND THAT’S WHAT WE’RE ASKING FOR IN THIS EXAMPLE IS INCLUDE A ROBUST EQUITABLE PARTICIPATION AND ENGAGEMENT PLAN AND SUMMARIZE YOUR ENGAGEMENT EFFORTS. BELOW EACH GUIDELINE WE THEN HAVE SOME SUBCOMPONENTS\, AND THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE TO SHARE THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF INFORMATION THAT WE’VE INCLUDED. IN SOME CASES\, WE — DANA MENTIONED THE ONLINE MAPPING PLATFORM. WE REALLY WANT TO MAKE IT AS EASY AS POSSIBLE TO HELP LOCAL JURISDICTIONS UNDERSTAND WHERE TO ACCESS DATA AND INFORMATION. SO ANYWHERE IT’S POSSIBLE\, WE TRY TO DIRECT THEM TO\, YOU KNOW\, THIS IS WHAT WE LIKE YOU TO DO AND HERE’S A PLACE YOU CAN GO TO FIND THAT INFORMATION. AND IF WE HAVE THAT DATA\, WE ARE SHARING IT. THOUGH\, WE’RE ALSO ALLOWING FLEXIBILITY THAT IF YOU HAVE BETTER DATA OR YOU WANT TO USE SOMETHING DIFFERENT\, THAT’S ALL RIGHT AS WELL. WE ALSO HAVE THIS — THIS NEXT EXAMPLE\, AS YOU CAN SEE HOW GUIDELINE RELATES TO A STANDARD. SO IN ORDER TO MEET THAT GUIDELINE IN THIS A-4-B\, IT SAYS THIS PLAN NEEDS TO MEET THIS STANDARD. YOU CAN SEE THE R AT THE END OF THESE SO WE’RE TRYING TO DIFFERENTIATE WHAT’S REQUIRED\, WHAT YOU MUST DO VERSUS\, HERE’S SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT MIGHT BE USEFUL THAT GOES ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT WE’RE CONSIDERING AS THE MINIMUM\, YOU KNOW\, BASELINE STANDARDS. THAT’S WHAT THIS LAST EXAMPLE HERE IS. WE REALLY WANT TO KEEP INFORMATION THAT IS GOOD PRACTICES CLOSE BY AS WELL AS PROVIDE SOME EASY WAYS TO ACCESS\, YOU KNOW\, HOW YOU MIGHT ACHIEVE THAT IF YOU DON’T ALREADY KNOW BUT IT’S NOT A REQUIREMENT. SO THAT LAST SUBCOMPONENT IS NOT REQUIRED AND JUST AN EXAMPLE OF THE TYPES OF INFORMATION WE’RE TRYING TO PUT INTO THESE GUIDELINES. ALL RIGHT. SO MY NEXT FEW SLIDES REALLY GO THROUGH EACH OF THESE ELEMENTS. FOR TIMING\, I WON’T GO THROUGH THEM IN GREAT DETAIL. AND WE CAN ALWAYS COME BACK TO THESE. THEY KIND OF SERVE AS A REFERENCE TO US. ELEMENT A INCLUDES FOUR GUIDELINES REALLY AROUND SOME OF THE KEY COMPONENTS OF HOW YOU MIGHT PLAN\, WHO ARE YOUR PARTNERS\, WHAT IS THE AREA\, HOW ARE YOU COORDINATING WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS SO THAT POINT WITH THE MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL COORDINATION PROCESS\, WE’RE ASKING FOR A DESCRIPTION OF THAT. AND THEN\, OF COURSE\, ENGAGEMENT. WE ALSO HAVE A CHAPTER ON EXISTING CONDITIONS. YOU KNOW\, WE KNOW A LOT OF WHAT YOU’RE SEEING HERE IS BASED ON EXISTING ADAPTATION PLANS. WE REALLY WANTED TO BUILD ON WHAT WAS WORKING WELL IN THE REGION\, AND SO EXISTING CONDITIONS IS\, OF COURSE\, NECESSARY FOR MAKING THESE TYPES OF DECISIONS SO WE INCORPORATED A LOT OF THAT\, HOW YOU MIGHT BUILD ON EXISTING PLANS\, WHAT IS THE PHYSICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS\, WHAT IS THE POPULATIONS AND ASSETS IN YOUR AREA AND WHAT ARE THE EXISTING CAPACITIES SO THESE GUIDELINES SHOW WHAT WE WANT TO ENSURE IN ALL THESE PLANS. WE HAVE AN ELEMENT ON THE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT. AGAIN\, BUILDING ON BEST PRACTICES NOW WE ARE STANDARDIZING THEM INTO THESE GUIDELINES. SO THIS INCLUDES LOOKING AT EXPOSURE\, CREATING A VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS MAKING SURE\, THEN\, TO PRIORITIZE WHAT YOU’RE LOOKING AT IN GREATER DETAIL. AND SO WE HAVE A QUESTION HERE FOR THE ECRB THAT WE CAN COME BACK TO ON\, ARE THERE TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR ASSESSING SEA LEVEL RISE IMPACTS THAT NEED TO BE IN HERE? AND WE CAN THINK OF THE LEVELS OF INPUT OF WHAT’S REQUIRED\, WHAT MUST EVERYBODY DO AND WHAT IS GOOD INFORMATION OR GUIDANCE THAT WE SHARE THAT MAY NOT BE APPLICABLE EVERYWHERE BUT ON STANDARDIZING ADAPTATION PLANNING. AND THEN WE HAVE ELEMENT D\, OUR BIGGEST ELEMENT. AND THIS IS REALLY ABOUT IDENTIFYING ADAPTATION STRATEGIES AS WELL AS ADAPTATION PATHWAYS. OKAY. GOOD. THAT DOESN’T SHOW UP ON THE SCREEN. SO HERE\, WE REALLY HAVE A — AND AS I MENTIONED\, WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF MAKING TWEAKS IN THIS VERSION SO THIS WILL BE PAIRED DOWN A LITTLE BIT IN OUR NEXT I HAD RATION. — PARED DOWN A LITTLE BIT IN OUR NEXT ITERATION BUT IT WILL FOLLOW THE SAME FLOW WHERE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE IS A LOCAL VISION THAT REALLY KIND OF TAKES THE REGIONAL ONE BAY VISION AND LOCALIZES IT AND REALLY KIND OF ADDS WHAT’S THOSE LOCAL PRIORITIES THAT DON’T CONFLICT WITH THE REGIONAL VISION BUT ADD THAT SPECIFICITY TO HELP DRIVE WHAT THE LOCAL ADAPTATION RESPONSES WILL BE. WE HAVE THIS GUIDELINE ON DEVELOPING CRITERIA. ALTHOUGH WE THINK WE WON’T NECESSARILY REQUIRE A SPECIFIC WAY TO EVALUATE IN OUR NEXT ITERATION\, BUT WE WILL WANT LOCAL JURISDICTIONS TO EVALUATE ADAPTATION\, BUT WE MAY NOT DICTATE EXACTLY WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. THIS IS ABOUT IDENTIFYING SHORELINE REACHES AND START THINKING ABOUT THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL AREAS IN WHICH ADAPTATION IS MOST SUITABLE. DEVELOPING ADAPTATION STRATEGIES AND ALTERNATIVES THAT REALLY RESPOND TO THE RISKS THAT THEY IDENTIFIED PREVIOUSLY. AND STARTING TO THINK ABOUT ADAPTATION PATHWAYS. SO HOW MIGHT YOUR STRATEGIES CHANGE TO RESPOND TO INCREASING FLOOD HAZARD RISKS THAT ARE PROJECTED WITH SEA LEVEL RISE? WE WILL REQUIRE EVALUATION OF THE ALTERNATIVES\, AND THEN\, WE WANT TO SEE SOME ACTUAL CONCEPTUAL PLANS AND DESCRIPTIONS OF WHAT ARE THE PREFERRED STRATEGIES\, ACKNOWLEDGING THERE MIGHT BE A PERIOD OF EXPLORATION OF THAT’S WHAT KIND OF THIS GUIDELINE D-4 IS EVALUATE AND EXPLORE WHAT’S FEASIBLE AND LOOK AT VARIOUS OPTIONS. EVALUATE THOSE OPTIONS AND THEN TELL US WHAT YOUR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES ARE. IN THESE\, THROUGHOUT THIS GUIDELINE SECTION IS REALLY THEN WHERE WE POINT TO THE ADAPTATION STRATEGY STANDARDS AND THOSE REALLY PROVIDE A FURTHER DIRECTION ON HOW WE WANT TO GUIDE WHAT ADAPTATION CHOICES ARE IDENTIFIED LOCALLY TO ENSURE THAT WE’RE — WHEN LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ARE PLANNING FOR THIS\, THEY HAVE REALLY GOOD INFORMATION IN MIND TO MAKE THOSE CHOICES. SO WE HAVE A SERIES OF QUESTIONS HERE AS WELL. ARE WE ASKING CITIES AND COUNTIES TO CONSIDER THE RIGHT QUESTIONS WHEN THEY’RE IDENTIFYING ADAPTATION STRATEGIES? AND I THINK THAT WILL COME OUT MORE AS WE GET TO THE ADAPTATION STRATEGY STANDARDS. HOW CAN CITIES AND COUNTIES EVALUATE STRATEGIES TO COME UP WITH PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES? IN THE DRAFT YOU SAW\, WE LISTED EVALUATION CRITERIA BUT WE’RE NOT QUITE SURE WE NEED TO REQUIRE HOW EXACTLY THEY EVALUATE. HOW WOULD YOU RECOMMEND THAT WE ADDRESS THIS EVALUATION OF STRATEGIES? AND THEN\, SOMETHING THAT WE’VE BEEN THINKING A LOT ABOUT IS\, YOU KNOW\, HOW DETAILED DO WE WANT THESE ADAPTATION STRATEGIES TO BE? HOW DO WE GO FROM THIS CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF LANDSCAPE SCALE STRATEGIES TO PROJECTS? AND WHAT’S THE LINE — HOW FAR ALONG DO WE WANT TO SEE PROJECTS IN THESE PLANS? HOW FAR ALONG IS APPROPRIATE? SO WE’D BE CURIOUS ABOUT YOUR THOUGHTS\, AS WELL\, ABOUT GETTING INTO THAT PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION. AND THEN CONTINUING OF THIS QUESTION HERE IS\, WHAT ARE THE KEY PIECES OF INFORMATION THAT JURISDICTIONS NEED TO IDENTIFY TO GET TO IMPLEMENTATION? YOU’LL SEE IN THE NEXT FEW ELEMENTS THAT WE ASK FOR SOME PROJECT DETAILS AND IMPLEMENTATION NEXT STEPS\, AND WE WOULD LOVE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT WHAT DO — WHAT DO LOCAL JURISDICTIONS NEED TO KNOW IN ORDER TO HELP THEM GET FROM PLANNING SCALE TO IMPLEMENTATION AND CONSTRUCTION? THE NEXT ELEMENT IS THE PROJECT LIST. ONLY ONE GUIDELINE HERE AND THAT’S INCLUDE A PRIORITY PROJECT LIST THAT SUMMARIZES THE PRIORITY ADAPTATION PROJECTS IN YOUR KIND OF SHORT AND MEDIUM TERM. WE ALSO ASK FOR INFORMATION ABOUT LAND USE PLAN AND POLICIES. AND SO WE REALLY WANT TO ENSURE THAT AS JURISDICTIONS ARE THINKING ABOUT PHYSICAL LANDSCAPE CHANGES\, THEY’RE ALSO THINKING ABOUT ASSOCIATED POLICY CHANGES AND WHAT MIGHT BE NECESSARY TO FACILITATE THOSE EITHER ACROSS THE WHOLE CITYWIDE SCALE POLICY OR EVEN ZONING CHANGES OR\, YOU KNOW\, ACTUAL — HOW MIGHT WE THINK HOW STRATEGIES WILL EVOLVE AND WHAT TYPES OF POLICIES MAY BE NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THAT? AND THEN\, LASTLY WE HAVE AN ELEMENT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. AGAIN\, THIS IS GETTING TOWARDS THE SECOND HALF OF PLANNING. WE’RE REALLY STARTING TO THINK ABOUT\, WHAT ARE THE PROJECTS\, AND HOW DO WE ADVANCE THOSE\, AND HOW DO WE FUND THEM? MAKING SURE FOLKS ARE INCLUDING MONITORING AND WE’RE ACTUALLY PUTTING INTO PLACE THE RIGHT MECHANISMS TO TRACK HOW WELL ADAPTATION IS DOING AS WELL AS THE PHYSICAL CONDITIONS THAT MIGHT TRIGGER A DIFFERENT PATHWAY APPROACH. AND THEN A STRATEGY FOR PLAN UPDATES. SO THIS IS JUST A DIAGRAM OF ALL OF THE PLAN ELEMENT GUIDELINES. SO YOU CAN SEE THERE’S THE OVERVIEW. WE KIND OF THOUGHT ABOUT WHERE SOME OF THESE CONNECT THE MOST EXISTING CONDITIONS\, VULNERABLE ASSESSMENT\, ADAPTATION STRATEGIES AND D\, E\, AND F ARE OUR IMPLEMENTATION ELEMENTS. NEXT\, I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE AND I’LL ONLY DO A SELECT FEW NUMBER OF THE MINIMUM STANDARDS\, BUT JUST AS A REMINDER THAT GUIDELINES SET OUT WHAT WE WANT TO SEE IN THE PLAN AND WHAT WE WANT TO BE SUBMITTED AND THE STANDARDS PROVIDE MORE DETAIL ON HOW WE WANT THAT TO OCCUR. SO THIS IS OUR FULL LIST IN DRAFT ONE OF OUR MINIMUM STANDARDS. I WON’T GO INTO DETAIL IN ALL OF THESE\, AND EVEN THE ONES I’LL SHARE\, I’LL KEEP IT HOPEFULLY HIGH LEVEL. TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF THE WHOLE LIST\, WE’VE MADE ADJUSTMENTS WE HEARD IN THE FIRST ROUND\, WE HAVE A LOT OF REQUIREMENTS AND IT’S — IT CAN BE VERY CHALLENGING SO WE’RE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHERE WE CAN REDUCE SOME PRESCRIPTIVENESS BUT PROVIDING A LITTLE BIT MORE LOCAL FLEXIBILITY IN HOW WE ACHIEVE THAT. WE KNEW THAT WAS IMPORTANT BUT IN THIS FIRST DRAFT WE HEARD WE NEED TO MAKE SOME FURTHER ADJUSTMENTS TO IT. IN TERMS OF OUR COASTAL AND FLOOD HAZARD STANDARDS\, SO WE’RE LAYING THIS OUT TO VERY CLEARLY DEFINE\, WHAT ARE THE HAZARDS WE WANT TO BE ADDRESSED IN THIS PLAN? OUR FIRST DRAFT\, WE HAVE THESE THREE HAZARDS THAT ARE REQUIRED. SEA LEVEL RISE\, WHICH REFERS TO THE CHANGES IN THE TIDAL INUNDATION. 100-YEAR TIDES\, SHALLOW GROUNDWATER ARE CURRENTLY REQUIRED. AND THEN WE HAVE A SERIES OF RECOMMENDED HAZARDS HERE TO MAKE SURE THESE ARE ISSUES OF RISK BUT THEY MAY BE MORE APPROPRIATE TO ASSESS AT SCALE\, AT MORE MAYBE PROJECT OR DESIGN-LEVEL SCALES OR THE DATA MAY NOT BE READILY AVAILABLE. SO THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE ADVISORY GROUP IS TO PUT IT IN THE RECOMMENDED CATEGORY\, BUT IF YOU HAVE OTHER THOUGHTS\, WE’D BE GLAD TO HEAR THEM. THIS IS A BIT OF A BUSY TABLE\, BUT THIS REALLY REPRESENTS OUR TIME HORIZONS AND HAZARDS SCENARIO STANDARDS. AND\, AGAIN\, WE WANT TO PROVIDE SOME CONSISTENCY IN HOW LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ARE PLANNING FOR THIS RISK SO THAT WE’RE NOT PLANNING FOR VASTLY DIFFERENT VALUES OR NUMBERS. ALTHOUGH\, AGAIN\, IT’S A TRICKY BALANCE BETWEEN STANDARDIZING AND ALLOWING FOR SOME LOCAL FLEXIBILITY. SO THESE NUMBERS HERE REFLECT THE OCEAN PROTECTION COUNCIL. SO CALIFORNIA’S BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE ON SEA LEVEL RISE PROJECTIONS AND WHEN THEY’RE MOST LIKELY TO OCCUR. AND THAT GUIDANCE ALSO PROVIDES RECOMMENDATIONS ON WHAT SHOULD BE LOOKED AT AND WHAT WE’RE DOING IS WE’RE TAKING THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS FURTHER AND HAVING THESE STANDARDS AND THESE MINIMUM STANDARDS. SO YOU CAN SEE HERE THAT WE HAVE A TIME HORIZON WITH THE HAZARD SCENARIO THAT COMES FROM THE OCEAN PROTECTION COUNCIL. THE INTERMEDIATE SCENARIO\, THERE IS INTERMEDIATE HIGH AND HIGH SCENARIO FOR EACH OF THESE TIME HORIZONS. AND SO EACH KIND MUCH HAZARD SCENARIO IS OUR THREE REQUIRED. SO YOU CAN SEE IN THIS THIS TABLE HERE WE’VE GOT SEA LEVEL RISE\, SHALLOW GROUNDWATER RISE AND STORM SURGE. AND THE ACTUAL CORRESPONDING NUMBERS. WE THEN HAVE CREATED REQUIREMENTS FOR WHAT WE WANT TO BE LOOKED AT IN A VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT. AND THIS IS BUILDING ON THE OCEAN PROTECTION GUIDANCE TO LOOK AT THE 2050 ONE-FOOT SCENARIO WHICH IS LIKELY TO OCCUR AND ALSO AT THE 2100\, THOSE ARE THREE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS. THEY CORRESPOND TO THESE WATER LEVELS AND SO WE REQUIRE THESE BE EVALUATED FOR VULNERABILITY. WE THEN HAVE A DIFFERENT SET OF STANDARDS FOR ADAPTATION\, RECOGNIZING THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE’RE ASSESSING VULNERABILITY ACROSS A WIDER RANGE OF WATER LEVELS BUT WHAT WE ACTUALLY PLAN FOR SHOULD BE BASED ON THE VULNERABILITY STANDARD AND THAT RISK. AND SO HERE WE HAVE REQUIREMENTS — AND THIS GOES BACK TO THAT GUIDELINE THAT SAYS\, SHOW US YOUR PLANS\, YOUR STRATEGIES AT THIS ONE-FOOT 2050 SEA LEVEL RISE