BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//SF Bay Conservation & Development - ECPv6.15.19//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: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 END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250908T170000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250908T183000 DTSTAMP:20260426T063041 CREATED:20241217T185807Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250829T155113Z UID:10000262-1757350800-1757356200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:September 8\, 2025 Design Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/september-8-2025-design-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Design Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250904T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250904T170000 DTSTAMP:20260426T063041 CREATED:20241209T232416Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260311T225626Z UID:10000244-1756990800-1757005200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:September 4\, 2025 Commission Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Commissioners are located at the primary physical location and may be located at the teleconference locations specified below\, all of which are publicly accessible. The Zoom video conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually are also specified below. \nPrimary physical locationMetro Center375 Beale Street\, 1st Floor\, Board Room\,San Francisco\, CA415-352-3600 \nTeleconference locations• Office of Supervisor John Gioia: 11780 San Pablo Ave.\, Ste. D\, El Cerrito\, CA 94530• 675 Texas St.\, Ste. 6002\, Fairfield\, CA. 94533• 455 Golden Gate Ave\, San Francisco\, CA 94102• 500 County Center\, 5th Fl.\, Buckeye Conf. Rm.\, Redwood City\, CA 94063• Napa County District 5 Office: 4381 Broadway\, Ste. 102\, American Canyon\, CA 94503• 100 Howe Ave.\, Ste. 100 South\, Sacramento\, CA 95817• East Sonoma County Services Center: 19080 Lomita Ave.\, Sonoma\, CA 95476• 433 Natoma St.\, Fl. 3\, San Francisco\, CA 94103• 890 Osos St.\, Ste. H\, San Luis Obispo\, CA 93401• 176 E. Blithedale Ave.\, Mill Valley\, CA 94941• 2379 Sheffield Dr.\, Livermore\, CA 94550• 112 Trellis Dr.\, Front Porch\, San Rafael\, CA 94903• Mountain View City Hall: 500 Castro St.\,3rd Fl.\, Clerks Conf. Rm.\, Mountain View\, CA 94041• 3833 Lakeshore Ave.\, Oakland\, CA 94610• 10 1/2 Miles Northern Highway\, Ladyville\, Belize• Marin Civic Center: 3501 Civic Center Dr.\, Ste. 329\, San Rafael\, CA 94903 \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/81170166315?pwd=Wl1Clbb4DVaANBePVmgZOm5vD1nT4R.1   \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID811 7016 6315 \nPasscode794788 \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\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period (Each speaker is limited to three minutes)A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.(Sierra Peterson) [415-352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov][publiccomment@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nConsent Calendara) Approval of Minutes from August 21\, 2025(Sierra Peterson) [415-352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]b) Commission Consideration of Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan Technical Services Contract AmendmentThe Commission will consider authorizing the Executive Director to amend an existing contract to add up to $64\,000 to an existing contract with the Aquatic Science Center/San Francisco Estuary Institute (ASC/SFEI) to provide additional technical services related to BCDC’s Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan.(Todd Hallenbeck) [415-352-3667; todd.hallenbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\n  \n\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415-352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\n  \n\nPublic Hearing and Vote San Francisco Bay Pipeline Cover Restoration ProjectThe Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote on an application by Kinder Morgan Energy Partners\, SFPP\, L.P. (SFPP) to repair five exposed sections of a pipeline corridor that runs between the Oakland Airport in Alameda County and Brisbane in San Mateo County. The repairs consist of placing an 18-inch layer of pea gravel\, rock riprap\, and concrete revetment mats over a total of 0.53 acres of subtidal Bay. (Rowan Yelton) [ 415-352-3613; rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov]Staff Summary // Staff Recommendation // Staff Presentation\nBriefing on Proposed Amendments to the Commission’s Permitting RegulationsStaff will brief the Commission on proposed amendments to the Commission’s regulations to streamline and improve the regionwide permit program\, reduce permitting burdens for straightforward and routine activities\, and make other updates to clarify and improve permitting rules.