SCENARIO AS WELL AS THE 2100 KIND OF INTERMEDIATE. SO THAT’S ON THE LOWER RANGE HERE. THAT’S A 3.1-FOOT SEA LEVEL RISE SCENARIO. AND THEN IN THE FIRST DRAFT YOU ALL SAW\, WE INCLUDED A 2150 REQUIREMENT AND THE REQUIREMENT\, THOUGH\, IS THAT WE WERE ASKING FOR A NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION ON HOW MIGHT THESE STRATEGIES CONTINUE TO SUPPORT FLOOD RISK REDUCTION IN THIS TIME HORIZON AND THE INTENTION HERE WAS TO REALLY MAKE SURE AS JURISDICTIONS ARE PLANNING FOR SEA LEVEL RISE\, THEY’RE CONSIDERING AND UNDERSTANDING THAT SEA LEVEL RISE ISN’T STOPPING AT 2100. WE OFFER TALK ABOUT THIS AS AN ISSUE THROUGH 2100\, BUT THE WATER WILL CONTINUE TO RISE BEYOND THAT. SO HOW ARE WE ENSURING THAT THE DECISIONS WE MAKE TODAY HAVE THAT UNDERSTANDING IN MIND ABOUT THE INCREASED FLOOD RISK? IN OUR NEW ITERATIONS\, WE’RE ANYTHING ABOUT REDUCING THAT REQUIREMENT ON 2150. WE HEARD THAT’S REALLY FAR OUT. AND SO WE MIGHT INSTEAD TRY TO STILL ACHIEVE THAT SIMILAR TYPE OF INFORMATION BUT THROUGH THE 2100 HIGH SCENARIO. THAT MIGHT BE MORE DETAILED THAN YOU’RE HOPING. \n>>SPEAKER: THE 2150\, IT’S REQUIRED TO CONSIDER THE ADAPTATION PATHWAYS\, BUT IT’S NOT REQUIRED FOR THE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT. SO THAT SEEMS — SEEMS UNFORTUNATE TO CHECK TO SEE WHAT’S — \n>>JACLYN PERRIN-MARTINEZ: SO THAT’S A GREAT QUESTION. IF YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE NUMBERS HERE. LET ME SEE IF I HAVE THIS. THE 2100 HIGH OF 6.5 FEET IS QUITE SIMILAR TO THE 2150 INTERMEDIATE SCENARIO OF SIX FEET\, AND SO THAT’S WHERE WE’RE THINKING OF MAKING ADJUSTMENTS TO REALLY REQUIRE THAT KIND OF WORST-CASE SCENARIO DESCRIPTION AT THE 2100 LEVEL. AS YOU SAID\, THEN\, THERE WILL BE A VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT AND IT’S A LITTLE GUESSWORK OF WE’RE NOT ASKING YOU\, THEN\, TO DO A FOURTH VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS ON THE 6.5 VERSUS THE 6.0. OH\, SURE. THE QUESTION WAS — WE HAD THIS REQUIREMENT TO ASSESS ADAPTATION FOR 2150 INTERMEDIATE BUT WE DID NOT HAVE A REQUIREMENT TO ASSESS THE VULNERABILITY OF THAT SAME WATER. AND THE RESPONSE WAS THAT THE VALUES FOR 2100 HIGH ARE — HALF OF A FOOT OFF FROM THE 2150\, BUT WE’RE GOING TO IN OUR NEXT ITERATION MAKE IT MORE CONSISTENT SO THERE’S NOT A SLIGHT DIFFERENCE IN IT. YES. \n>>SPEAKER: I AM A LITTLE SURPRISED BY THE ONE FOOT BY 2150. I’M HEARING THE BAY HAS RISEN ANYWHERE FROM SIX INCHES TO EIGHT INCHES ALREADY. \n>>RAMIN GOLESORKHI: IS THAT A REAL NUMBER? IS THIS A PLACEHOLDER? ARE THEY GOING TO BE REVISED? \n>>JACLYN PERRIN-MARTINEZ: THAT’S IN THE NEW GUIDANCE FROM O.P.C. AND IT’S FROM A YEAR 2000 BASELINE. \n>>JENN HYMAN: SO IT’S A FOOT FROM THE YEAR 2000 TO 2050. AND ONE OF THE REASONS THAT IT’S SET UP THAT WAY IS THAT THE TIDE — MOST OF THE TIDAL DATA WE HAVE RIGHT NOW ARE ACTUALLY CALCULATED FOR ALSO ABOUT THE YEAR 2000. SO WHEN YOU ADD SEA LEVEL RISE ONTO THAT\, THE TIDAL DATUMS\, THEN YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE TIDE IS IN THE FUTURE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? \n>>SPEAKER: THIS IS AN INTERESTING — \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: BOB\, I WANT TO ASK YOU TO TALK DIRECTLY IN THE MICROPHONE. I THINK SOME OF THE ONLINE PEOPLE ARE STRUGGLING TO HEAR. \n>>BOB BATTALIO: THIS IS AN IMPORTANT CONVERSATION AND ONE THAT IS GOING TO KEEP GOING. ONE MY — YOU KNOW\, REALLY WHAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE MEDIAN PROJECTION OF A BUNCH OF MODELS\, WHICH SOMETIMES PEOPLE CALL PROBABILITIES. BUT I THINK NOW IT’S JUST\, YOU KNOW\, A DISTRIBUTION OF OUTPUTS WITH A LOT OF JUDGMENT\, WHICH IS ALL GOOD STUFF. BUT THE QUESTION IS REALLY HOW RISK-AVERSE ARE WE? AND THAT’S WHERE I THINK A LOT OF THE CONVERSATION IS ON WHAT VALUES TO USE. SO I’LL JUST — WHILE WE’RE ON THIS TOPIC\, MY RECOLLECTION OF HOW WE’VE BEEN HANDLING THIS ON THE ECRB SINCE I’VE BEEN ON THE BOARD IS SOMEWHAT OUTDATED BECAUSE WE TALKED ABOUT THE MID-CENTURY — AND WE’RE ALREADY IN THE 2020’S. YOU KNOW\, I’D LIKE THE FACT YOU WENT TO 2150 AND ALL THAT. BUT THE ELEVATOR SPEECH WAS DESIGNED FOR AT LEAST THREE FEET. AND HAVE AN ADAPTATION PLAN TO ACCOMMODATE AT LEAST SIX FEET AND THAT WAS MID CENTURY\, END OF CENTURY. BUT IT’S ALSO A RECOGNITION THAT A LOT OF THE PROJECTS THAT ARE — IF NOT ALL THE PROJECTS THE ECRB REVIEW ARE BIGGER PROJECTS WITH A LONGER PROJECT LIFE\, MORE RISK\, YOU KNOW\, MAYBE A HIGHER RISK CATEGORY FROM THE ASCE PERSPECTIVE. AND HENCE\, YOU’RE TALKING AT LEAST 2070. YOU KNOW\, 2050 IS — YOU KNOW\, IF YOU’RE BUILDING A NEW WHARF OR SOMETHING\, YOU ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING BEYOND 2050. SO WE CAN TALK ABOUT THIS MORE LATER\, BUT I THINK THAT’S A REALLY IMPORTANT TOPIC. AND BEFORE I SHUT OFF HERE\, I DON’T KNOW — MAYBE WE SHOULD LET THEM CONTINUE. I SHOULD LET THEM CONTINUE\, BUT I HAVE A QUESTION FOR JENN AND THEN ALSO FOR THE BOARD BEFORE WE GET INTO THEIR QUESTIONS. I CAN’T REMEMBER HOW THIS MEETING IS — IS ORGANIZED. IS THAT THE WAY WE DO IT HERE? \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: SO WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS NOW\, CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. ONCE THE PRESENTATION IS OVER\, I BELIEVE WE GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT. AND THEN\, AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT IS CLOSED\, THEN\, WE CAN HAVE THIS DISCUSSION WITH THE BOARD. AND I THINK ASKING. \n>>BOB BATTALIO: AND IF I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR JENN\, CAN I DO THAT LATER? \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: YEAH. \n>>BOB BATTALIO: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. [LAUGHTER] \n>>JACLYN PERRIN-MARTINEZ: OKAY. SOUNDS GOOD. I WILL SAVE IT WHEN WE COME BACK TO THE QUESTIONS. SO THERE’S A LOT OF CONTENT ON THE SLIDE. I AM NOT GOING TO READ IT ALL OVER BUT WE ADDITIONALLY HAVE SOME INFORMATION ON VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT STANDARDS AND FOR ASSETS THAT ARE IDENTIFIED LOCALLY\, REGIONALLY OR IN THE NEAR TERM IF THERE IS A RISK OF FLOODING\, WE ASK FOR MORE ASSESSMENT. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT’S GETTING FUNNELED DOWN THROUGH THE LOCAL RISK AND LOCAL PRIORITIES AND THIS NEAR TERM ONE-FOOT FLOODING. THIS PROVIDES MORE INFORMATION WHAT WE ASKED FOR IN THE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT. WE ASK FOR MORE INFORMATION ON A SUBSET OF THOSE ASSETS FOR SENSITIVITY\, ADAPTIVE CAPACITY\, AS WELL AS CONSEQUENCES. SO IF YOU HAVE — AND THIS IS AN AREA\, TOO\, WE’RE KIND OF WORKING TO REFINE TO SEE WHERE CAN WE PULL OUT REQUIREMENTS VERSUS WHERE CAN WE MOVE THIS INTO RESOURCES AND GUIDANCE TO MAKE THIS PROCESS AS CLEAN AND GETTING TO THE REQUIREMENTS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE WHILE PROVIDING THAT INFORMATION IN A REALLY ACCESSIBLE PLACE. SO IF YOU HAVE THOUGHTS ON THIS\, WE’RE HAPPY TO HEAR THAT. WE THEN HAVE THIS SECTION ON ADAPTATION EVALUATION STANDARDS. SO AS MENTIONED\, WE’RE PULLING THIS OUT AS AN ADDITIONAL SECTION. IN THE NEXT SECTION WE HAVE ADAPTATION STRATEGY STANDARDS WHICH DO SOMETHING SIMILAR. FOR THE PURPOSES OF REALLY CONSOLIDATING AND\, AGAIN\, MAKING THINGS CONCISE\, WE’RE GOING TO LOOK THROUGH THIS LIST AND MAKE SURE ANY KEY CONCEPTS HERE ARE WELL REPRESENTED IN OUR ADAPTATION STRATEGY STANDARDS. IF YOU HAVE THOUGHTS ON THIS WE’RE HAPPY TO HEAR IT. THIS IS THE FULLEST IN THE DRAFT GUIDELINES YOU HAVE. WE GET TO THE ADAPTATION STRATEGY AND PATHWAYS STANDARDS WHICH WE THINK IS THE REALLY IMPORTANT PIECE OF THIS WORK BECAUSE THIS IS GETTING TO\, WHAT ARE THE ADAPTATION STRATEGIES? EVERYTHING IS DESIGNED TO HELP YOU GET TO THIS POINT\, TO GET YOU TO RESPOND TO LOCAL RISKS AND SET UP GOOD ADAPTATION PLANNING IN THE FUTURE. HOW WE SET UP THIS SECTION CURRENTLY — AND WE ARE OPEN TO SOME RECOMMENDATIONS — IS SETTING UP SOME REQUIRED ADAPTATION STRATEGY STANDARDS THAT ALL JURISDICTIONS NEED TO GO THROUGH AS THEY’RE DEVELOPING. AND YOU’LL SEE A LOT OF THE LANGUAGES LOOK FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO DO THIS. WE DON’T ANYWHERE MANDATE WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN WHERE BUT WE TRY TO PROVIDE A LOT OF HELPFUL INFORMATION TO HELP LOCAL JURISDICTIONS MAKE THOSE CHOICES. WE THEN HAVE A SECTION ON ADAPTATION STANDARDS THAT ARE SPECIFIC IF YOU HAVE A STRATEGIC REGIONAL PRIORITY. SO AS I MENTIONED\, WE ARE GOING TO BE IDENTIFYING REGIONALLY SOME KEY ASSETS AND KEY ISSUES. IF YOU HAVE THAT IN YOUR LOCAL JURISDICTION\, WE THEN SAY\, WE WANT TO KNOW A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT HOW YOU ARE RESPONDING TO THAT RISK AND WE PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION. SO THAT STRATEGIC REGIONAL PRIORITY SECTION IS APPLICABLE ONLY IF YOU HAVE ONE OR MORE OF THE STRATEGIC REGIONAL PRIORITIES. WE THEN ALSO ORGANIZE THIS INTO ADAPTATION DESIGN STANDARDS. WE’RE NOT SURE IF THOSE SHOULD BE COMBINED. AS I SAID\, WE’VE REALLY BEEN THINKING THROUGH THE SCALE AT WHICH THIS IS HAPPENING. THERE’S THIS CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE LEVEL ABOUT THINKING OF ADAPTATION AND THERE ARE MORE SITE-SPECIFIC PROJECT SCALE CONSIDERATIONS. AND WE DON’T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THE LINE IS BETWEEN THOSE TWO. IT CAN BE TRICKY. AND SO WE\, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS DRAFT\, WE TOOK A STAB AT SEPARATING THEM OUT BECAUSE MAYBE IT MAKES SENSE TO THINK ABOUT THEM DIFFERENTLY BUT IF THERE IS A RECOMMENDATION TO KIND OF BRING THOSE TOGETHER\, THEN WE’RE HAPPY TO DO THAT AS WELL. AND I THINK THAT MIGHT MAKE A LITTLE BIT MORE SENSE WHEN YOU SEE THE ACTUAL STANDARDS. SO I’M GOING TO DO SOMETHING TO THE OTHERS IN THAT I WON’T READ THROUGH ALL OF THESE. MAYBE I’LL JUST GIVE A COUPLE JUST TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF WHAT THESE ARE IF YOU HAVEN’T ALREADY READ THEM. AGAIN\, AS WE ARE ASKING PEOPLE TO GO THROUGH IDENTIFY ADAPTATION OPTIONS WE SAY THAT PREFERRED ADAPTATION STRATEGIES THAT YOU SELECT HAVE TO MEET THESE STANDARDS. AND SO THESE STANDARDS ARE\, YOU KNOW\, WHERE POSSIBLE\, FIRST LOOK FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO AVOID FUTURE HARM AND REDUCE THE NEED FOR NEW ADAPTATION PROTECTIONS. THIS\, WHAT YOU’RE SEEING HERE\, IS THE FIRST LINE OF EACH OF THE STANDARDS. AND THEN\, THERE’S ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND CONTEXT BELOW. THIS IS WHERE WE HAVE IDENTIFY AND INCORPORATE NATURE-BASED ADAPTATION SUITABLE TO THE LANDSCAPE TO THE GREATEST EXTENT FEASIBLE BEFORE USING NEW APPROACHES. TRY TO DO THIS FIRST\, THAT’S HOW WE TRIED TO FRAME A LOT OF THESE. AND SO WE HAVE — WE’VE TRIED AS WELL TO INCORPORATE SOME OF BCDC’S CORE MANDATES IN THERE. STANDARD A-6 SAYS UTILIZE APPROACHES THAT AVOID\, MINIMIZE\, AND REDUCE BAY FILL. AND SO THERE’S 15 OF THESE ADAPTATION STRATEGY STANDARDS NOW AND WE ARE LOOKING AT THESE\, AGAIN\, THROUGH A NEW LENS FOR THIS NEXT ITERATION. BUT FOR A NEW FEW EXAMPLES\, SOME OF THE STANDARDS ARE LOOK TO INCLUDE MULTIPLE BENEFITS THROUGH ADAPTATION WHEN POSSIBLE. AGAIN\, IT’S ADVANCING GOOD PRACTICES AND TO LOOK FOR THOSE OPPORTUNITIES FIRST TO TRY TO MAXIMIZE THE OUTCOMES THAT WE CAN GET FROM THESE CHOICES. SO THAT IS THE ADAPTATION STRATEGIES THAT EVERYONE IS BEING ASKED TO LOOK AT AND A LOT OF WHAT WE’RE ASKING IS DEMONSTRATE HOW YOU TRIED TO ACHIEVE THIS AND IF YOU COULDN’T\, TELL US WHY. WE THEN HAVE A SET OF STRATEGY STANDARDS THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO THE REGIONAL PRIORITIES. I WON’T READ THROUGH ALL OF THESE BUT MAKE SURE WE HAVE INFORMATION ABOUT HOW THE STRATEGIC REGIONAL PRIORITIES ARE INCORPORATED IN THE PLANNING. AND I WAS SAYING THIS LEVEL — WE ONLY HAVE FOUR OF THESE — THAT WE THOUGHT WERE MORE SPECIFIC TO DESIGN BUT MAYBE THEY DO BELONG IN THE BROADER ADAPTATION STANDARDS. YOU ALSO NOTICE THIS DOESN’T HAVE A REQUIREMENT BECAUSE\, AGAIN\, WE ARE NOT SURE HOW FAR WE CAN GET REQUIREMENTS TO A PROJECT SCALE\, HOW APPROPRIATE IT IS. WE HAD THIS INFORMATION. WE WANTED TO INCORPORATE IT. WE HAVEN’T BEEN SURE EXACTLY WHERE YET. BUT THIS IS THINGS LIKE INCORPORATE\, YOU KNOW\, FREE BOARD ABOVE FEMA. AGAIN\, THIS IS ONE WE’RE THINKING ABOUT HOW WE CAN PROVIDE A BIT MORE LOCAL FLEXIBILITY AND MAYBE NOT DESIGNATE A NUMBER CONSIDERING A SETBACK\, INTEGRATING CERTAIN FEATURES. SO\, AGAIN\, SOME OF THIS INFORMATION THAT WE FEEL IS A LITTLE BIT MORE PROJECT-SPECIFIC. OKAY. SO THAT CONCLUDES MY OVER — OUR OVERVIEW OF WHAT THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN IS\, WHAT’S IN THIS DRAFT AND WHAT IS IN THE STANDARDS. I KNOW THAT WAS A LOT OF INFORMATION. WE CAN GO BACK TO THE DISCUSSION. WE CAN GO BACK TO THE SLIDES OR MOVE THE CONVERSATION FORWARD AS NEEDED. I’LL LEAVE THESE HERE. I DON’T THINK I NEED TO READ THROUGH THEM. SO THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: THANK YOU\, JACKIE. THANK YOU\, DANA. SHOULD WE BE LOOKING AT THE BOARD HERE\, BE LOOKING AT THESE QUESTIONS AND MAYBE COMMENTING ON THEM AT THIS POINT OR — \n>>JACLYN PERRIN-MARTINEZ: YEAH\, I THINK THE INTENTION IS TO HELP SERVE AS A FRAMING. I THINK WE ARE HAPPY TO HAVE YOUR COMMENTS ON THESE QUESTIONS OR IF YOU WANT TO BRING UP OTHER TOPICS THAT STAND OUT TO YOU\, THIS IS REALLY NEEDING TO GET YOUR FEEDBACK. THIS IS A WAY TO DIRECT YOUR THINKING ON IT BUT WE’RE HAPPY TO HEAR FEEDBACK ON THESE QUESTIONS OR OTHERWISE. \n>>JENN HYMAN: ROD\, I’D LIKE TO RECOMMEND WE GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT NOW. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OH. \n>>JENN HYMAN: AND ACTUALLY\, KRIS MAY JOINED THE MEETING. AND I BELIEVE WE’LL PROBABLY BE PROVIDING HER COMMENTS AS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC SINCE SHE’S NOT HERE. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. WELL THEN\, LET ME GET BACK ONTO THE SCRIPT AND SAY THANK YOU\, DANA AND JACKIE. AT THIS POINT OF THE MEETING\, WE’D LIKE TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE PROJECT\, SPECIFIC TO THE PRESENTATION. PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND WHEN CALLED UPON. YOU WILL BE UNMUTED SO YOU CAN SHARE YOUR COMMENTS. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND AFFILIATION AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR REMARKS. YOU HAVE A LIMIT OF THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK. AS IN ANY PUBLIC MEETING\, PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS RESPECTFUL. WE ARE HERE TO LISTEN TO EVERYONE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE MEETING. BUT AS ALWAYS\, WE ASK EVERYONE ACT IN A CIVIL MANNER. HATE SPEECH\, THREATS MADE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY AND ABUSIVE LANGUAGE WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. AND ANYONE WHO FAILS TO FOLLOW THESE GUIDELINES OR WHO EXCEEDS THE ESTABLISHED THREE-MINUTE LIMIT WITHOUT PERMISSION WILL BE MUTED. OKAY. SO MARGIE\, ARE THERE ANY HANDS RAISED? \n>>MARGIE MALAN: WE HAVE ONE HAND RAISED BY GITA DEV. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. SORRY. KRIS MAY. PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF. OH\, WAIT. IT’S GITA. SORRY. GITA DEV\, WE CAN HEAR YOU. \n>>GITA DEV: I SEE MY CONNECTION IS UNSTABLE. APOLOGIZE. WE CAN SEE THE SEE THE — THERE WERE SO MANY SLIDES. I WROTE THAT ONE DOWN. OKAY. SUBREGIONAL PLAN ELEMENT DIAGRAM. THIS IS A NICE SIMPLE DIAGRAM. SO I SHOULD SAY\, FIRST\, I’M GITA DEV. I AM WITH THE SIERRA CLUB’S BAY ALIVE CAMPAIGN WHICH IS A CAMPAIGN FOR THE SIERRA CLUB FOR THE BAY WITH SEA LEVEL RISE AND REALLY — I’M REALLY\, REALLY PLEASED TO SPEAK WITH THE ENGINEERING REVIEW GROUP BECAUSE I’M AN ARCHITECT. I WORK WITH ENGINEERS. AND I THINK DIFFERENTLY THAN A LOT OF THE PEOPLE IN THE SIERRA CLUB. SO I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THE BAY ITSELF IS AS MUCH AT RISK WITH SEA LEVEL RISE AS\, YOU KNOW\, THE INFRASTRUCTURE AROUND IT. AND THAT’S SOMETHING THAT I THINK A LOT OF US DON’T REALIZE. AND THE OCEAN PROTECTION COUNCIL DOES EVERY FIVE YEARS PUTS OUT THIS SEA LEVEL RISE DATA. YOU KNOW\, THEY KEEP REVISING IT AND SHOWING IT ACCELERATING. WHAT I WANT TO BRING UP WITH OUR GROUP HERE IS THAT WHEN\, YOU KNOW\, YOU’RE LOOKING AT 2050 AND 2100\, I THINK 2075 IS ACTUALLY A RATHER KEY DATE. BECAUSE 2050 IS ONLY 25 YEARS AWAY AND BONDS THAT WE’LL HAVE TO PASS IN ORDER TO GET — YOU KNOW\, GET PUBLIC — YOU KNOW\, PUBLIC VOTES ON BONDS\, ONE OF THE PROBLEMS IS THAT THEY ARE MORE THAN 25 YEARS SO I LIKE THE IDEA OF A 2075 AND I LIKE PEOPLE TO THINK ABOUT THAT. ONE OF THE THINGS\, ALSO\, THERE IS A TENDENCY FOR THE PUBLIC TO WANT IT TO KNOW THERE IS A SURE FIRE\, YOU KNOW\, LIKE A ONE AND DONE. YOU’VE DONE THIS BOND\, AND WE ARE DONE FOR THE NEXT 50 YEARS. SO ONE SHORELINE OPERATES VERY MUCH LIKE THAT. THEIR ESTIMATES HAVE BEEN A LITTLE BIT HIGHER THAN WHAT WE’RE SHOWING IN THESE — IN THESE SLIDES. THE OTHER THING THAT I’M REALIZING IS THAT IN OUR CITIES AND COUNTIES\, THE PUBLIC WORKS IS WHAT DEALS WITH THIS ISSUE OF SEA LEVEL RISE. AND THEY ARE MOSTLY CIVIL ENGINEERS. CITIES AND COUNTIES ONLY HAVE LAND USE AUTHORITY. THEY DON’T HAVE WATER USE AUTHORITY. SO THEY CAN’T DEAL WITH ISSUES AND THEY CAN’T APPROVE ISSUES WITHOUT FISH AND WILDLIFE\, REGIONAL WATER QUALITY BOARD\, A NUMBER OF AGENCIES CONTROL THE WATER AND THE MARSHES AND THE EEL GRASS AND ALL THE OTHER ELEMENTS THAT ARE SO IMPORTANT IN YOUR GUIDELINES. SO NUMBER TWO GUIDELINE IS THE BAY ECOLOGY IS ONE OF THE NUMBER TWO ITEMS IN YOUR LISTING OF THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED. WELL\, THERE’S NO WAY A CITY COUNCIL OR A COUNTY CAN COMMENT ON ISSUES THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF LAND USE. THEREFORE\, THERE’S A REAL PROBLEM IN THIS DIAGRAM WHERE\, YOU KNOW\, THE PURPLE — THE PINK ONCE SAYS ELEMENT D\, PROJECT LIST\, AND ELEMENT E\, LAND USE PLAN AND POLICIES. BECAUSE IF NATURE-BASED IS PART OF OUR PLAN\, THEN IT’S NOT ONLY LAND USE BUT WATER USE ALSO. SO I THINK THAT’S THE MAJOR FALL IS I IN — FALLACY OF THIS BEAUTIFUL PLAN WHICH I HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING. I THINK YOU’VE DONE FANTASTIC WORK\, BY THE WAY\, BCDC STAFF. THIS IS THE PLACE\, THE STUMBLING BLOCK\, BECAUSE CITIES AND COUNTIES ONLY HAVE LAND USE AUTHORITY. THEY DON’T HAVE WATER USE AUTHORITY. AND A LOT OF THE SEA LEVEL RISE ADAPTATION PLANS HAVE TO INVOLVE ELEMENTS THAT ARE IN THE WATER\, MARSHES\, AND SO FORTH. FISH\, WILDLIFE HABITAT\, ALL OF THAT\, SO SOMEHOW WE HAVE TO REFIGURE THIS PARTICULAR DIAGRAM SO THAT — YOU KNOW\, THE AGENCIES THAT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THOSE ARE ALSO PART OF THIS FINAL APPROVAL PROCESS BECAUSE HONESTLY\, WHEN I TALK TO CITY COUNCILMEMBERS\, THEY ARE CLUELESS ABOUT WHAT’S HAPPENING IN THE WATER. AND WHEN I TALK TO THE ENGINEERING STAFF OF THE PUBLIC WORKS\, THEY ALSO SAY\, HEY\, LOOK\, THAT’S FISH AND WILDLIFE. WE CAN’T GO THERE. SO YOU KNOW\, I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE MAJOR FALLACIES THAT WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT AS WE GO FORWARD. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER COMMENTS THAT I HAVE\, BUT I WANT THE ENGINEERING GROUP TO THINK ABOUT THIS BECAUSE WHEN WE WORK ON PLANS\, WE WORK ON IT ON THE GROUND. WE DON’T WORK ON THEM IN THE WATER. SO OYSTER REEFS\, YOU KNOW\, WE WOULDN’T KNOW HOW TO DEAL WITH THAT. SO SOMEHOW THE TEAM HAS TO INCLUDE THOSE KIND OF CONSULTANTS WHO HAVE SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUNDS AND BIOLOGY BACKGROUNDS. AND THEN\, THE PLANS — THE OTHER PROBLEM IS THE PLANS THAT INVOLVE NATURE INVOLVE MONITORING OVER TIME CERTAIN MEASURE OF UNCERTAINTY AND HOW DO WE GET THAT ACROSS WHEN WE ARE TRYING TO PASS BONDS THROUGH THE PUBLIC. THANK YOU. \n>>MARGIE MALAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT’S ALL WE HAVE. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: THANK YOU\, MARGIE. YEAH\, KRIS MAY HAS HER HAND UP. \n>>KRIS MAY: HI\, THIS IS KRIS. SINCE I’M NOT THERE\, I’M CONSIDERED A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC\, BUT MY QUESTIONS ARE KIND OF COMING FROM MY BOARD MEMBER HAT. AND ONE OF THEM IS THAT I STRUGGLE WITH THE TERM OF ADAPTATION DESIGN STANDARDS BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE A LOT OF DESIGN STANDARDS WHEN WE’RE DESIGNING ADAPTATION PROJECTS. SO IT’S — I HAVE A HARD TIME THINKING ABOUT SEPARATING\, LIKE\, ALL OF THE DESIGN CODE STANDARDS THAT WE NEED TO THINK OF. WHEN WE’RE THINKING OF ADAPTATION AND DESIGN STANDARDS\, I THINK IT’S REALLY CRITICAL THAT THEY INCLUDE THE WAVE CLIMATE AND RIGHT NOW CONSIDERATION OF WAVES IS NOT REQUIRED THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT. I THINK THAT’S ONE OF MY BIGGEST COMMENTS IS THAT I THINK CONSIDERATION OF WAVE HAZARDS\, THE WAVE CLIMATE\, THE WAVE RUN-UP\, IT SHOULD BE REQUIRED. I DON’T THINK WE CAN DO ANY ADAPTATION PLANNING APPROPRIATELY WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE WAVE CLIMATE. PARTICULARLY IF WE’RE LOOKING AT STRATEGIES ALONG THE SHORELINE. AND I SEE IT AS A BIG PROBLEM. WHEN I’M WORKING WITH COMMUNITIES\, PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU’RE LOOKING AT NATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS\, UNDERSTANDING THE WAVE HAZARDS IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR THE SUCCESS OF THE STRATEGIES. IT’S ALSO\, OF COURSE\, INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT FOR WHEN YOU’RE DESIGNING GRAY INFRASTRUCTURE. I KNOW\, LIKE\, WAVE DATA\, WE LIKE TO CONSIDER THAT IT’S HARD TO GET\, BUT I DON’T THINK YOU CAN DO JUSTICE ON ADAPTATION STRATEGIES WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING YOUR WAVE CLIMATE. AND THEN MY LAST COMMENT IS\, YOU KNOW\, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE DEVELOPING ADAPTATION STRATEGIES\, WHICH MAY INCLUDE BAY FILL IN PART OF THE STRATEGIES. A LOT OF THE COMMUNITIES I WORK WITH ARE LOOKING AT BAY FILL AS ONE OF MANY DIFFERENT STRATEGIES OR PART OF THE STRATEGY. SO IF THEY’RE SUBMITTING A PLAN THAT BCDC IS APPROVING AND SOME OF THESE STRATEGIES ARE INCLUDING BAY FILL\, IT SEEMS LIKE IT CROSSES OVER INTO THE PURVIEW OF THE ECRB. AND I’M JUST — IT COULD GET\, LIKE\, CONFUSING ABOUT\, YOU KNOW\, YOU HAVE A PLAN THAT’S ACCEPTED. YOU KNOW — I DON’T KNOW HOW IT’S JUST GOING TO GO\, LIKE\, ACROSS THE ECRB AND PERMITTING IF THESE THINGS ARE ACCEPTED AS PART OF A PLAN. BUT THEY MIGHT NOT BE PERMITTABLE OR THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET THROUGH THE ECRB REVIEW. SO THOSE ARE KIND OF THE COMMENTS I HAVE FROM THE ECRB TYPE OF PERSPECTIVE. \n>>MARGIE MALAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT’S ALL WE HAVE FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. WELL\, THANK YOU. THANK YOU\, MARGIE. \n>>SPEAKER: AM I ALLOWED TO FOLLOW-UP WITH KRIS? \n>>V. CHAIR\, JAMES FRENCH: I HAVE A QUESTION OF WHETHER KRIS IS A PUBLIC MEMBER OR BOARD MEMBER. I AM NOT IN A BOARD MEMBER AND I AM A REGULAR BOARD MEMBER AND I THINK KRIS IS EITHER. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: SO MARGIE\, DO YOU — WAS THERE — IS IT BECAUSE KRIS WASN’T — IS NOT HERE OR IS IT THAT SHE WAS LATE? \n>>MARGIE MALAN: WELL\, I KIND OF — \n>>JENN HYMAN: I KIND OF MADE THAT DECISION BECAUSE IN THE PAST BOARD MEMBERS HAVE NOT BEEN ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE REMOTELY. \n>>V. CHAIR\, JAMES FRENCH: NO\, THAT’S ONLY BEEN — I THINK\, JENN\, THAT’S ONLY TRUE IF PEOPLE ARE PRESENT THAT HAVE A CONFLICT LIKE ROD I THINK ONE TIME HAD A CONFLICT AND HE SPOKE AS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC. BUT I THINK WE HAD REMOTE MEETINGS IN THE PAST AND HAVE BEEN MEMBERS. \n>>JENN HYMAN: I APOLOGIZE. IT’S A GRAY AREA THAT I’M NOT SURE THE RIGHT WAY TO DO IT HONESTLY\, SO — \n>>SPEAKER: I MOVE WE ALLOW KRIS TO JOIN THE DISCUSSION AND THAT WE ALL TALK WHEN WE ALL TALK. WITH KRIS AND MAYBE EVEN JIM. \n>>JENN HYMAN: THAT’S FINE WITH ME SINCE IT DOESN’T INVOLVE ANY PERMITS OR ANYTHING. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. SO WE DON’T EVEN NEED TO — \n>>V. CHAIR\, JAMES FRENCH: I WOULD SECOND THAT MOTION IF IT’S AN ORDER. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: THAT’S WHAT I’M TRYING TO AVOID\, JIM. I’M TRYING TO AVOID A VOTE. \n>>SPEAKER: I DON’T THINK WE NEED A MOTION. I COULD BE WRONG. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: NO\, NO. I THINK YOUR SUGGESTION IS — IS GOOD. \n>>V. CHAIR\, JAMES FRENCH: YOU ARE GETTING QUIET AGAIN A LITTLE BIT\, ROD. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OH\, OKAY. I AGREE WITH BOB. I WOULD PREFER THAT IF WE’RE HAVING A BOARD DISCUSSION THAT JIM AND KRIS ARE ABLE TO TALK FREELY AND CONTRIBUTE. \n>>JENN HYMAN: SOUNDS GOOD. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. \n>>MARGIE MALAN: SHARE IWASHITA\, WE HAVE ONE MORE — CHAIR IWASHITA\, WE HAVE ONE PUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>MANU CHOPRA: MY QUESTION IS — HOW DO [INDISCERNIBLE] HAVE PATHWAYS DEVELOP CRITERIA IN THE WORKFORCE OR THE WORKING [INDISCERNIBLE]? \n>>BOB BATTALIO: I DIDN’T UNDERSTAND THAT. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: I’M SORRY. I DON’T THINK WE UNDERSTOOD THE QUESTION. CAN YOU REPEAT IT? \n>>MANU CHOPRA: OKAY. HOW DOES ADOPTION HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE LIKE IN FOSTER HOMES OR FOSTER CARE? \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE ADAPTATION PLANS AND STRATEGIES? YOU WERE ASKING ABOUT FOLKS WHO ARE IN FOSTER CARE? \n>>MANU CHOPRA: YEAH. I THINK IN FOSTER HOMES. LIKE\, WHEN THEY DON’T HAVE A HOUSE TO LIVE IN OR — AND THEY ARE TRYING TO FIND A PLACE TO STAY? \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: SO THIS IS ABOUT ADAPTING THE SHORELINE. I THINK THE IDEA IS ADAPTING THE SHORELINE TO SEA LEVEL RISE AND GROUNDWATER RISE\, IT IS NOT ABOUT FAMILY — NOT PRIMARILY ABOUT FOSTER HOMES OR — YEAH. IT’S NOT PRIMARILY ABOUT FOSTER HOMES. \n>>MANU CHOPRA: OH\, OKAY. OKAY. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. BUT THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION AND CONCERN. \n>>MANU CHOPRA: THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. ARE THERE ANY MORE — MARGIE\, ARE THERE ANY FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? \n>>MARGIE MALAN: NOPE. THAT’S ALL WE HAVE\, CHAIR. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. LET’S CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND NOW LET’S GET TO BOARD DISCUSSION. LET’S SEE. YEAH. BOB\, DO YOU HAVE — YEAH\, LET’S GO DOWN THE LINE HERE. \n>>BOB BATTALIO: YEAH\, I ACTUALLY HAD A COMMENT OR A QUESTION FOR JENN AND YOU\, ROD\, AS CHAIR\, AND THE REST OF THE BOARD MEMBERS. BUT FIRST FOR JENN. YOU KNOW\, AFTER THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING\, I SENT AN EMAIL TO DANA AND MARGIE\, RIGHT? JACKIE. WHY DID I SAY MARGIE? OH\, SORRY\, JACKIE. WE JUST MET AT THE LAST MEETING. I SENT MY EMAIL. I MEANT TO SEND IT TO YOU AS WELL. I THINK DANA GOT IT. THANKS FOR CLEARING THAT UP. AND IT HAD SOME COMMENTS ON IT. AND I SENT IT TO YOU\, JENN\, AND ALSO ASHLEY. I DON’T KNOW IF THOSE COMMENTS — THEY’RE NOT REALLY BOARD COMMENTS BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T GO THROUGH THE BOARD PROCESS. BUT I’M WONDERING IF THOSE COMMENTS COULD BE PROVIDED TO THE BOARD MEMBERS WITHOUT VIOLATING ALL OF OUR COMMUNICATION PROTOCOLS OR RESTRICTIONS. AND YOU DON’T HAVE TO ANSWER THAT. I’M NOT GOING TO SEND THEM TO THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS BECAUSE I DON’T WANT TO VIOLATE ANY KIND OF HATCH ACT OR WHATEVER IT IS. BUT THAT LEADS TO MY OTHER QUESTION WHICH I THINK IS FOR BOTH JENN AND ROD AND OTHERS. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT ALL OF THIS EVENTUALLY FUNNELS DOWN TO PROJECTS AND THE PLANNING THAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT DOES GET CLOSER TO PUBLIC WORKS. AND SO I THINK IT WOULD MAKE SENSE FOR THE ECRB\, AS A GROUP OF ENGINEERS\, ETC.\, TO PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE STAFF ON THIS PLAN FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE. AND I’M WONDERING IF OTHER PEOPLE AGREE AND WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD DEVELOP SOME SORT OF SUBCOMMITTEE OR PROCESS BY WHICH THE ECRB COULD PROVIDE\, YOU KNOW\, KIND OF A THOUGHTFUL INPUT. AND I DON’T KNOW IF THEY — DANA AND JACKIE WANT THAT OR NOT\, BUT I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE — YOU KNOW\, I HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY AND I KIND OF — I’M TRYING TO DECIDE\, SHOULD I JUST COMMENT AS AN INDIVIDUAL OR GO THROUGH THESE BOARDS? I DON’T KNOW. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: WELL\, DANA OR JACKIE\, DO YOU — I MEAN\, I HAVE MY THOUGHT\, TOO\, WHICH IS THAT I BELIEVE WE GET ANOTHER BITE OF THE APPLE HERE\, RIGHT? LIKE\, YOU SENT OUT THE DRAFT. RSAP ALREADY. AND WE\, AS ECRB MEMBERS\, WE’VE BEEN ASKED TO REVIEW IT. WE CAN GIVE OUR COMMENTS NOW\, BUT I THINK THERE’S NOTHING WRONG\, BOB\, WITH US SENDING QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS DIRECTLY TO DANA AND JACKIE AND JENN AFTER WE HAD TIME TO DIGEST OUR STAFF GUIDELINES. \n>>JENN HYMAN: WELL\, SO\, A COUPLE OF THINGS. I DID TALK TO MICHAEL\, BCDC COUNCIL\, BEFORE THIS MEETING AND HE DID SAY THAT EVEN THOUGH THIS IS A POLICY DISCUSSION\, THAT DISCUSSION ON IT SHOULD NOT TAKE PLACE WITH MORE THAN A FEW ECRB MEMBERS TOGETHER BECAUSE THEN IT’S — OUTSIDE OF THE MEETING. SO THOSE RULES WOULD ALSO APPLY TO THIS DISCUSSION. SO BOB\, I THINK THE BEST — THE BEST THING WOULD BE TO MAYBE HIGHLIGHT YOUR KEY COMMENTS IN THIS MEETING ON THE GUIDELINES SO THAT EVERYONE COULD HEAR THEM AND DISCUSS THEM. AND IF YOU’RE ALSO — IF YOUR QUESTION SOUNDED LIKE IT WAS ALSO TOUCHING ON WHAT ROLE WOULD THE ECRB PLAY IN REVIEWING THE S.B. 272 PLANS\, IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE ALSO TALKING ABOUT? \n>>BOB BATTALIO: NOT NECESSARILY. I WAS THINKING THAT THE ECRB COULD PROVIDE A SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE STAFF FOR THEIR USE IN FINALIZING OR FURTHER DEVELOPING THE PLAN. AND IF NOT\, THEN I KNOW THAT MY COMMENTS OUTSIDE OF THIS MEETING WILL BE PERSONAL COMMENTS. AND THEN\, I’LL JUST HAVE TO FIGURE OUT THE RIGHT WAY TO DO THAT. BUT I DO THINK THE ENGINEERING END POINT IS IMPORTANT\, AND I THINK THE ECRB HAS A LOT OF CAPABILITIES. SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE ECRB HELP BCDC IN THIS VERY IMPORTANT ENDEAVOR. IT WOULD SEEM LIKE A MISSTEP TO NOT DO SO\, IN MY OPINION. \n>>JENN HYMAN: ONE OF THE THINGS YOU COULD ALSO CONSIDER IS ASKING DANA AND JACKIE TO COME BACK YET AGAIN FOR ANOTHER MEETING. I KNOW THEY’RE SUPER BUSY\, AND I’M NOT SURE HOW THAT WOULD FIT INTO THE SCHEDULE BUT MAYBE THAT’S SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. \n>>BOB BATTALIO: I’M GETTING SOME RESISTANCE AND I DON’T NEED TO BELABOR IT. I FEEL THE WAY I FEEL. IF BCDC DOESN’T WANT THE ECRB TO PROVIDE COLLECTIVE COMMENTS OR THE BOARD DOESN’T WANT TO DO THAT\, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THAT’S A DECISION AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT ANOTHER TIME IF YOU WANT OR YOU CAN JUST ISSUE YOUR DECISION. \n>>JENN HYMAN: YEAH. I AM NOT AWARE OF A WAY FOR THE ECRB TO PUT TOGETHER JOINT\, LIKE\, ONE SET OF JOINT COMMENTS BUT I CAN LOOK INTO THAT AFTER THIS MEETING. \n>>BOB BATTALIO: OKAY. WE CAN PROVIDE THEM TO YOU AND YOU CAN PROVIDE THEM AS WE DO FOR PROJECTS OR NOT. I’M FINE EITHER WAY BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD TO GET SOME CLARITY. I DON’T THINK THESE MEETINGS ARE ADEQUATE TO GET INTO THE DETAIL. AND I THINK THERE’S MORE OF A DISCUSSION RATHER THAN EACH OF US TALKING TO EACH OTHER IN SHORT BLIPS. THAT’S MY OPINION. I’M NOT — I’LL LEAVE IT THERE. I DON’T MEAN TO BE — YOU KNOW\, THE FUNNY THING IS\, WE CAN’T SAY ANYTHING TO ANYONE UNTIL WE SHOW UP TO THESE MEETINGS SO I THOUGHT I WOULD BRING IT UP AND SORRY I DIDN’T GIVE YOU A HEAD’S UP ON IT. YOU KNOW WHERE I’M COMING FROM. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: AND MAYBE I’LL JUST SAY THAT I DON’T THINK THERE’S ANYTHING WRONG WITH YOU PROVIDING COMMENTS DIRECTLY TO JENN AND JACKIE AND DANA AND THEN\, YOU KNOW\, HOPEFULLY THESE GET COLLATED AND COLLECTED AND IF WE ARE LUCKY TO HAVE ANOTHER SESSION HERE\, I’M SURE WE WOULD GO THROUGH THEM. THEIR RESPONSES. \n>>JENN HYMAN: YES\, THAT’S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. YOU CAN DEFINITELY GIVE US ANY COMMENTS IN ANY FORMAT YOU HAVE. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. I’M ASSUMING THAT THE LINE-UP IS LEFT TO RIGHT AND SO JIM FRENCH\, YOU ARE NEXT. \n>>V. CHAIR\, JAMES FRENCH: I THINK JUST FOLLOWING UP ON WHAT BOB WAS SAYING AND JENN WAS SAYING\, WE CAN SEND COMMENTS TO STAFF AND THE STAFF HAS TO MAKE SURE THAT SOMEHOW IN THE PROCESS OF RESPONDING TO BOB’S COMMENT\, IF YOU INCORPORATE — THAT’S SIMILAR TO WHAT JIM WROTE TO YOU\, ALSO — NOT THAT I HAD WRITTEN ANYTHING YET — IF THERE BECOMES A POTENTIAL MAJORITY OF BOARD MEMBERS THAT ARE PART OF THAT CONVERSATION\, EVEN IF IT’S CONNECTED\, NOT DIRECTLY\, BUT ONLY CONNECTED VIA JENN\, THEN IT GETS TRICKY. JENN\, TALK TO — THE NAME YOU JUST SAID — YOUR LEGAL COUNSEL ABOUT WHAT WE’RE DOING. AND I THINK WHEN BOB PROVIDES COMMENTS HE’S PROVIDING COMMENTS AS ECRB. I DON’T THINK IT TRIES TO MAKE SENSE — MAKE SENSE HE’S NOT ECRB WHEN HE PROVIDES COMMENTS BUT — TALK TO YOUR LEGAL COUNSEL. I THINK IT’S GOING TO BE TRICKY IF YOU TAKE TOO MUCH INPUT FROM US. I HAD A FEW COMMENTS THAT WERE NOT VERY TECHNICAL\, I GUESS. A COUPLE QUESTIONS. FIRST THAT ARE SORT OF RELATED TO EACH OTHER. ONE SORT OF FAMILY OF QUESTIONS. IS THERE ANY PLACE — I MEAN\, SEA LEVEL RISE IS HAPPENING AROUND THE WORLD. IS THERE ANYPLACE ELSE IN CALIFORNIA OR EVEN THE U.S. WHO’S DOING SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THIS? \n>>DANA BRECHWALD: WELL\, S.B. 272 APPLIES TO THE OUTER COAST AS WELL. THE COASTAL COMMISSION IS MAKING AMENDMENTS TO THEIR LCP PROCESS TO FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS OF S.B. 272 AND WE’VE BEEN MEETING WITH THEM ON A REGULAR BASIS. OBVIOUSLY\, OUR PROCESSES ARE VERY DIFFERENT. THEY HAVE THE LCP. WE DON’T. SO WE’RE STARTING A PLAN FROM SCRATCH. \n>>V. CHAIR\, JAMES FRENCH: WHAT’S LCP? \n>>DANA BRECHWALD: LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM. THEY ISSUE PERMITS ON THE OUTER COAST\, BUT THEY ALLOW LOCAL JURISDICTIONS TO DO A MORE SPECIFIC PLAN LOCALLY AND THEY CEDE THE PERMITTING PROCESS BASICALLY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE COASTAL COMMISSION ONLY SEES PROJECTS ONLY WHEN THEY’VE BEEN ELEVATED — WHEN THEY BASICALLY THINK THE LOCAL JURISDICTION HAS NOT MADE THE CORRECT DETERMINATION ON THE SHORELINE PERMIT. SO THAT’S VERY DIFFERENT FROM BCDC AND THE OUTER COAST. SO THE WAY THAT S.B. 272 IS BEING IMPLEMENTED ON THE OUTER COAST AND IN BCDC’S JURISDICTION IS FAIRLY DIFFERENT BUT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY’RE COMPATIBLE\, ESPECIALLY FOR COUNTIES THAT HAVE BOTH BCDC AND COASTAL COMMISSION JURISDICTION. \n>>V. CHAIR\, JAMES FRENCH: WOULD IT BE SIMILAR TO PLANS REQUIRED FOR THE — WHATEVER DO YOU CALL THOSE? THE OUTBOARD COAST? \n>>DANA BRECHWALD: LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM. NO. BECAUSE THE PLANS FOR THE OUTER COAST ARE REGULATORY IN NATURE. SO LIKE I SAID\, INSTEAD OF THE COASTAL COMMISSION REVIEWING EVERY SINGLE PROJECT ALONG THE OUTER COAST THE WAY THAT BCDC DOES ALONG OUR BAY SHORELINE\, THEY BASICALLY GIVE THAT AUTHORITY TO THE LOCAL JURISDICTIONS. SO WHEN LOCAL JURISDICTIONS TURN IN A LOCAL COASTAL PLAN\, IT’S REGULATORY IN NATURE. WHEREAS\, OUR SHORELINE — LOCAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLANS ARE NOT REGULATORY IN NATURE. \n>>V. CHAIR\, JAMES FRENCH: WHAT I’M THINKING THEN\, WHAT YOU’RE ASKING CITIES AND COUNTIES AND OTHER JURISDICTIONS TO DO IS TO WRITE UP A PLAN THAT MAYBE HAS NEVER BEEN DONE ANYPLACE IN THE WORLD BEFORE? \n>>JACLYN PERRIN-MARTINEZ: WELL\, I MEAN\, WHAT WE’RE DOING IS ACTUALLY I WOULD SAY A REALLY SIMILAR MODEL IS LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN. IT’S DIFFERENT\, FEDERAL. BUT THOSE ARE NOT REQUIRED PLANS\, BUT IF YOU DO HAVE A PLAN THAT FOLLOWS FEMA’S GUIDELINES\, YOU ARE THEN ELIGIBLE FOR FEMA FUNDING. SO THAT’S ACTUALLY NOT TOO DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE ARE DOING IN THIS. WE ARE DEVELOPING GUIDELINES THAT IF A LOCAL JURISDICTION FOLLOWS OUR GUIDELINES AND HAS AN APPROVED PLAN\, YOU ARE ELIGIBLE FOR STATE FUNDING. SO I WOULD SAY THAT’S THE CLOSEST ANALOGUE. AND THESE LOCAL ADAPTATION PLANS ARE HAPPENING AROUND THE BAY AREA AND ELSEWHERE AND A LOT OF WHAT’S IN OUR GUIDELINES IS THOSE BEST PRACTICES\, TRYING TO BALANCE\, YOU KNOW\, WE WANT GOOD ADAPTATION BUT WE WANT TO MAKE IT ACCESSIBLE TO JURISDICTIONS OF DIFFERENT CAPACITIES SO WE’RE TRYING TO SET THE MINIMUM STANDARDS BUT ALSO PROVIDE\, WHAT DOES GOOD ADAPTATION LOOK LIKE? SO LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ARE PLANNING IN THE BAY AREA\, ON THE OUTER COAST\, USING DIFFERENT INFORMATION AND MODELS AND WE’RE TRYING TO STANDARD THAT AND PUT THOSE BEST PRACTICES TOGETHER. AND THEN\, OUR GUIDELINES IS KIND OF A LAYER ABOVE THAT TO STANDARDIZE HOW ALL OF THAT PLANNING WORKS. COASTAL COMMISSION\, AS DANA SAID\, IS DOING SOMETHING SIMILAR\, BUT THEIR LAW IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT AND WHAT PEOPLE HAVE TO PLAN FOR ALREADY IS BROADER THAN OURS. SO THEY’RE SIMILAR BUT NOT EXACTLY THE SAME BECAUSE OUR ENABLING LEGISLATION IS DIFFERENT. \n>>V. CHAIR\, JAMES FRENCH: WHAT I’M TRYING TO GOT AT MAYBE IS JUST IF I WAS WORKING WITH THE JURISDICTION THAT NEEDED TO DEVELOP A PLAN\, IF I HAD NOT EVER SEEN A PLAN BEFORE\, IT’S — I’M JUST NOT SURE EXACTLY. DO WE NEED PH.D. LEVEL DISSERTATION KIND OF PROJECT OR DO WE NEED SOME SORT OF — JUST A MINOR EXPANSION ON FILL IN\, EXPAND THE OUTLINE MORE OR LESS WHAT YOU’VE GIVEN OR WHATEVER? MY SUGGESTION\, WHAT MIGHT BE USEFUL — I DON’T KNOW HOW PRACTICAL THIS IS. IF YOU COULD WRITE A HYPOTHETICAL PLAN FOR A — MAYBE A COMPOSITE TYPE OF JURISDICTION THAT INCLUDES SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAYWARD HAS AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT SAUSALITO HAS AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT SAN FRANCISCO HAS OR WHATEVER\, I MEAN\, YOU COULD MAKE IT AN ENORMOUS EFFORT FOR YOURSELVES\, BUT IF I COULD SEE\, THIS IS WHAT A PLAN OUGHT TO LOOK LIKE IN DRAFT LEVEL — IN DEVELOPING A PLAN LIKE THIS\, IF I WAS JUST IN MY OFFICE AND I HAD A TEAM WORKING ON THIS ASSIGNED BY A JURISDICTION OR IF I WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF A JURISDICTION\, I WOULD DEVELOP AN OUTLINE AND THEN I WOULD BOUNCE THE OUTLINE BACK AND FORTH AROUND A BUNCH OF PEOPLE AND THEN I WOULD — WE’D START TO FILL IN SOME PARAGRAPHS AND START TO FIGURE OUT WHAT CALCULATIONS AND WHAT FIGURES AND WHAT TABLES ARE NEEDED AND SO ON\, IT TAKES A LOT OF EFFORT. AND YOU’RE GOING TO RECEIVE THAT AND YOU’RE GOING TO BE HAPPY WITH WHAT I’VE PRODUCED OR — NOT HAPPY WHAT I PRODUCED. AND IF THERE IS SOMETHING — MAKE IT SORT OF LIKE THIS\, I THINK IT WOULD BE A WHOLE LOT OF WORK FOR YOU TO DEVELOP THIS SAMPLE PLAN BUT I THINK IN THE LONG RUN IT MIGHT MAKE LIFE A WHOLE LOT EASIER FOR YOU IF YOU START SEEING REPORTS A LOT LIKE WHAT YOU ALREADY ASKED THEM TO PROVIDE. AND THEN THEY HAVE TO FILL IN. THERE’S LOTS THAT HAS TO BE FILLED IN. WHAT HAPPENS IN MY LOCAL — YOU KNOW\, THE LITTLE STREAMS THAT ARE COMING UP — WATER COMING UP CREEKS OR WE HAVE — BERKELEY HAS HIGHWAYS THAT ARE GOING TO BE — WAVES ARE GOING TO OVERTOP HIGHWAY 80 GOING THROUGH BERKELEY WHICH IS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE EVERY DAY. IF YOU CAN DO AN EXAMPLE LIKE THIS. ONE OF THE THINGS — A FINAL COMMENT. ALONG SORT OF THESE LINES\, IT SEEMS LIKE A PARALLEL TYPE OF — AN ANALOGOUS TYPE OF PROJECT IS THE SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER ACT IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY — I GUESS IT’S NOT CENTRAL VALLEY BUT PRIMARILY CENTRAL VALLEY WHERE PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO STANDARDIZE AND ALL THE DIFFERENT GROUNDWATER BASINS NEED TO DEVELOP A PLAN FOR NOW THEY’RE USING IT. I KNOW I HAVEN’T BEEN VERY INTIMATELY INVOLVED WITH THIS EXCEPT FOR EIGHT YEARS AGO\, I GUESS\, I WAS WORKING FOR HIGH SPEED RAIL AND LOOKING AT GROUNDWATER AND HOW TO FIX WITH HIGH-SPEED RAIL. AND IT WAS A WIDE OPEN BROAD THING AND PEOPLE ARE KIND OF CONFUSED. THEY DON’T KNOW WHAT TO DO. IT’S REALLY HARD TO GET STARTED. AND HOW DO YOU HIRE A CONSULTANT? HOW DO YOU HAVE A SCOPE FOR WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE? YOU MAY NEED TO TALK TO PEOPLE IN SACRAMENTO THAT ARE MANAGING THIS BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE MAYBE AN ANALOGOUS TO WHAT YOU HAVE FOR THE BAY HERE. JUST SEE IF THEY HAVE ANY GUIDELINES. SEA LEVEL RISE IS DIFFERENT THAN GROUNDWATER. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REGULATIONS AND POLICIES AND GUIDELINES MIGHT BE PRETTY ANALOGOUS TO THE WAY YOU’RE HAVING — HAVING TO TRY AND JUGGLE ALL OF THIS COMPLICATED STUFF. I THINK IT’S GOING TO BE\, YOU KNOW — THE TECHNICAL STUFF IS CHALLENGING ENOUGH\, AND I THINK THAT’S WHAT ECRB IS PRIMARILY SUPPOSED TO BE FOCUSED ON. BUT I THINK THE WHOLE POLICY STUFF IS REALLY GOING TO BE TANGLY. WHATEVER YOU CAN DO TO HELP FIX THAT. AND I THINK IF YOU WERE TO TRY TO WRITE A DRAFT — EVEN IF IT NEVER SEES THE LIGHT OF THE PUBLIC\, JUST FOR YOU TO SEE\, THIS IS WHAT IT’S LIKE TO TRY TO FOLLOW THE OUTLINE THAT YOU’VE GIVEN\, I THINK YOU’LL REWRITE YOUR GUIDELINES IF YOU TRY TO — TRY TO WRITE IN RESPONSE AS IF YOU ARE RESPONDING TO YOUR GUIDELINES. I THINK — NOT BECAUSE THERE’S ANYTHING WRONG\, JUST BECAUSE THE HUMAN PROCESS\, GOING THAT STEP BETWEEN WHERE YOU HAVE NOW AND AN ACTUAL REPORT ORGANIZATION IS GOING TO BE A LOT OF THE TIME INVOLVED AND YOU’LL MAKE A LOT OF JURISDICTIONS MORE EFFICIENT IN GETTING PRODUCTS TO YOU THAT WILL MAKE YOU HAPPY. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. THANKS\, JIM. RAMIN. \n>>RAMIN GOLESORKHI: THANK YOU. I’LL LOWER MY HAND. IS IT THE PLAN\, IS IT A GUIDELINE\, IS IT STANDARD? I THINK IF I HEAR JIM AND KRIS\, WE ARE — MAYBE MYSELF\, IT SEEMS\, IT’S CONFUSING. IT NEEDS TO BE DIRECT. IT NEEDS TO BE CLEAR. AND IT NEEDS TO BE A REQUIREMENT. STANDARD IS A REQUIREMENT. I GIVE YOU AN ANALOGY\, AN EXAMPLE. AFC-7\, WHICH IS A STANDARD FOR SEISMIC DESIGN OF STRUCTURES\, IS A STANDARD WHICH IS NOT A CODE TECHNICALLY\, BUT IT’S A REFERENCE STANDARD. SO IT HAS EVERYTHING IN THERE. AND THEN THE CODE CYCLE TAKES IT AND MAKES IT INTO A CODE. AND THEN\, IT’S ENFORCED BY JURISDICTIONS AND STATES\, ETC. SO I THINK WE ALL KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM IS. BUT THIS NEEDS TO BE A — THE DEFINITION OF THIS DOCUMENT NEEDS TO BE VERY CLEAR. BECAUSE TO ME WHEN YOU CALL SOMETHING GUIDELINES\, IT’S NOT A POLICY. YOU CAN TAKE IT OR YOU CAN LEAVE IT. THAT’S A GUIDELINE. STANDARD\, THIS IS HOW YOU SHOULD DO IT. MAYBE IT’S NOT AT THE LEVEL OF A REQUIREMENT OR A CODE\, BUT IT GETS YOU THERE. SO I THINK IT’S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT THIS DOCUMENT BECOMES A LOT MORE CLEAR IN TERMS OF WHAT IT’S INTENDED TO ACCOMPLISH. AND BY THE WAY\, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. IT WAS GREAT. I APPRECIATE THAT. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: THANK YOU. THANK YOU\, RAMIN. YEAH\, DILIP\, I WILL CUT IN FRONT OF YOU FOR A MINUTE HERE. I AGREE WITH WHAT RAMIN IS SAYING\, THAT WE NEED TO BE — BUT WHAT I BELIEVE IS THAT THIS IS — THERE’S NOT — I THINK YOU SAID THERE IS NOT REALLY TEETH\, A REGULATORY AUTHORITY BEHIND THIS. YOU EITHER ARE SAYING YES TO A PLAN OR NO TO A PLAN. AND SO THERE’S THIS\, YOU KNOW\, POTENTIALLY ITERATIVE — LONG-TERM ITERATION ON THE PLAN. GETTING DOWN INTO ACTUAL DESIGN\, THAT’S — I THINK THAT’S BEYOND THE SCOPE OF — THAT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS PLAN\, RIGHT? AND SO THAT’S WHERE ECRB WOULD COME IN WHEN THEY GET DOWN TO AN INDIVIDUAL PROJECT AND THEY’RE LOOKING AT DESIGN CRITERIA\, THAT’S — THAT’S WHERE WE — THAT’S WHERE THE BOARD WOULD COME IN. AND I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT THAT WE ARE AWARE OF AND PARTICIPATING IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAN IF ONLY TO KIND OF HELP PROTECT OURSELVES OR MAKE THE PROCESS EASIER WHEN WE GET DOWN TO THE DETAILED INDIVIDUAL PROJECT LEVEL. OKAY. JUST KIND OF — OH\, BOB\, DO YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING? \n>>BOB BATTALIO: I’D LIKE TO WEIGH IN ON THIS. SO I THINK I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID\, ROD\, AND I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN. I THINK THE REALITY IS\, THIS IS KIND OF SOMETHING THAT WILL EVOLVE A BIT. AND WE’VE HAD SOME EXPERIENCE ON THE PACIFIC COAST. WE\, INCLUDING THE COASTAL COMMISSION\, AND FRANKLY\, I THINK THERE’S A LOT OF COLLECTIVE LEARNING GOING ON AS THE PLANS WERE DEVELOPED AND IS STILL HAPPENING. AND I KNOW BCDC IS AWARE OF THAT BASED ON OUR PRIOR MEETING THAT THEY’RE CONNECTED WITH THOSE FOLKS. BUT I THINK THERE IS SOME NEED NOT TO BE OVERLY SPECIFIC RIGHT NOW. YOU KNOW\, I THINK I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT. WHERE IT ENDS UP\, I DON’T KNOW\, BUT I THINK RIGHT NOW I THINK THAT’S PART OF THE ISSUE. I’M NOT SURE\, BUT I THINK THAT’S PART OF THE ISSUE. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: YEAH. MY COMMENTARY TO THAT IS\, YEAH\, IF WE’RE COASTAL ENGINEERING IS A VERY UNIQUE DISCIPLINE. AND MAYBE NOT ALL OF THE SOLUTIONS THAT\, YOU KNOW\, NEED TO BE THERE ARE ACTUALLY DEFINED YET OR THERE’S CERTAINLY NOT A DESIGN STANDARD FOR SOME OF IT. I THINK THAT THAT IS RIGHT. \n>>BOB BATTALIO: YEAH. JUST TO — I THINK THIS MAY BE MY ENTREE TO MAKE PUBLIC MY COMMENTS THAT I SENT TO JENN AND TO ASHLEY. ASHLEY BEING THE SECRETARY FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD. I SUGGESTED THAT THESE GUIDELINES REFER MORE SPECIFICALLY TO COASTAL FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT AS DEFINED BY THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM\, FEMA\, WHICH HAS LINKAGES TO HAZARD MAPS\, INCLUDING HIGH HAZARD ZONES\, YOU KNOW\, AND LESSER HAZARD ZONES. UNFORTUNATELY\, THE FEMA MAPS ARE BASED ON EXISTING OR RECENT HISTORICAL CONDITIONS THAT DON’T INCLUDE ELEMENTS LIKE LONG-TERM EROSION AND SEA LEVEL RISE. BUT THE OVERALL FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT CONSTRUCT IS LINKED TO ASCE-7\, FOR EXAMPLE\, THAT WAS JUST MENTIONED\, AND A LOT OF BUILDING CODES. AND THAT’S SOMETHING THAT EVENTUALLY PUBLIC WORKS PEOPLE AND ENGINEERS HAVE TO DEAL WITH. MORE IMPORTANTLY\, THESE GUIDELINES EFFECT PLANNING. IF YOU ARE IN A HIGH-VELOCITY ZONE\, YOUR STRUCTURE NEEDS TO BE ON A FOUNDATION THAT CAN HANDLE THAT\, AND THAT’S TYPICALLY ON PILINGS WITH YOUR FIRST FLOOR ABOVE THE FLOOD LEVEL. SO I THINK IT IS WORTH CONSIDERING SOME LINKAGE TO THOSE GUIDELINES\, AND I THINK THERE IS INTEREST IN EXPANDING THOSE GUIDELINES TO ADDRESS FUTURE CONDITIONS\, PHYSICAL CONDITIONS SUCH AS SEA LEVEL RISE AND COASTAL EROSION. UNFORTUNATELY\, IT IS PRIMARILY A CALIFORNIA INTEREST BECAUSE CALIFORNIA IS WAY AHEAD OF A LOT OF OTHER STATES WHO ARE NOT. SO I THINK THEY MAY HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THIS BECAUSE IT’S NOT A NATIONAL ISSUE. ROD\, YOU KNOW BETTER THAN I DO\, I THINK\, ON THAT ONE\, BUT THAT DOESN’T MEAN WE CAN’T THINK AHEAD A LITTLE BIT. SO THAT’S KIND OF THE SUMMARY OF MY COMMENTS. I HAVE OTHER COMMENTS BUT I JUST — I WROTE THAT UP WITH SOME REFERENCES AND SENT AN EMAIL IN CASE ANYONE WANTS TO SEE IT\, THEY CAN ASK JENN. I AM NOT GOING TO SEND IT TO ANYONE ELSE. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. THANK YOU\, BOB. DILIP. \n>>DILIP TRIVEDI: THANK YOU. CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: YEP. \n>>DILIP TRIVEDI: GREAT. I DID HAVE AN — I’LL BE BRIEF. I HAD ABOUT THREE COMMENTS. I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON THIS BASED ON ME ATTENDING AT LEAST ONE OF THE EVENTS OF THE RSAP. AND THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD IT IS THAT THIS IS AN UNREGULATORY DOCUMENT. IT IS A GUIDANCE FOR THE PEOPLE DEVELOPING THE PLANS WHO MAY HAVE STANDARDS BUILT INTO THOSE DOCUMENTS OR THEY MAY BE — BCDC PROVIDED STANDARDS SEPARATELY IN THE BAY PLAN OR AN ADDENDUM TO THE BAY PLAN ABOUT WHAT SEA LEVEL RISE PROJECTIONS OR WHAT TIME HORIZONS TO LOOK AT. SO JUST SORT OF A COMMENTARY UPFRONT. IT’S MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THESE RSAP GUIDELINES ARE REALLY TO HELP SHORELINE JURISDICTIONS TO DEVELOP THOSE PLANS. THEY WILL BE DEVELOPING THEM — THEY WILL BE USING THE APPROPRIATE GUIDANCE. THEY WILL BE USING FEMA. THEY WILL BE USING\, YOU KNOW\, ANY OTHER\, YOU KNOW\, NOAA AND FISH AND WILDLIFE\, ALL OF THOSE CRITERIA. RIVERS AND HARBORS ACT. ALL OF THAT WILL BE DONE BY THE PEOPLE DEVELOPING THE PLAN. THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE — AND JACLYN\, CORRECT ME IF I’M WRONG. BUT THIS IS THAT GUIDANCE WHICH IS GIVING THEM WHAT ELEMENTS TO LOOK AT AND ENSURING THAT THEY DON’T ONLY LOOK AT FLOODING. THEY LOOK AT OTHER ASPECTS\, NATURE-BASED SHORELINES\, THEY LOOK AT COMMUNITY RESILIENCE. THEY LOOK AT\, YOU KNOW\, ALL OF THAT. SO THAT’S MY UNDERSTANDING. THE COMMENTS I HAD\, THERE’S THREE SPECIFIC ONES. YOU KNOW\, I THINK THIS HAPPENS TO BE AN OPPORTUNE TIME WHEN BCDC WAS PUTTING TOGETHER THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN DOCUMENT OR INITIATIVE. THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNE TIME\, BY HAPPENSTANCE\, THAT S.B. 272 HAPPENED AT THE SAME LEVEL. THIS DEALS WITH SEA LEVEL RISE AND GROUNDWATER AND NOT LOOKING AT THE OTHER ASPECTS OF SHORELINE PLANNING. THE PRIMARY INFLUENCE IS THAT WE ARE SEEING AS A PRACTITIONER OUT IN THE INDUSTRY RIGHT NOW ARE NOT SEA LEVEL RISE. THEY ARE SEA LEVEL RISE INDUCED\, BUT THEY ARE THE STORMWATER FLOODING. SO THOSE ARE THE ISSUES THAT ARE AT THE FOREFRONT. ALL OF THE FLOODING THAT YOU HEAR AFTER A RAINFALL IS HAPPENING BECAUSE OF THE WATER NOT BEING ABLE TO GET OUT. IT’S NOT BECAUSE OF — IF IT ISN’T ONE INCH TODAY\, RIGHT\, SO I THINK THERE IS A LOST OPPORTUNITY HERE FOR BCDC AS A REGIONAL SHORELINE AGENCY\, WHICH OVERSEES THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT TO NOT INCLUDE SOME OF THE OTHER HAZARDS. I WILL SECOND WHAT KRIS MAY SAID. IT’S NOT JUST LONG-TERM INUNDATION WITH SEA LEVEL RISE. IT IS WAVE RELATED. OVERTOPPING THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. AND SO THE GUIDELINES CAN AT LEAST ADDRESS IT AND SAYS\, AS YOU DEVELOP THE PLAN\, YOU SHALL ALSO INCLUDE OTHER HAZARD COMPONENTS SUCH AS URBAN FLOODING. WHEN YOU ADDRESS URBAN FLOODING\, THESE ARE THE METHODS AND THESE ARE THE MECHANISMS YOU SHOULD BE LOOKING AT. THAT’S ONE. THE SECOND ONE — I’LL\, AGAIN\, I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH WHAT BOB SAID\, WHAT GITA DEV SAID\, LOOKING AT 75 YEARS FROM NOW AND NOT LOOKING AT THE DESIGN LIFE WHICH IS 50 YEARS\, FOR MOST OF US AS ENGINEERS\, WE DESIGN SOMETHING TO A 50-YEAR DESIGN LIFE. IN HAVING A 75\, I DON’T THINK THEY ARE GIVING ENOUGH GUIDANCE TO THEM TO START THINKING ABOUT THE REAL LEVEL WHEN IT IS GOING TO BE AT THE END OF THEIR PROJECT LIFE CYCLE ITSELF. AND THEN THE THIRD — LAST COMMENT HERE IS\, GIVEN THE NATURE OF HOW PROJECTIONS HAVE CHANGED AND WILL CHANGE — I CAN GUARANTEE YOU THAT. I THINK I WENT INTO THAT\, WHAT\, 15 YEARS AGO AS WE STARTED DOING TREASURE ISLAND. THAT THESE NUMBERS ARE GOING TO CHANGE. SO WE DECOUPLE THE TIME\, THE YEAR FROM THE PROJECTION. AND I THINK THEY ARE CONSISTENTLY SEEING THAT HAPPEN OVER TIME. SO INSTEAD OF SAYING\, YOU KNOW\, 3.1 FEET BY 2075 OR SOMETHING\, LET’S LOOK AT REAL PLANNING HORIZONS WHICH ARE — GIVE YOU SIMPLE NUMBERS AS TWO\, FOUR\, AND 60. WHENEVER THAT HAPPENS. WE KNOW THAT TWO FEET IS GOING TO OCCUR PROBABLY SOMETIME IN THE 2060 TIME RANGE OR 2070. FOUR FEET MIGHT OCCUR AT THE END OF THE CENTURY AND SOMETHING BEYOND THAT WILL HAPPEN BEYOND 2100. THE