(Ethan Lavine) [415-352-3618; ethan.lavine@bcdc.ca.gov]Staff Report // Revised Amendments to Permit Regulations // Staff Presentation \nBriefing by BCDC Summer InternsBCDC’s three summer interns will give a short briefing on the work they performed during their tenure to support ongoing BCDC projects.(Larry Goldzband) [415-352-3653; larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Minutes\n Approved Commission Meeting Minutes of 9.4.2025 \n \n \n \n \n \n Audio Recording & Transcript\n Meeting Transcript \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-4-2025-commission-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250827T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250827T170000 DTSTAMP:20260426T063041 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:20250827T093000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250827T120000 DTSTAMP:20260426T063041 CREATED:20241104T231338Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250827T001815Z UID:10000222-1756287000-1756296000@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:August 27\, 2025 Enforcement Committee Meeting DESCRIPTION:Agenda\n \nCall to Order \nRoll Call \nPublic Comment. The Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda.\nApproval of Draft Minutes from November 14\, 2024\, Enforcement Committee meetingApproval of Draft Minutes from July 23\, 2025\, Enforcement Committee Meeting\nEnforcement Report. Staff will update the committee on the current status of the enforcement program’s activities.(Anne Usher) [415/352-3662; anne.usher@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing and Vote on Recommended Enforcement Decision to Resolve Enforcement Cases ER2019.038.00\, ER2025.001.00\, ER2025.002.00\, ER2025.003.00\, and ER2025.004.00.\nThe Enforcement Committee will consider a Recommended Enforcement Decision including Proposed Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order CCD2025.001.00 issued to Thaddeus Woodin\, Steve and Lesley Belcher\, Allen Kanady\, William Woodin\, and the Kittrell Estate for unauthorized fill and development in the Commission’s jurisdiction occurring at various properties adjacent to the Montezuma Slough on Van Sickle Island\, Solano County.(Amanda Boyd) [415/352-3643; amanda.boyd@bcdc.ca.gov]Exhibit A. Proposed Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order CCD2025.001.00 // Exhibit B. Violation Report and Complaint with Exhibits // Exhibit C1 Allen Kanady Statement of Defense // Exhibit C2. Belcher Email Correspondence // Exhibit C3 William Woodin Statement of Defense // Exhibit C4 Kittrell Estate Statement of Defense // Exhibit C5 Steve and Lesley Belcher Statement of Defense // Exhibit D. Leslie Salt Co v San Francisco Bay Conservation // Exhibit E. Email Correspondence from Solano County Sheriffs Office // Exhibit F: Belchers Grant Deed // Exhibit G 2022 Q1/Q2 Enforcement Program Update // Exhibit H 2025.08.12 BCDC Staff Site Visit // Statement of Defense Not Timely Filed  // Confirmation to Postpone Hearing (Kittrell Estate) // Confirmation to Postpone Hearing (Bill Woodin)Confirmation to Postpone Hearing (Allen Kanady) // Confirmation to Postpone Hearing (Thad Woodin) // Confirmation to Postpone Hearing (Steve and Lesley Belcher) \n\n\nAdjournment \n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Minutes\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Recording \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/august-27-2025-enforcement-committee-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250821T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250821T170000 DTSTAMP:20260426T063041 CREATED:20241209T232301Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250904T211337Z UID:10000243-1755781200-1755795600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:August 21\, 2025 Commission Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Commissioners are located at the primary physical location and may be located at the teleconference locations specified below\, all of which are publicly accessible. The Zoom video conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually are also specified below. \nPrimary physical location \nMetro Center375 Beale Street\, Yerba BuenaSan Francisco\, CA 415-352-3600 \nTeleconference locations• Mountain View City Hall: 500 Castro St.\, Mountain View\, CA 94041• CALTRANS:111 Grand Ave.\, 15th FL\, Mountain View Rm\, Oakland\, CA 94612• Office of Supervisor John Gioia: 11780 San Pablo Ave.\, Ste. D\, El Cerrito\, CA 94530• 675 Texas St.\, Ste. 6002\, Fairfield\, CA. 94533• 500 County Center\, 5th Fl.\, Buckeye Conf. Rm.\, Redwood City\, CA 94063• Napa County District 5 Office: 4381 Broadway\, Ste. 102\, American Canyon\, CA 94503• Biltmore Hotel\, 3 1/2 Miles Phillip Goldson Highway\, Belize City\, Belize• Board of Supervisors: 575 Administration Dr.\, Rm. 100A\, Santa Rosa\, CA 95403• 440 Civic Center Plaza\, Richmond\, CA 94804• 890 Osos St.\, Ste. H\, San Luis Obispo\, CA 93401• CNRA:715 P St.\, Sacramento\, CA 95814• 176 E. Blithedale Ave.\, Mill Valley\, CA 94941• 2379 Sheffield Dr.\, Livermore\, CA 94550• 112 Trellis Dr.\, Front Porch\, San Rafael\, CA 94903•  Mountain View City Hall: 500 Castro St.\, Mountain View\, CA 94041 \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. \n  \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/85346315209?pwd=VOQADgfpF9Sg6zB5ugHvg3DkgPcQp3.1  \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \n  \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID853 4631 5209 \nPasscode 998351 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak \n \n \n \n \n Agenda\n \nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period (Each speaker is limited to three minutes)A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.(Sierra Peterson) [415-352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nConsent Calendar\n\n\n\nApproval of Minutes for August 7\, 2025 Meeting(Sierra Peterson) [415-352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\n\n\n\n\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415-352-3611; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]Additional Administrative Listing  // Public Comment\nVote to Adopt Bay Plan Amendment 3-17\, San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan\nThe Commission will possibly vote on proposed Bay Plan Amendment No. 3-17 (BPA 3-17)\, which would update the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan (SFWSAP)\, an element of the San Francisco Bay Plan. The proposed amendment would align the policies of the SFWSAP with the Port of San Francisco’s Waterfront Plan\, would update the geographic-specific policies of the Fisherman’s Wharf vicinity to match the Northeastern Waterfront vicinity\, and would establish a Sea Level Rise Public Education Initiative as a public benefit. A public hearing on BPA 3-17 was held on July 17\, 2025.(Ben Dorfman) [ 415-352-3627; benjamin.dorfman@bcdc.ca.gov]Final Staff Recommendation // Appendix A: Resolution No. 2025-01 // Appendix A Exhibit 1: Final Proposed Amendment // Appendix A Exhibit 2: Updated Maps // Appendix B: Written Public Comment // Staff Presentation \n\nPublic Hearing and Possible Vote on the Restore Hayward Marsh Project\, by East Bay Regional Park District\, at Hayward Marsh along the Hayward Regional Shoreline\, in the City of Hayward\, Alameda County The Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote on an application by the East Regional Park District to restore and enhance the Hayward Marsh system\, and expand and enhance existing public access within an approximately 320-acre Project site. The entire Project site would be managed for wildlife habitat and public access. In the Commission’s jurisdiction\, the Project would involve constructing a living shoreline along the site’s outer (Bayfront) levee; widening and improving a 2\,730-linear-foot segment of Bay Trail; constructing a portion of an “Interim Levee” designed to protect habitat areas within the Project site; breaching levees to restore full tidal action to Pond 3B; installation and removal of water control structures to manage site hydrology for wildlife; levee improvements; channel excavations to improve tidal flows throughout the project site; and\, related elements. Approximately 1.13 acres of required public access areas would be provided along the Project shoreline\, including improvements to existing required public access areas.(Schuyler Olsson) [415-352-3668; schuyler.olsson@bcdc.ca.gov]\nApplication Summary // Staff Recommendation // Exhibit A: Public Access Plan // Staff Presentation // Applicant Presentation // Public Comment \n\nCanceled Public Hearing and Possible Vote on Mare Island Dry Dock\, LLC.\, and the Nimtz Group\, LLC. Application for Amendment No. Ten to BCDC Permit No. 2009.003.00 to Recommission Dry Dock 1\, Dredge Berth 11\, and ApproachThe Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote on an application to recommission Dry Dock 1 and Berth 11 by Mare Island Dry Dock\, LLC (MIDD) and the Nimitz Group\, LLC. MIDD proposes to operate and maintain Dry Dock 1 and conduct new dredging of up to 140\,000 cubic yards of sediment from Berth 11\, the approach to the dry dock\, and a transition area between the quay wall and the berth. The sediment dredged from Dry Dock 1 and Berth 11 would be beneficially reused at a wetland restoration site. The number of evolutions for all three dry docks would increase from 80 per year to 104 evolutions per year. MIDD proposes to provide the following public access amenities: elevated seating\, informative signage\, and garbage receptacles.(Pascale Soumoy) [415-352-3669 pascale.soumoy@bcdc.ca.gov]Application Summary // Exhibit 1 Vicinity Map // Exhibit 2 Site Plan // Exhibit 3 Public Access Plan\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Minutes\n Approved Meeting Minutes from August 21\, 2025 \n \n \n \n \n \n Video 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/august-21-2025-commission-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250821T100000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250821T120000 DTSTAMP:20260426T063041 CREATED:20250807T222024Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250820T183108Z UID:10000301-1755770400-1755777600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:August 21\, 2025 Rising Sea Level Commissioner Working Group DESCRIPTION:Join the Meeting Via Zoom:https://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/85124970502?pwd=jL0qscqPyjQL9Ja74Q4I1stA8RXHB8.1 \nMeeting ID851 2497 0502 \nPasscode: 352263 \nTeleconference Numbers:(214) 765-0479 US Toll;Conference Code: 900680(888) 278-0296 US Toll-FreeConference Code: 900680 \nIf you call in by phone:Press *6 to unmute your phonePress *9 to raise/lower your hand \n \n \n \n \n Agenda\n \nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nUpdates and Discussion on Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan Outreach Strategy\nUpdates from staff on the Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan implementation\, including a discussion of how the 9-county outreach tour is going this summer and fall.(Jaclyn Perrin-Martinez) [415/352-3631; jaclyn.perrin-martinez@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation \n\nUpdates and Discussion on BCDC Jurisdiction and Authority\nThis item is a continuation and follow up from the previous February 6\, 2025 meeting. Asthe Commission begins to review the implementation of the Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan\, staff will review questions and themes raised by Working Group members regarding the Commission’s permitting and planning authority and jurisdiction on sea level rise adaptation. Working Group members will be asked to provide guidance on next steps.(Erik Buehmann) [415/352-3645; erik.buehmann@bcdc.ca.gov](Ethan Lavine) [415/352-3618; ethan.lavine@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation \n\nPublic Comment\nAdjournment\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-21-2025-rising-sea-level-commissioner-working-group/ CATEGORIES:Rising Sea Level Working Group END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250813T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250813T140000 DTSTAMP:20260426T063041 CREATED:20250625T172254Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250625T172254Z UID:10000294-1755090000-1755093600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:August 13\, 2025 RSAP Summer Webinar #3: The RSAP Atlas: Data and Mapping Tool for Planning DESCRIPTION:Register Here:https://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_RAV6uzuhRMqmK-d43FV_Iw \n  URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/august-13-2025-rsap-summer-webinar-3/ CATEGORIES:Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250813T093000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250813T120000 DTSTAMP:20260426T063041 CREATED:20241104T231253Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250728T191407Z UID:10000221-1755077400-1755086400@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:August 13\, 2025 Enforcement Committee Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/august-13-2025-enforcement-committee-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250811T170000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250811T183000 DTSTAMP:20260426T063041 CREATED:20241217T185944Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250807T195402Z UID:10000263-1754931600-1754937000@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:August 11\, 2025 Design Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/august-11-2025-design-review-board-meeting-2/ CATEGORIES:Design Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250807T100000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250807T170000 DTSTAMP:20260426T063041 CREATED:20241209T232151Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250902T185358Z UID:10000242-1754560800-1754586000@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:August 7\, 2025 Commission Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Commissioners are located at the primary physical location and may be located at the teleconference locations specified below\, all of which are publicly accessible. The Zoom video conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually are also specified below. \nPrimary physical location \nMetro Center375 Beale Street\, Board RoomSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nTeleconference locations \n• Earl Warren Hiram W Johnson Building: 455 Golden Gate Ave.\, San Francisco\, CA 94102• 100 Howe Ave.\, Ste. 100 South\, Sacramento\, CA 95825• City Hall: 701 Laurel St.\, Allied Arts Rm.\, Menlo Park\, CA 94025• 675 Texas St.\, Ste. 6002\, Fairfield\, CA. 94533• 176 E. Blithedale Ave.\, Mill Valley\, CA 94941• 197 Palmer Ave.\, Falmouth\, MA 02540• 1195 Third St.\, Ste. 310\, Napa\, CA\, 94559• 890 Osos St.\, Ste. H\, San Luis Obispo\, CA 93401• 500 County Center\, 5th Fl.\, Buckeye Conf. Rm.\, Redwood City\, CA 94063• 2379 Sheffield Dr.\, Livermore\, CA 94550• 1021 O St.\, Sacramento\, CA 95814 \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/87295886829?pwd=my206SeP5kGy5bSz3kcbUFbbbCgxYK.1 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID872 9588 6829 \nPasscode891700 \n  \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak \n \n \n \n \n Agenda\n \nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period (Each speaker is limited to three minutes)A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.(Sierra Peterson) [415-352-3608; publiccomment@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nConsent Calendara. Approval of Minutes for July 17\, 2025 Meeting(Sierra Peterson) [415-352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\n  \nb. Vote to approve Contract for Environmental Justice Advisors Fiscal ManagementThe Commission will consider authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a contract of up to $ 288\,000 with Coastal Quest to act as a Fiscal Manager for the EJ Advisor program. The program contract timeline is set for 3 years\, beginning in September 2025 to Fall 2028. Funding for this contract will come from BCDC’s General Fund.(Phoenix Armenta) [415-352-3600; armenta@bcdc.ca.gov]Staff Report \n\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415-352-3611; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.govAdditional Listing of Administrative Matters for August 1\, 2025\n  \n\nBriefing on Legislative IssuesThe Commission will receive a briefing from the Director of Legislative and External Affairs on relevant pending state legislative issues.\n(Rylan Gervase) [415-352-3611; rylan.gervase@bcdc.ca.gov] (publiccomment@bcdc.ca.gov)Legislative Report \n\nPublic Hearing and Possible Vote on an Application by the California Department of Transportation for the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Pilot Project Modifications Project along the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge\, in the City of Richmond\, Contra Costa CountyThe Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote on an application for a material amendment to BCDC Permit No. 1997.001 to alter the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Pilot Project previously approved under Material Amendment No. Four. This includes the continued use of the shoulder of the eastbound lower deck as a peak hour travel lane on a permanent basis\, and the implementation of a modified version of the multi-use pathway on the westbound upper deck with reduced hours of availability and a supplemental bicycle shuttle service.(Katharine Pan) [415-352-3650; katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov] (publiccomment@bcdc.ca.gov)Application Summary // Path Report // Public Comments on New Application // Additional Public Comments  Applicant Presentation // Staff Presentation // Public Comments Received by 8.5.2025 by 4 p.m. // Public Comments Received by 8.6.2025 by 4 p.m. // Public Comments Received by 8.7.2025 by 10 a.m. (Given extensive public interest in this project\, public comment will be posted daily in waves. If you do not see your public comment\, it will be included in the next day’s posting.) \nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Minutes\n Meeting Minutes From August 7\, 2025 \n \n \n \n \n \n Video recording & transcript\n Transcript August 7\, 2025 \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-7-2025-commission-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250806T103000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250806T123000 DTSTAMP:20260426T063041 CREATED:20250717T195646Z LAST-MODIFIED:20251125T201042Z UID:10000300-1754476200-1754483400@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:August 6\, 2025 Sand Studies Commissioner Working Group DESCRIPTION:Join the Meeting Via Zoom:https://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/83056327976?pwd=XFMIZcmOItb0xAf4iajZ1Oww3O7zSA.1  \nMeeting ID830 5632 7976Passcode: 253303 \nTeleconference Numbers(214) 765-0479 US Toll;Conference Code: 900680(888) 278-0296 US Toll-FreeConference Code: 900680 \nIf you call in by phone:Press *6 to unmute your phonePress *9 to raise/lower your hand \n \n \n \n \n Agenda\n 1. Welcome and IntroductionsPatricia Showalter (Chair) will open the meeting and conduct Commissioner roll-call. Brenda Goeden will give a brief overview of the agenda \n2. Sand Mining\, Water and Sediment Quality Brenda Goeden will present information from studies analyzing the potential sediment contaminants associated with sand shoals and water quality associated with disposing water from mining operations in the Bay. (Brenda Goeden) [415/352-3623; brenda.goeden@bcdc.ca.gov] \n3. Ecological Connections in Central San Francisco Bay – Implications for Sand MiningThe Commissioners will receive a briefing on seabird foraging in Central San Francisco Bay presented by Dr. Julie Thayer of the Farallon Institute and potential impacts from human activities in the area. The Commission will discuss the implications of disturbances to this habitat type within the Bay.(Brenda Goeden) [415/352-3623; brenda.goeden@bcdc.ca.gov] \n4. General Public Comment Period \n5. Adjournment \n \n \n \n \n \n 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/august-06-2025-sand-studies-commissioner-working-group/ CATEGORIES:Sand Studies Commissioner Working Group END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250723T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250723T170000 DTSTAMP:20260426T063041 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:20250723T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250723T140000 DTSTAMP:20260426T063041 CREATED:20250625T171453Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250625T171453Z UID:10000293-1753275600-1753279200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:July 23\, 2025 RSAP Summer Webinar #2: Creating Subregional Plans: A Local Government Primer DESCRIPTION:Register Here:https://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_HZb3ctabSzmBhzuRLT4juA \n  URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/july-23-2025-rsap-summer-webinar-2/ CATEGORIES:Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250717T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250717T170000 DTSTAMP:20260426T063041 CREATED:20241209T232044Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250801T035651Z UID:10000241-1752757200-1752771600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:July 17\, 2025 Commission Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Commissioners are located at the primary physical location and may be located at the teleconference locations specified below\, all of which are publicly accessible. The Zoom video conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually are also specified below. \nPrimary physical locationMetro Center375 Beale Street\, 1st Floor\, Yerba Buena Room\,San Francisco\, CA415-352-3600 \nTeleconference locations• 715 P St.\, 20th Fl.\, Trestles Conf. Rm.\, Sacramento\, CA 95814• CALTRANS: 111 Grand Ave.\, 15th Fl.\, Oakland\, CA 94612• Earl Warren Hiram W Johnson Building: 455 Golden Gate Ave.\, San Francisco\, CA 94102• 176 E. Blithedale Ave.\, Mill Valley\, CA 94941• Madera County Board of Supervisors Office: 200 W. 4th St.\, Ste. 4100\, Madera\, CA 93637• 433 Natoma St.\, Fl. 3\, San Francisco\, CA 94103• 197 Palmer Ave.\, Falmouth\, MA 02540• 2379 Sheffield Dr.\, Livermore\, CA 94550• 1021 O St.\, Rm. 6710\, Sacramento\, CA 95814• 890 Osos St.\, Ste. H\, San Luis Obispo\, CA 93401• Office of Supervisor John Gioia: 11780 San Pablo Ave.\, Ste. D\, El Cerrito\, CA 94530• 402 N. High St.\, Columbus\, Ohio 43215 \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/86383914389?pwd=fH31a46MamaQevdDlaK7Z3Lm3UEF6q.1 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID863 8391 4389 \nPasscode044169 \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\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period (Each speaker is limited to three minutes)A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.(Sierra Peterson) [415-352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\n[publiccomment@bcdc.ca.gov]Public Comment \n\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nConsent Calendar\n\nApproval of Minutes for June 5\, 2025 Meeting(Sierra Peterson) [415-352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\n\n\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415-352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\n  \n\nPublic Hearing on Bay Plan Amendment 3-17\, San Francisco Waterfront Special Area PlanThe Commission will hold a public hearing on the Port of San Francisco’s proposed Bay Plan Amendment No. 3-17 (BPA 3-17)\, which would update the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan (SFWSAP)\, an element of the San Francisco Bay Plan. The proposed amendment would align the policies of the SFWSAP with the Port of San Francisco’s Waterfront Plan\, update the geographic-specific policies of the Fisherman’s Wharf vicinity to match the Northeastern Waterfront vicinity\, and establish a Sea Level Rise Public Education Initiative as a public benefit.(Ben Dorfman) [benjamin.dorfman@bcdc.ca.gov; 415-352-3827]\nStaff Report and Preliminary Recommendation // Appendix 1: Draft of amended SFWSAP with additions and removed text highlighted // Appendix 2: Amended SFWSAP maps // Appendix 3: Draft of the Exploratorium’s Sea Level Rise Public Education Initiative Proposal // Presentation // Public Comment \n\n\nFollow-Up Briefing on the Resilient SR 37 Near-Term Sears Point to Mare Island Improvement Projects\, by the California Department of Transportation\, Metropolitan Transportation Commission\, Solano Transportation Authority\, Napa Valley Transportation Authority\, and Sonoma County Transportation Authority\, located in Solano\, Napa\, and Sonoma counties)The Commission will hold a follow-up briefing on the Resilient SR37 Near-Term Sears Point to Mare Island Project\, currently in pre-application. The proposed improvements include replacing the Tolay Creek Bridge with a longer and wider bridge to facilitate large-scale tidal marsh restoration north of the bridge\, widening the highway to add an additional lane in each direction\, adding transit and prioritizing High Occupancy Vehicle trips\, and implementing habitat enhancement at Strip Marsh East (by Mare Island) to serve as a nature-based solution to storm surge.(Julie Garren) [415-352-3624; julie.garren@bcdc.ca.gov]Updated Staff Presentation // SR 37 Memo  \n\n\nLegislative BriefingThe Commission will receive a briefing from the Director of Legislative and External Affairs on relevant pending state legislative issues.(Rylan Gervase) [415-352-3611; rylan.gervase@bcdc.ca.gov]Staff Presentation // Legislative Report \n\n\nAdjournment \n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Supplemental Materials\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Minutes\n Commission Meeting Minutes July 17\, 2025 \n \n \n \n \n \n Audio Recording & Transcript\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/july-17-2025-commission-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250717T100000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250717T113000 DTSTAMP:20260426T063041 CREATED:20250703T230053Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250703T233132Z UID:10000298-1752746400-1752751800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:July 17\, 2025 Environmental Justice Commissioner Working Group DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/july-17-2025-environmental-justice-commissioner-working-group/ CATEGORIES:Environmental Justice Working Group END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250709T120000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250709T130000 DTSTAMP:20260426T063041 CREATED:20250708T171227Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250708T171227Z UID:10000299-1752062400-1752066000@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:July 9\, 2025 Tracking Sea Level Rise Adaptation: An Introduction to Bay Adapt Currents DESCRIPTION:Bay Adapt Currents is a dynamic\, data-driven dashboard developed by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). It is a centralized platform to monitor and report on the region’s efforts to adapt to rising sea levels. \nThis webinar will introduce attendees to Bay Adapt Currents. You will learn to navigate the dashboard and learn about the 11 metrics that track: \n\nHundreds of sea level rise policies in 55 Bay Area cities’ General Plans\nCompleted Adaptation Projects in the Bay\nPrograms that work to build capacity on sea level rise adaptation and knowledge\nso much more!\n\nRegister Here:https://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_CxzGqFP4QG6wOQRzVBeB_Q \nCurrents Webinar Flyer URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/july-9-2025-tracking-sea-level-rise-adaptation-an-introduction-to-bay-adapt-currents/ CATEGORIES:Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250709T093000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250709T120000 DTSTAMP:20260426T063041 CREATED:20241104T231042Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250623T191256Z UID:10000219-1752053400-1752062400@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:July 9\, 2025 Enforcement Committee Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/july-9-2025-enforcement-committee-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250703T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250703T170000 DTSTAMP:20260426T063041 CREATED:20241209T231953Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250611T202249Z UID:10000240-1751547600-1751562000@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:July 3\, 2025 Commission Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/july-3-2025-commission-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250625T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250625T170000 DTSTAMP:20260426T