GUIDELINES DON’T HAVE TO BE MODIFIED WHEN THE PROJECTIONS ARE DIFFERENT. SO THOSE ARE MY OVERALL COMMENTS. BUT I THINK THIS IS A GREAT — THIS IS A START OF A REGIONAL STRATEGY FOR THE BAY. I THINK IT’S A FANTASTIC MOVE. I DO THINK WE SHOULD NOT LOSE THE OPPORTUNITY AND JUST FOCUS ON\, YOU KNOW\, TWO COMPONENTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE WHEN WE ARE MISSING OUT ON DROUGHT AND WE ARE MISSING OUT ON FLOODING\, WE ARE MISSING OUT ON WAVES\, EARTHQUAKE. WE ARE NOT EVEN LOOKING AT SEISMIC. WE KNOW THAT PROBABILITY OF A SEISMIC EVENT MIGHT BE EVEN HIGHER IN A LOT OF THESE AREAS THAN 2100\, YOU KNOW. \n>>JENN HYMAN: DO YOU THINK I COULD JUMP IN AND ASK A QUESTION AS A FOLLOW-UP? \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: SURE. \n>>JENN HYMAN: SO DILIP\, YOU POINT OUT THAT STORMWATER FLOODING\, WHICH IS RELATED TO SEA LEVEL RISE\, YOU KNOW\, STORMS HAPPEN IN THE WINTER\, WHICH IS ALSO WHEN KING TIDES HAPPEN AS WELL IN JANUARY AND FEBRUARY. SO THE WORST FLOODING THAT WE’RE GOING TO START SEEING RELATED TO SEA LEVEL RISE IS KING TIDES AND STORMS WHEN THEY HAPPEN AT THE SAME TIME. WE’RE ALREADY SEEING THAT\, ESPECIALLY IN SAN RAFAEL. IT’S TYPICAL FOR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS TO HAVE A TYPICAL STORM THAT DEVELOPMENTS HAVE TO MODEL\, AND ONE OF THE NUMBERS I SAW\, JACKIE\, WAS A 10-YEAR STORM. AND I’M CONCERNED THAT TRADITIONALLY THE WAY THIS IS USED BY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS IS GOING TO BE INADEQUATE CONSIDERING\, AM IN ONE\, STORMS ARE PROBABLY GOING TO BE MORE FREQUENT\, COULD BE MORE SEVERE. AND I GUESS ONE OF MY QUESTIONS FOR ALL YOU IS\, ARE YOU AWARE OF PREDICTIONS FOR HOW TO MODEL STORMS IN THE FUTURE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT SEA LEVEL RISE? ARE THERE GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS ON THAT THAT WE CAN REFER TO? \n>>DILIP TRIVEDI: YOU HAVE THE LADY WITH THE HAND UP\, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT. \n>>BOB BATTALIO: SOME OF THE FLOOD CONTROL AGENCIES\, COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AGENCIES AND DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES ARE AWARE OF THE LIKELIHOOD OR THE FORECAST\, INCREASED PRESCRIPTION INTENSITY WITH CLIMATE CHANGE. AND ARE ALREADY PROVIDING GUIDELINES ON HOW MUCH HIGHER IN TERMS OF PRESCRIPTION INTENSITY OR FLOW RATE A 10-YEAR EVENT MIGHT BE IN 2100 OR WHATEVER. AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HAS FUNDED GUIDANCE OR MODELED RUNS THAT PROVIDE THESE NUMBERS. SO I THINK THIS WOULD FIT\, IN MY MIND\, INTO A COASTAL FLOODPLAIN — BECAUSE COASTAL FLOODPLAINS INCLUDES GROUNDWATER. THERE ARE FLOODPLAINS OF MULTIPLE SOURCES. AND THE OTHER COMMENT I THINK I MADE IN THE DRB MEETING WAS TO COMMUNICATE WITH COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AGENCIES AND BRING SOME ENGINEERS INTO THE FOLD EITHER\, YOU KNOW\, THROUGH ECRB OR OTHERWISE. BECAUSE THIS IS BECOMING MORE STANDARD. I’VE BEEN INVOLVED IN A NUMBER OF THOSE STUDIES FROM THE NATURE CONSERVANCY\, AS PART OF THE COASTAL RESILIENCE. AND WE HAVE A PRETTY GOOD IDEA BASED ON WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS HOW — THE DISTRIBUTION OF POTENTIAL PERCENT INCREASES IN PRESCRIPTION AND FLOW RATE ARE. SO IT’S NOT HARD TO PICK A NUMBER WITH SOME JUDGMENT\, IN MY VIEW. I DON’T KNOW IF OTHERS HAVE COMMENTS ON THAT. \n>>DILIP TRIVEDI: YEAH\, IF I COULD ANSWER AT LEAST SOME PART OF THIS BEFORE KRIS HAS DONE WORK ON HOW RAINFALL INTENSITY IS LIKELY GOING TO CHANGE. AGAIN\, KEEPING IN — YOU KNOW\, KEEPING IN SYNC WITH WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS GUIDELINE DOCUMENT IS\, IT’S A GUIDELINE FOR LOCALS\, MAY BE DOING SOMETHING THAT FEMA AND OTHERS HAVE DONE WHICH IS\, GIVE THE LIBERTY TO THE PLAN PREPARERS BUT GIVE THEM DIRECTION THAT RISK-BASED METHOD SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THEIR ASSESSMENTS OF JOINT PROBABILITIES OF RAINFALL AND KING TIDES\, OF DROUGHT CONDITIONS AND WILDFIRES OR THINGS LIKE THAT\, RIGHT? THE BIGGEST — I THINK LIKE I SAID\, THIS IS A GOOD START BUT YOU ONLY START WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT IS 100 FEET WITHIN BCDC’S JURISDICTION\, WHEREAS THE WORK IS GOING TO BE MILES UP INTO THE WATERSHED. RIGHT. I THINK THIS IS A CATALYST\, I WILL SAY. AND I THINK IF YOU GET THIS RIGHT BY ADDRESSING ALL OF CLIMATE CHANGE-RELATED HAZARDS\, THEN I THINK IT WILL BE REALLY A FOUNDATIONAL DOCUMENT FOR OTHERS TO START BUILDING UPON THE EMISSIONS\, THE AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENTS\, ALL OF THOSE HAVE A FOUNDATIONAL DOCUMENT WHICH IS A GUIDANCE DOCUMENT FOR COMMUNITIES IN THE BAY. KRIS. \n>>KRIS MAY: THANKS\, DILIP. I WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY KNOWS — I MEAN\, MOST OF US WORKING ON\, YOU KNOW\, STORMWATER\, WHEN WE’RE LOOKING AT INTENTION\, WE LOOK AT NOAA ATLAS 14 WHICH LOOKS AT HISTORICAL CLIMATE TO DEVELOP THESE I.D.F. CURVES. BUT DEVELOPING THE FUTURE-LOOKING ONES HAS BEEN A BIG DATA GAP. NOAA IS WORKING ON ATLAS 15. YOU KNOW\, THE FUNDING WAS CUT DURING THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION. SO HAVING THOSE COME OUT FOR PEOPLE TO USE IS PROBABLY STILL FIVE YEARS AWAY. SO WE COMPLETED A STUDY WITH LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LAB DOING REGIONAL CLIMATE MODELING FOR THE BAY AREA SO THAT\, YOU KNOW\, YOU CAN USE THIS STUDY TO TAKE THE NOAA ATLAS 14 I.D.F. CURVES AND PROJECT THEM INTO A FUTURE CLIMATE. YOU CAN DO YOUR FIVE-HOUR\, THREE-HOUR\, YOU CAN DO YOUR 10-YEAR\, 24-HOUR. AND IT’S REALLY SCARY BECAUSE THE PRESCRIPTION CHANGES THAT ARE COMING ARE POTENTIALLY\, LIKE\, REALLY BIG. BUT I AGREE WITH DILIP’S COMMENT. IF WE’RE DOING A PLAN TO GET FEMA ACCREDITATION OR WE’RE WORKING WITH THE ARMY CORPS ON A PROJECT\, WE DON’T NEED TO LOOK AT THE SHORELINE DESIGN. THEY WANT US TO LOOK AT THE IMPACT WILL BE ON STORMWATER FLOODING AND DO THAT INTO YOUR DRAINAGE MODEL. SO IT’S NOT JUST THE WAVES. IT’S LOOKING AT ALL OF THOSE SOURCES OF FLOODING. AND THAT EXTREME PRESCRIPTION STUDY IS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE. AND I THINK IT WOULD BE A REALLY GREAT RESOURCE FOR PEOPLE TO USE TO UNDERSTAND HOW OUR LOCAL PRESCRIPTION HERE IS GOING TO CHANGE. BECAUSE I THINK THE FEDERAL STANDARDS ARE STILL A WAYS OFF. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. THANK YOU\, KRIS. RAMIN\, I SEE YOUR HAND’S UP. SURE. \n>>DANA BRECHWALD: KRIS\, THIS IS DANA. I AM NOT ON CAMERA. I AM SITTING NEXT TO JACKIE. THERE YOU GO. I THINK THIS CONVERSATION IS FANTASTIC. WE’RE GOING TO BE INCLUDING A LOT OF LINKS TO DATA LAYERS OR RESOURCES ON HOW TO APPLY DATA WHENEVER POSSIBLE. SO ANYTIME YOU HAVE — LIKE\, FOR EXAMPLE\, BACK WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT EARLIER IN THE CONVERSATION WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT WAVE — WAVE CONDITIONS\, WHAT WE — IF YOU CAN TELL US WHAT WE NEED TO TELL PEOPLE AND WHAT DATA WE CAN POINT THEM TO\, THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES WHAT WE’RE INCLUDING IS NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE THE DATA IS INCONSISTENTLY AVAILABLE AND SO WE DON’T WANT TO REQUIRE SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE CAN’T DO\, BASICALLY. BUT WE DO WANT TO PROVIDE AS MANY RESOURCES. AND IF YOU LOOK ON ONE OF THE SLIDES\, ON SLIDE 32\, WE HAVE A TON OF RECOMMENDED DATA LAYERS THAT WE WOULD LIKE PEOPLE TO ALSO INCLUDE. AND THE MORE WE CAN PROVIDE GUIDANCE AND LINKS TO DATA\, THEN THE MORE LIKELY PEOPLE ARE TO ACTUALLY INCORPORATE ALL OF THAT\, ALL THOSE CONSIDERATIONS. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: GREAT. \n>>JACLYN PERRIN-MARTINEZ: SORRY. ON THAT POINT\, TOO. WE’VE BEEN THINKING A LOT WHAT HAZARDS TO BE INCLUDED AND WHAT’S REQUIRED AND WHAT’S NOT AND SOME OF THE CONVERSATION HAS BEEN\, WHAT’S NECESSARY TO DO AT A\, LIKE\, LANDSCAPE SCALE VERSUS WHAT’S MORE SUITABLE FOR A SHORELINE REACH PROJECT LEVEL DESIGN? AND SEWS THAT — AND SO THAT’S WHY IT HAS MOVED DOWN TO RECOMMENDED. WE ARE NOT SURE IF WAVE RUN-UPS\, WE DON’T HAVE THAT EXPERTISE\, BUT WHO WE TALKED TO IN OUR ADVISORY GROUP\, THIS IS MORE SUITABLE TO A DIFFERENT SCALE. SO EVEN LETTING US KNOW\, MAYBE THERE’S RECOMMENDATION — REQUIREMENTS AT THAT SCALE BUT\, AGAIN\, THAT KIND OF COMES BACK TO THIS QUESTION\, HOW FAR DO WE REQUIRE PROJECTS TO GO? SO REALLY GOOD TOPIC AND WE’RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE RIGHT WAY TO HAVE AN OVERARCHING ANALYSIS VERSUS MORE WHAT’S APPROPRIATE. \n>>DILIP TRIVEDI: WHO IS THE CONSULTANT? THE WORK THEY HAVE DONE WITH THE ADAPTATION ATLAS WILL ANSWER A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS THAT — SO THEY LOOKED AT THE LANDSCAPE SCALE. \n>>DANA BRECHWALD: THEY ARE OUR DATA AND MAPPING CONSULTANTS SO THEY ARE PLAYING A HUGE ROLE IN ENSURING WE’RE UTILIZING THE BEST DATA THAT THEY KNOW. \n>>RAMIN GOLESORKHI: I WILL BE 91 BY 2050 OR PROBABLY DEAD FOR A FEW YEARS\, BUT WITH RESPECT TO ALL OF THESE MODELS THAT SAYS IF IT RISES — IF IT RISES X NUMBER OF FEET IT’S GOING TO BE OUT THERE\, DOES THAT MEAN — I DON’T MEAN TO SOUND LIKE A LAND GRAB BUT THAT MEAN YOUR BCDC JURISDICTION IS INCREASING NOW? AND IF THAT IS THE CASE\, THEN YOU HAVE A MUCH GREATER ROLE TO PLAY. IT SEEMS TO ME. AND EVERYBODY’S LOOKING — PEOPLE ARE ASKING ME\, BECAUSE I AM ON THE BOARD\, WHAT IS BCDC’S REQUIREMENT FOR SEA LEVEL RISE? AND I THINK YOU ARE IN A VERY UNIQUE POSITION TO TAKE THAT LEADERSHIP ROLE AND DRIVE THE BUS\, SO TO SPEAK. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: THANK YOU. \n>>DILIP TRIVEDI: AS WE UNDERSTAND IT\, IT’S PEGGED\, TOO. I MEAN\, HIGH TIDE. SO IF HIGH TIDE CHANGES — WHEN IT CHANGES\, NOT IF — WHEN IT CHANGES THE JURISDICTION ROLLS UP. WHEN MARSHES EXPAND INWARD\, JURISDICTIONS ROLL UP. FIVE FEET ABOVE\, YOU KNOW\, ABOVE SEA LEVEL. SO\, YES\, IT DOES CONTINUE GROWING. \n>>JENN HYMAN: THAT IS CORRECT. I HAVE TRIED TO — MEAN HIGH WATER RIGHT NOW IS DETERMINED BY NOAA ON AN EPIC-BY-EPIC BASIS. SO OUR MEAN HIGH WATER WILL JUMP IN A FEW YEARS WHEN NOAA REDOES THE STATISTICS ON TIDES. AND THAT’S WHEN OUR JURISDICTION WILL CHANGE. BUT IT IS — IT WILL MOVE WITH SEA LEVEL RISE. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: I’M SORRY. DOES THAT MEAN YOU POTENTIALLY ARE CAPTURING WAY MORE INFRASTRUCTURE? LIKE\, DRAINAGE AND ALL OF THAT\, THAT RIGHT NOW ISN’T IN JURISDICTION BUT — \n>>JENN HYMAN: WELL\, IT WILL MOVE UP VERY SLOWLY. SO — SO IN 2050 IN THEORY WHEN SEA LEVEL RISE IS CLOSE TO A FOOT\, YOU KNOW\, IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE SLOPE OF THE SHORELINE. IF IT’S STEEP IT WON’T CHANGE THAT MUCH. \n>>DILIP TRIVEDI: IT HAS BEEN A PARTICULARLY CHALLENGING ISSUE WHEN IT COMES TO MARSH RESTORATION\, BAYLANDS. THAT HAS MOVED IT HUNDREDS OF FEET\, THOUSANDS OF FEET IN WHEN WE ARE DOING\, YOU KNOW\, PROJECTS LIKE SOUTH BASALT PONDS AND NORTH BASALT PONDS. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU\, DILIP. I HAVE ONE QUESTION. THERE WAS SOME TALK ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AREAS AND I THINK HOUSING. IS THERE A DEFINITION — IS THERE GOING TO BE A DEFINITION OR IS THERE A DEFINITION THAT’S ALREADY OUT THERE THAT\, YOU KNOW\, LETS YOU — IF YOU’RE GOING TO USE A G.I.S. MAP OR SOMETHING\, KIND OF MAP THAT WITH SOME SORT OF\, YOU KNOW\, DEFENSIBLE — YEAH\, DEFINITION? \n>>JACLYN PERRIN-MARTINEZ: YEAH\, I COULD RESPOND TO THAT. WE ARE REALLY KIND OF ACTIVELY WORKING ON THAT RIGHT NOW. WE HAVE — OUR SENIOR MANAGER FOR OUR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE PROGRAM IS HELPING US TO — THERE ARE DEFINITIONS THAT EXIST. SO THERE’S DEFINITIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE\, AND THERE’S ALSO DEFINITIONS — THEN\, FOR THE STRATEGIC REGIONAL PRIORITY\, ONE THING WE’RE LOOKING AT IS CONTAMINATION WITHIN — IN OR NEAR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES AS A PRIORITY TO MAKE SURE THOSE GET LOOKED AT AND REALLY INCORPORATE INTO PLANNING. AND SO WE’VE BEEN TALKING TO THE WATER BOARD STAFF ABOUT HOW THEY LOOK AT ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES. THEY USE SOME CAL ENVIRON SCREENS. WE LOOK HOW THAT CAN BE INCLUDED? WE HEARD JURISDICTIONS NEED TO DEFINE THEM FOR THEMSELVES. THERE IS LOTS OF DIFFERING OPINION. WE ARE NOT EXACTLY SURE THE APPROACH. WE SET OUT A DEFINITION. AGAIN\, IF IN OUR NEXT VERSION WE NEED TO ALLOW FLEXIBILITY BEYOND THAT\, MAYBE WE CAN HAVE A — AGAIN\, I’M CAUTIOUS NEED TO USE THE WORD “STANDARD” BUT HAVE A STARTING POINT AND MAYBE HAVE SOME DEVIATION FROM IT. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. THANK YOU. MR. RYAN. PATRICK\, SORRY. EVERYBODY GOES BY FIRST NAMES HERE. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? \n>>PATRICK RYAN: I DO. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. \n>>PATRICK RYAN: I LIKE JIM’S SUGGESTION OF SORT OF A TEMPLATE OR AN EXAMPLE PLAN BECAUSE I THINK THAT WOULD REALLY — YOU WANT TO SET THE JURISDICTIONS UP FOR SUCCESS IN THIS PROCESS. I THINK THAT WOULD HELP A LOT IN DOING IT. IF YOU FIND THAT YOU DON’T HAVE THE RESOURCES TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT\, OR EVEN IF YOU DO\, ANOTHER THING YOU MIGHT DO TO SORT OF BRING THE THING TO LIFE A LITTLE BIT WOULD BE TO WORK SOME EXAMPLES INTO THE ACTUAL TEXT. THERE’S A LOT OF JARGON AND A LOT OF ABSTRACT THOUGHTS BY NECESSITY. IT’S ALL VERY GOOD STUFF. YOU GUYS HAVE DONE A VERY GOOD JOB. BUT YOU DO START TO TRY TO — YOU TRY TO — YOU START TO LOSE TRACK OF WHAT’S ACTUALLY MEANT. SO\, FOR EXAMPLE\, IN SECTION A-7\, WHICH IS ON PAGE 62\, YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT UPZONING\, AND THE WHOLE PARAGRAPH THERE IS VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT HOUSING. I’M LEFT WONDERING\, DO THEY REALLY JUST MEAN HOUSING OR COULD IT BE A LOT OF OTHERS? SO IF YOU WERE TO WORK INTO THAT PARAGRAPH\, YOU KNOW\, FOR EXAMPLE\, IN FOSTER CITY\, UPZONING MIGHT MEAN THIS\, OR IN SAN FRANCISCO\, MAYBE IT’S NOT A VIABLE OPTION. THOSE SORT OF THINGS I THINK WOULD HELP TO BRING THE THING TO LIFE A LITTLE BIT. WHEN YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT CATEGORIES AND ASSETS\, THERE’S A TABLE ON PAGE 55 WERE YOU LIST THINGS AND SOME OF THEM ARE VERY SPECIFIC WHEN WE’ TALKING — WHEN WE’RE TALKING ABOUT THE FLOOD CONTROL AND INFRASTRUCTURE. IT’S LEVEES\, PUMPS\, DRAINS\, CULVERTS\, THAT SORT OF THING. IN SOME OTHER AREAS IT SEEMS A LOT LESS SPECIFIC. MAYBE THAT’S INTENTIONAL. BUT I’M TAKING A WALK DOWN THE SAN FRANCISCO WATERFRONT IN MY MIND AND I’M — YOU KNOW\, I’M THINKING ABOUT COMMERCIAL\, OFFICE\, RESTAURANT\, MUSEUM\, TOURISM. AND I CAN’T REALLY FIGURE OUT WHERE THOSE WOULD BE IN THE TABLE OR WHETHER THEY’RE REQUIRED OR NOT REQUIRED. SO\, YOU KNOW\, THERE IS A SEAPORT WHICH MAYBE COULD COVER A LOT OF THAT BUT DOESN’T SEEM LIKE IT’S WHAT’S INTENDED. THERE’S JOB SPACES WHICH IS REQUIRED. THERE’S ALSO WATER-ORIENTED RECREATION WHICH IS NOT REQUIRED. MARINAS\, ARE THEY REQUIRED? YOU MAY CONSIDER MORE SPECIFICITY IN THAT TABLE AND WHAT’S REQUIRED AND WHAT’S NOT REQUIRED. AND THEN\, I GUESS\, AS I WAS READING THROUGH IT\, I KEPT WANTING TO HAVE A MAP. AND YOU’VE MENTIONED THERE’S SOME MAPPING CONSULTANTS AND THERE’S A LOT OF G.I.S. AROUND. I GUESS I’M WONDERING\, JUST STARTING WITH THE BASIC JURISDICTIONS\, IS THERE A MAP THAT OVERLAYS THE BCDC JURISDICTION WITH THE CITIES AND COUNTIES? AND IF THAT EXISTS\, SHOULD THAT BE HERE? BECAUSE INEVITABLY\, SINCE THE BURDEN HERE IS ON THE INDIVIDUAL JURISDICTIONS\, THERE’S GOING TO BE GAPS BETWEEN THEM\, IT SEEMS LIKE. AND SO ONE\, SEEMS LIKE BCDC’S LOGICAL — A LOGICAL ROLE FOR BCDC TO MAKE SURE THOSE GAPS ARE FILLED\, BASICALLY. BUT THEN\, YOU KNOW\, MORE THAN JUST THE JURISDICTIONS\, I’M CURIOUS. I THINK ABOUT DRIVING DOWN HIGHWAY 80 TOWARDS THE BAY BRIDGE GOING THROUGH EMERYVILLE COMING AROUND THE CURVE. WETLANDS ON THE RIGHT. I’M ON THE HIGHWAY. AND I HAVE HOUSING AND COMMERCIAL ON THE LEFT. SO CALTRANS I THINK IS NOT A JURISDICTION THE WAY THAT EVERYTHING IS WRITTEN. SO NOT REQUIRED TO PARTICIPATE\, UNCLEAR IF THEY CAN BE ELIGIBLE FOR STATE FUNDING OR NOT BECAUSE THEY’RE NORTH PART OF IT. BUT THE JURISDICTION THAT’S THERE\, THE CITY OR COUNTY\, WHETHER IT’S EMERYVILLE OR WHOEVER IT IS\, THAT’S A BIG PART OF THEIR PLAN IS PROBABLY. SO I THINK IT DOESN’T SEEM LIKE BCDC SHOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH AND MAP EVERY HOSPITAL\, FOR EXAMPLE. THAT SHOULD BE THE LOCAL JURISDICTION. BUT SOME OF THESE VERY REGIONAL\, YOU KNOW\, ASSETS\, IT SEEMS LIKE THEY MIGHT BE IDENTIFIED AND BE ON A MAP JUST TO GET PEOPLE ALL HEADING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: THANK YOU. \n>>BOB BATTALIO: CAN I JUMP IN ON THAT? \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: SURE. \n>>BOB BATTALIO: WE’VE SEEN THAT A LOT. FOR EXAMPLE\, OUT AT OCEAN BEACH\, THE BIG — IN SAN FRANCISCO\, THE BIG ISSUE IS THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES. SO THE INFRASTRUCTURE ORGANIZATION THAT HAS ASSETS CLOSEST TO THE SHORE\, WHETHER IT’S A ROAD OR RAILROAD OR WASTEWATER\, WHATEVER\, TEND TO BE KIND OF DRAGGED IN TO SHORE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY. AND SO THOSE ASSETS HAVE A LOT OF DENSITY. LIKE INERTIA IN TERMS OF PLANNING SO I THINK THAT’S A GREAT COMMENT THAT WAS MADE. SOMETHING WE’VE SEEN. AND WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT YOU WILL START SEEING IT EVERYWHERE. \n>>DANA BRECHWALD: WE’VE BEEN WORKING WITH LARGE WASTEWATER DISTRICTS. THEY ARE ALL INTERESTED. I CAN’T SPEAK FOR ALL OF THEM. BUT WE ARE — SINCE THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO DO A PLAN BUT THEY ARE SO CRITICAL BECAUSE THEY OWN ASSETS AND IN MANY CASES THEY’RE LANDOWNERS ALONG THE SHORELINE AS WELL\, I THINK THERE’S MUTUAL INTEREST. THERE’S INTEREST IN THE CITIES ENGAGING THEM IN AN EFFECTIVE WAY AND IN A WAY THAT ISN’T AS AD HOC IN AN ORGANIZED WAY. THEY’RE ALSO INTERESTED IN ENSURING THAT THE PLANNING THAT THEY’RE DOING IS ALIGNING WITH THE LOCAL JURISDICTIONS SO WE HAVEN’T FIGURED OUT EXACTLY HOW WE’RE GOING TO MAKE THAT MATCH YET. WE’RE REALLY AWARE OF IT AND TRYING TO\, YOU KNOW\, FIGURE OUT HOW TO EASE THAT CONNECTION. AND ALSO RECOGNIZING THERE ARE LOTS OF THINGS ALONG THE SHORELINE THAT LOCAL JURISDICTIONS MAY NOT HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER BECAUSE THEY’RE OWNED BY ANOTHER LANDOWNER\, A LARGE LANDOWNER. AND SO HOPING THAT — HOPING THAT PEOPLE CAN GET\, YOU KNOW\, ENGAGEMENT AND BUY-IN\, BUT IF NOT POSSIBLE\, RECOGNIZING THAT AS LONG AS PEOPLE HAVE SHOWN THEY’VE TRIED TO ENGAGE — LIKE\, WE’RE NOT GOING TO DENY A PLAN BECAUSE EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK — OR THE RAILROADS. THE RAILROADS ARE A BETTER EXAMPLE BECAUSE THEY DON’T PARTICIPATE. YEAH\, IT’S AN EXCELLENT POINT. I THINK WE’RE GOING TO BE CONTINUE WORKING ON IT OVER TIME AND LEARN HOW THE ADAPTATION PLANNING IS ACTUALLY GOING ONCE THE GUIDELINES ARE COMPLETED. LIKE YOU SAID\, THIS IS SO ITERATIVE. WE ARE GOING TO BE LEARNING HOW TO DO THESE PLANS FOR THE NEXT 50 YEARS. I WON’T BE AROUND THEN\, BUT — \n>>BOB BATTALIO: AND WHAT YOU’RE DOING IS REALLY IMPORTANT. I THINK EVERYONE IS RECOGNIZING THAT. GOING BACK TO THE LARGE INFRASTRUCTURE AND WASTEWATER IN PARTICULAR\, THE WASTEWATER GROUPS — AND THEY’RE KIND OF LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. SOON AS THEY DECIDE THEY WANT TO UPGRADE\, THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH A PERMITTING PROCESS. AND THE WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD IS FREQUENTLY REQUIRING AND THE COASTAL COMMISSION AS WELL AS ON THE PACIFIC COAST IS REQUIRING CONSIDERATION OF FUTURE CONDITIONS AND WHETHER OR NOT IT’S SUSTAINABLE OR HOVER YOU WANT TO PUT IT AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL\, ACTUALLY OF PERMITTING. SO THERE ARE SOME — THESE FACILITIES DO HAVE SOME SEA LEVEL RISE ADAPTATION PLANS\, BUT IT’S HARD FOR THEM TO DO IT ON THEIR OWN\, I THINK\, GIVEN THEIR INERTIA\, MASS\, EVERYTHING ELSE. SO I THINK JOINT PLANNING WILL — GOING BACK TO YOUR GUIDELINES\, IT MAY BE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS IDENTIFIED AS A SPECIAL STUDY OR A DATA GAP IN THE LONG TERM. THE RAILWAYS AND ROADS CROSSINGS OF THE BAY DO PROVIDE A FLOOD PATHWAY. AND SO THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE INVOLVED. YOU COULD ADDRESS IT WITHOUT SOLVING IT\, BUT PERHAPS HAVING A SPECIAL STUDY\, YOU KNOW\, IN YOUR ADAPTIVE FRAMEWORK IS WHAT I’VE SEEN HAPPEN OR START TO HAPPEN ANYWAY. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. THANK YOU\, BOB. I MAYBE JUST ADD I THINK IT’S IN THEIR BEST INTEREST TO USE THIS AS KIND OF THE CATALYST. I AGREE. \n>>BOB BATTALIO: AND IN CALIFORNIA\, THEY REALLY HAVE TO. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: YEAH. \n>>BOB BATTALIO: I MEAN\, IT’S NOT EASY FOR ANYONE\, BUT I THINK — YES\, I THINK WILL WORK TOGETHER ON IT. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: GREAT. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS HERE BY THE BOARD? \n>>BOB BATTALIO: I HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT. YOU KNOW\, I THINK I MENTIONED THIS IN THE D.R.B. MEETING\, BUT I THINK ONE OF THE BIGGEST CHALLENGES IS DEALING WITH EXISTING DEVELOPMENT. AND I THINK YOU HAVE SOME GOOD LANGUAGE IN THE DRAFT. I HAVEN’T STUDIED IT IN DETAIL\, BUT I NOTICE THE CHANGES IN ZONING AND\, YOU KNOW\, KIND OF THE ABILITY TO ADAPT LAND USE AT THE — TO ACCOMMODATE OR OTHERWISE ADAPT TO SEA LEVEL. BUT I THINK THAT EXISTING DEVELOPMENT IS KIND OF A TOUGH ONE BECAUSE UNTIL SOMEBODY DECIDES THEY NEED A PERMIT OR THEY TRY TO DO — I MEAN\, WHAT’S THE HOOK? HOW DO THEY DO IT? ESPECIALLY SOME PEOPLE\, ENTITIES ARE IN VERY DIFFICULT SITUATIONS. THIS IS SOMETHING THEY DIDN’T PLAN FOR\, SO I THINK THAT’S PROBABLY GOING TO BE THE HARDEST PIECE OF THIS. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: THANK YOU\, BOB. I SEE JIM WITH HIS HAND UP. \n>>V. CHAIR\, JAMES FRENCH: I WAS JUST GOING TO SUGGEST — THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF A TRANSITIONAL COMMENT. I THINK THERE IS A LOT OF PUBLIC UNCERTAINTY ABOUT WHAT SEA LEVEL RISE MEANS TO ME OR WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO MY LOCALE OR WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO THE BAY TRAIL THAT I RIDE MY BIKE ON? AND YOU GUYS HAVE JUST THIS AWESOME TOOL IN THE BAY SHORELINE FLOOD EXPLORER\, I THINK IT’S CALLED\, MAYBE. AND IF YOU CAN GET THAT OUT TO THE PUBLIC AND IF PEOPLE START TO SEE\, HEY\, THIS IS WHAT THE NUMBERS ARE TALKING ABOUT AND KIND OF WHAT DILIP WAS TALKING ABOUT\, I GUESS\, WHERE YOU TIE THE NUMBER OF FEET INTO WHAT THE EFFECTS ARE RATHER THAN A SPECIFIC YEAR\, BECAUSE YOU CAN ALWAYS ARGUE\, IS TWO FEET GOING TO HAPPEN 2050\, 2075\, 2080? BUT PEOPLE START TO SEE\, HEY\, THERE ARE REAL NUMBERS. I CAN THEN IMAGINE — AND THERE IS NOT A HUGE LEVEL OF UNCERTAINTY OF WHAT 24 INCHES\, HOW THAT EFFECTS THE BAY. THERE’S A LOT OF UNCERTAINTY EXACTLY WHAT YEAR IT WILL HAPPEN. WHETHER IT’S — THERE’S SOME UNCERTAINTY. BUT 24 INCHES IS PRETTY EASY TO DO G.I.S. AND YOU GUYS HAVE THAT REALLY AWESOME TOOL. IF YOU GET IT INTO NEWSPAPERS AND HAVE PUBLIC PEOPLE GO ON THEIR COMPUTERS AND CLICK THAT BUTTON AND PLAY WITH IT\, THAT COULD BE SOMETHING PEOPLE CAN TALK ABOUT OVER THE WATERCOOLER OR ZOOM MEETINGS. PEOPLE DON’T GO TO WATERCOOLERS BECAUSE EVERYBODY IS WORKING FROM HOME. WHEREVER THAT HAPPENS\, I THINK IF YOU CAN GET SEA LEVEL RISE TO BE PART OF\, NOT THIS VAGUE POLITICAL QUESTION\, IS SEA LEVEL RISE HAPPENING OR NOT\, BUT START MAKING IT CONCRETE AND SAY\, THIS IS WHAT 24 INCHES MEAN. THIS IS WHAT ONE FOOT MEANS. THIS IS WHAT THREE FEET MEANS. YOU NEED TO SELL IT SO PEOPLE VISCERALLY CARE ABOUT WHAT’S GOING ON HERE. WE HAVE ALL KINDS OF AWESOME INFORMATION THAT’S REALLY HARD FOR MOST PEOPLE TO WADE THROUGH ALL THAT BUT THE MAP YOU HAVE WILL CONNECT WITH PEOPLE’S VISCERA AND STARTS TO MEAN SOMETHING. AND THEN\, THEY CAN START TO SAY\, OH\, I SHOULD PAY ATTENTION TO THIS\, THEN\, AND THEY CAN START READING THE TEXT THAT TAKES MORE EFFORT. \n>>DILIP TRIVEDI: AS A FOOTNOTE THAT\, LIKE I KEEP SAYING\, THERE’S BEEN SO MUCH EMPHASIS ON SEA LEVEL RISE\, PLANNING ITSELF OVER THE PAST 20 YEARS AND WE PAID LESS ATTENTION TO THE HAZARDS THAT WE ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH BEFORE SEA LEVEL RISE. AND WE ARE DEALING WITH THOSE RIGHT NOW ON AN ANNUAL BASIS EVERY TIME WE HAVE AN ATMOSPHERIC RIVER EVENT\, EVERY TIME WE HAVE A SUPER STRONG SOUTH WIND. AND SO THOSE ARE THE ISSUES THAT ARE RESULTING IN PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR ABATEMENTS AND SHORELINES AND SEA WALLS. IT IS NOT SEA LEVEL RISE. IT IS ALL OF THOSE NEW CULVERTS AND NEW PUMP STATIONS BECAUSE OF URBAN FLOODING THAT IS RESULTING IN THE PROJECT PERMITS THAT ARE COMING IN. SO I THINK A LITTLE MORE — AND\, AGAIN\, IT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE BCDC. I THINK OTHERS HAVE DONE IT. FINDING THE RIGHT — AND I THINK WE AS A BOARD CAN LIKELY HELP YOU WITH FINDING THE RIGHT DATA SOURCES FOR\, YOU KNOW — WAVE HEIGHTS HAVE INCREASED OR THE FREQUENCY OF WHAT WE CALL 25 YEARS HAS NOW CHANGED TO 10 YEARS. THOSE ARE RESULTING IN ISSUES. THERE ARE SOME SOURCES OF INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE CAN PROBABLY — INFORMATION THAT WE CAN PROBABLY HELP YOU WITH PUTTING INTO — I DON’T KNOW WHAT FORMAT. I DON’T KNOW WHERE WE ARE WITH THE BAY ADAPT. IS THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD CLOSED? IS IT GOING TO BE FINALIZED AND ORDERED BY THE COMMISSION OR IS THIS — YOU KNOW. \n>>DANA BRECHWALD: WE HAVE A TIMELINE WE CAN SHARE TO WRAP UP. AND I WILL GIVE THE BAY ADAPT SUMMIT ON AUGUST 8 WHICH WILL BE AT THE EXPLORATORIUM AND HUGE SHOUT-OUT TO KRIS MAY WHO IS ONE OF OUR AWARDEES AND SHE WILL BE HONORED AT THAT EVENT. SO THAT IS ONE WAY IN WHICH WE CAN ENGAGE WITH REALLY A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE FROM THE PUBLIC AND ELECTED OFFICIALS. WE HAVE C.B.O.’S COMING AND PROFESSIONALS LIKE KRIS AND ALL OF YOU. SO THAT’S ONE WAY WE CAN START TO MAKE THAT CONNECTION. AND WE’LL HAVE PRESS THERE AS WELL. \n>>BOB BATTALIO: I JUST WANT TO JUMP IN. USING SEA LEVEL RISE AS A THRESHOLD IN THE ADAPTATION PLAN\, THE AMOUNT OF SEA LEVEL RISE OR THE SEA LEVEL I THINK IS A GOOD ONE. IT’S SOMETHING THAT RECENTLY PACIFICA USES THAT APPROACH. CITY OF PACIFICA HAS THAT NOW\, FOR EXAMPLE. AND I THINK\, AGAIN\, GOING BACK TO MY COMMENT ABOUT THE ELEVATOR DESIGNED FOR THREE TO SIX AND IF YOU DESIGN FOR LESS THAN SIX FEET OF SEA LEVEL RISE\, HAVE AN ADAPTATION PLAN TO DEAL WITH THAT HIGHER AMOUNT. I THINK GOING BACK TO YOUR NEAR-TERM PLANNING\, I THINK YOU MIGHT WANT TO SPLIT THAT BETWEEN SOMETHING OF GREATER RISK TOLERANCE LIKE A TRAIL OR SOMETHING AND WHAT YOU HAVE THERE SEEMS ONE FOOT OF SEA LEVEL RISE LOOKS PRETTY REASONABLE OR EVEN LESS\, YOU KNOW\, DEPENDING. BUT THEN\, WHEN YOU GET INTO A PROJECT THAT COSTS MORE\, IS MORE SENSITIVE OR WHATEVER\, HAS ANY KIND OF LIFE SAFETY COMPONENT\, THEN\, YOU MIGHT WANT TO GO WITH TWO FEET\, FOR EXAMPLE\, AT LEAST\, OR THREE IF IT’S GOING TO GO OUT TO 2070. I THINK IT’S PROBABLY GOOD TO GET AHEAD OF THE CURVE A LITTLE BIT. AGAIN\, THOUGH\, THIS COMES DOWN TO RISK TOLERANCE AND\, YOU KNOW\, HOW MUCH FAITH YOU HAVE IN THE MEDIAN AND IT’S A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE\, AND I THINK IT’S ALSO A MATTER OF RESPONSIBILITY OR ACCOUNTABILITY. SO A LOT OF OUR DEVELOPMENT IS BASED ON\, YOU KNOW\, SHORTER TERM THINKING\, PERHAPS. SO I THINK THAT’S WHY THE STATE IN THE PAST HAS BEEN RISK-AVERSE\, KNOWING YOU DON’T WANT TO BE AT THE MEDIAN BECAUSE THE IMPLICATION OF A ROLL OF THE DICE OR 50/50 IS YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE SOME PROBLEMS. THAT’S MY PERSPECTIVE ON WHY THIS STATE HAS BEEN A LITTLE MORE CONSERVATIVE IN THE SENSE OF BEING RISK-AVERSE. I DIDN’T MEAN TO SAY CONSERVATIVE. I THINK THAT’S A BAD WORD. I’M NOT SURE. BUT ANYWAY\, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: WELL\, AND MAYBE I’LL — I WANT TO JUST COMMENT ON THAT. PUBLIC FUNDS\, CITIES\, RESOURCES ARE LIMITED. YOU KNOW\, YOU’RE TRYING TO DO THE BEST YOU CAN WITH WHAT YOU GOT. AND SO I AGREE. IF YOU CAN BUILD MORE RESILIENCE INTO YOUR SYSTEM\, BY ALL MEANS YOU SHOULD BE DOING IT. BUT YOU ALSO HAVE THIS OTHER\, YOU KNOW\, CURVE OF HOW MUCH MONEY IS AVAILABLE OR WHAT RESOURCES ARE AVAILABLE. AND THAT KIND OF IS THE COUNTERPOINT TO THE RISK. SO — \n>>BOB BATTALIO: NO\, I AGREE. A DOLLAR TODAY IS WORTH MORE THAN A DOLLAR TOMORROW. AND THESE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS THAT I THINK\, YEAH\, ARE HARD TO DECIDE HERE. GOING BACK TO SOMETHING THAT DILIP SAID. I THINK THE ECRB COULD HELP WITH SOME OF THE PHYSICAL PARAMETERS AND THE DATA SOURCES. I AM A LITTLE CONCERNED IF THAT’S JUST THE JUMP BALL WITH A BUNCH OF PEOPLE IN PUBLIC MEETINGS. I THINK THE BOARD DOES HAVE SOME EXPERTISE AND IT MIGHT BE USEFUL. YOU KNOW. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO BE PERMITTED BY BCDC\, THE BOARD WILL HAVE INPUT ON IT. BUT\, YEAH\, I’M ALL FOR US BEING ABLE TO SHARE OUR EXPERTISE AND KNOWLEDGE UPFRONT IN THE GUIDANCE BUT IN THE END\, IT WILL BE THE BOARD\, I THINK\, THAT HELPS SAY YEA OR NAY ON A PERMIT. IS THIS A SAFE DESIGN? IS THIS A REASONABLE DESIGN? OR IS IT — \n>>BOB BATTALIO: YEAH\, I THINK YOU’RE RIGHT. FOR THE BIGGER ONES ON NEW BAY FILL. GOING BACK TO THE FOSTER CITY PROJECT\, WE DIDN’T REVIEW THAT BECAUSE IT WAS — I DON’T THINK THE ECRB REVIEWED THAT\, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY\, BECAUSE IT WAS ON OLD BAY FILL. IT WASN’T PART — IT DIDN’T FALL INTO THE ECRB PURVIEW. THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DID LOOK AT IT. THAT WASN’T REALLY — THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DOESN’T HAVE THE SAME ENGINEERING — THEY WEREN’T PROVIDING ENGINEERING COMMENTS\, REALLY. SO I THINK THERE IS A GAP HERE. WE’RE TALKING ABOUT THE FLOODPLAIN\, NOT NEW FILL INTO THE BAY\, NECESSARILY. YEP. THANKS. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. WELL\, SEEING AS HOW I HAVE A 4:00 DEADLINE WITH MY PARKING\, I THINK WE’VE ASKED — WE’VE KIND OF ASKED AND MADE OUR COMMENTS. ONE OF THE NOTES HERE — ONE OF THE QUESTIONS IS WHETHER A FOLLOW-UP IS CALLED FOR. DANA\, JACKIE\, I KIND OF THINK IT IS. BUT I’LL LEAVE IT TO YOU AND JENN TO\, YOU KNOW\, DECIDE. I THINK THERE’S BEEN A LOT OF GREAT INPUT\, A LOT OF GREAT QUESTIONS HERE TODAY. AND\, YEAH\, I’M EXCITED TO SEE THE NEXT DRAFT. WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHEN IT’S\, YOU KNOW\, GOING TO BE IN A STATE THAT’S SHAREABLE WITH OTHER COLLEAGUES WHO MAY HAVE MORE INPUT. \n>>DILIP TRIVEDI: WE ARE NOT APPROVING THIS\, RIGHT? I DON’T SEE A MOTION — THERE’S NO MOTION OR ANYTHING. IT’S AN INFORMATIONAL — \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: YES. \n>>DILIP TRIVEDI: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: BUT I THINK THE MORE FOLKS IN THE ENGINEERING COMMUNITY WHO KNOW ABOUT WHAT’S HAPPENING AND WHAT’S GOING ON HERE THE BETTER. SO I THINK THERE WAS A NOTE TO NOT SHARE THE RSAP GUIDELINES NOW\, BUT WHAT MY COMMENT WAS ABOUT WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHEN THAT IS — WHEN IT IS SHAREABLE\, WHEN IT’S IN A STATE TO BE SHAREABLE. I GOT COLLEAGUES WHO THEY KNOW WE’RE — I’M ON THE BOARD HERE. THEY WANT — THEY WANT SOME OF THAT INFORMATION AS WELL. \n>>DILIP TRIVEDI: I’M HOPING BEFORE THE FINAL DRAFT THAT WE HAVE A JOINT — I DON’T KNOW IF IT’S DOABLE. BUT A JOINT ECRB AND D.C.B. THERE IS A HEAVY COMPONENT THAT’S BEING LOOKED AT WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF THE ENGINEERING PRACTITIONERS AND WE ARE LOOKING AT IT WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF THE PLANNERS AND THE COMMUNITY PLANNERS AND THE LANDSCAPE\, YOU KNOW\, ARCHITECTS. SO SOMETIMES MAYBE THAT’S A DISCUSSION INTERNALLY THAT WE SHOULD HAVE WITH YOU\, JENN\, TO SEE IF IT’S — IF IT’S POSSIBLE\, IF IT’S A GOOD IDEA. I’M THINKING ABOUT HOW THE PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO\, OUR DESIGN COMMITTEE DOES IT WITH THE D.R.B. FOR CERTAIN ASPECTS\, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE GOOD? AND SECONDLY\, I’M HOPING WITH THE NEW RELEASE OF THE 2024 THAT I THINK THERE WILL HAVE TO BE CHANGES WITH THE WAY WE’RE LOOKING AT PROJECTS IN THE FUTURE. INTERNALLY\, MAYBE WE HAVE AN ECRB MEETING DEDICATED TO WHAT ARE THE NEW STANDARDS THAT WE WOULD BE USING FOR PERMIT REVIEW? RIGHT NOW\, IT’S VERY SIMPLE. MID CENTURY\, YOU KNOW\, MID CENTURY\, ADAPTABLE TO END OF CENTURY\, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THERE IS A BETTER WAY TO DO IT. ADAPTABLE TO THE END OF THE CENTURY\, SO IT’S AN INTERNAL THING. I’D LIKE TO BRING IT UP TO JENN. AND THE BOARD. \n>>KRIS MAY: YEAH. THIS IS KRIS. I MEAN\, I WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT AS WELL. IT’S GOING BACK TO BOB’S COMMENT NEAR THE BEGINNING. I THINK IT’S A MISSED OPPORTUNITY TO NOT HARNESS THE BRAIN TRUST OF THIS ECRB AND DIALOGUE TO SUPPORT THIS PLAN BEFORE IT GOES OUT TO THE BROADER ENGINEERING COMMUNITY AND TO ALLOW US TO BE ABLE TO TALK AND DO SOME INPUT TOGETHER. AND I DON’T KNOW HOW THAT COULD HAPPEN BUT I FEEL LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT AT SOME PREVIOUS MEETINGS THAT IT WOULD BE GREAT TO SEE HOW WE CAN COMMENT ON THINGS RELATED TO SEA LEVEL RISE AND THINGS RELATED TO\, LIKE\, THE FOSTER CITY PROJECT AND THIS PLAN. SO IF THERE’S A WAY TO MAKE THAT KIND OF DIALOGUE HAPPEN\, I THINK IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. THANK YOU\, KRIS. SO I SEE NODDING HEADS\, JACKIE AND DANA. \n>>JACLYN PERRIN-MARTINEZ: I’M HAPPY TO SHARE WHAT OUR NEXT STEPS ARE AND MAYBE THAT CAN HELP SUPPORT WHAT THE NEXT STEPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF YOUR GROUP MIGHT BE. WE HAVE A TIMELINE GRAPH UP HERE. WE HAVE FINISHED DRAFT ONE. SO YOU HAVE ALL SEEN THAT. THE OTHER THING WE DIDN’T KIND OF EXPLICITLY NOTE IN THIS MEETING BUT SOME MAY BE AWARE. WE HAVE AN ADVISORY GROUP WHO HAS BEEN SUPPORTING THIS PROJECT FROM THE BEGINNING. IT’S ABOUT 40-PLUS FOLKS. A DIVERSE RANGE OF EXPERTISE. WE HAVE COASTAL ENGINEERS\, PLANNERS\, HABITAT RESTORATION SPECIALISTS\, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE. KIND OF THE WHOLE SPAN OF TOPIC AREAS IS KIND OF HOW WE HAVE IDENTIFIED ADVISORY GROUP MEMBERS AND THEY KIND OF SPAN THE BAY AREA GEOGRAPHIC-WISE. SO WE — OBVIOUSLY\, YOUR INPUT IS HIGHLY VALUABLE AND IMPORTANT\, BUT WE ARE TRYING TO ENSURE THAT FEEDBACK HAS BEEN INCORPORATED THROUGHOUT. AND I JUST NOTE THAT BECAUSE THAT’S ON THIS LIST. SO WE CALLED OUR FIRST DRAFT THE ADVISORY GROUP DRAFT BECAUSE WE REALLY WANTED TO GET AN INITIAL FEEDBACK FROM THOSE FOLKS. AND THAT WAY WHEN WE’RE SHARING IT ADDITIONALLY\, WE’RE ABLE TO REFINE IT FURTHER AND MAKE SURE WE’RE PUTTING OUT OUR BEST QUALITY WORK. WE ALSO HAD A SERIES OF COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATION WORKSHOPS. DILIP ATTENDED ONE IN EAST OAKLAND AND IT WAS OUTDOORS. I WON’T TALK TOO MUCH TO THOSE. THAT WAS TO GET INITIAL FEEDBACK ON OUR DRAFT GUIDELINES WHICH WE’VE ACTUALLY BEEN INCORPORATING. THIS IS A SHORT TIMELINE\, AS YOU CAN IMAGINE. WE ARE VERY RAPIDLY TURNING AROUND A SECOND DRAFT. THIS WILL GO TO OUR ADVISORY GROUP FOR A TWO-WEEK REVIEW PERIOD IN JULY. SO IN THE NEXT COUPLE WEEKS. WE’RE ALSO PLANNING ON HOLDING A PRACTITIONER WORKSHOP. REALLY KIND OF MAKING SURE WE HAVE PUBLIC WORKSHOPS ON THIS BEFORE THAT IS A LITTLE BROADER BUT WE NEED TO GET THESE GUIDELINES AND PRACTITIONERS — IN FRONT OF PRACTITIONERS. THOSE IN PUBLIC WORKS. WE HAD FOCUS GROUPS ON SUBREGIONAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT THAT DANA PRESENTED EARLIER SO WE HAD A SERIES OF FOCUS GROUPS FOR CONSULTANTS AS WELL AS THE NONJURISDICTIONAL GROUPS SO WE INTEND TO ENGAGE THOSE FOLKS AGAIN IN DRAFT TWO REALLY GOING THROUGH THE DETAILS OF THE GUIDELINES AND THERE COULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SOME SELECT ECRB MEMBERS TO ATTEND. THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT HAVING TOO MANY FOLKS. THAT’S KIND OF THE NEXT INPUT OPPORTUNITY. WE WILL THEN TURN AROUND THOSE COMMENTS TO HAVE A PUBLIC DRAFT. DRAFT THREE FOR A ONE-MONTH PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENT. SO THAT IS REALLY THE FIRST PUBLIC VERSION OF THE DOCUMENT THAT WE’LL HAVE OUT. AND AROUND THAT WE’LL HAVE A COMMISSION BRIEFING. BEFORE PUBLIC COMMENT WE’LL HAVE A COMMISSION HEARING. AND WE WILL BRING THIS FOR COMMISSION VOTE AND HOPEFUL ADOPTION IN DECEMBER. \n>>JENN HYMAN: JACKIE MENTIONED THERE IS A PRACTITIONER WORKSHOP. THAT’S NOT A PUBLIC MEETING. AND UP TO FOUR ECRB MEMBERS CAN ATTEND THAT. IT HAS TO BE SORT OF LESS THAN HALF OF THE BOARD NUMBERS. [LAUGHTER] \n>>JENN HYMAN: AND YOU CAN TALK TO EACH OTHER. \n>>DILIP TRIVEDI: I NEED TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND THAT ONE. THE WHOLE BOARD GOES ON A BIKE RIDE AND BAY TRAIL\, DOES THAT STOP US FROM DOING A LOT OF THINGS? [LAUGHTER] \n>>JENN HYMAN: UNLESS YOU’RE JUST ATTENDING AS A PRACTITIONER. AND NOT A BOARD MEMBER. BUT YEAH. \n>>JACLYN PERRIN-MARTINEZ: WE’LL HAVE A FOLLOW-UP\, I BELIEVE. WE HAVE NOT PUT OUT OUR SAVE THE DATES YET. IT’S TENTATIVELY JULY 23. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. I THINK THAT CONCLUDES TODAY’S PRESENTATION OF THE — CONSIDERATION OF THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN DRAFT GUIDELINE. AND SO LET’S MOVE TO ADJOURNMENT. I WOULD LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION. IS THERE — ADJOURN. \n>>RAMIN GOLESORKHI: I MOTION TO ADJOURN. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND? \n>>SPEAKER: SECOND. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. THE MOTION TO ADJOURN PASSES AND WE ARE ADJOURNED. I THANK YOU\, ALL\, AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION. \n>>DILIP TRIVEDI: THANK YOU SO MUCH. JACLYN AND DANA\, THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH. \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-26-2024-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240515T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240515T170000 DTSTAMP:20240528T210225Z CREATED:20240130T055623Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240528T210225Z UID:10000153-1715778000-1715792400@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:May 15\, 2024 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting (Cancelled) DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/may-15-2024-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240424T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240424T170000 DTSTAMP:20240424T211404Z CREATED:20240130T055542Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240424T211404Z UID:10000152-1713963600-1713978000@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:April 24\, 2024 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting (Cancelled) DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/april-24-2024-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR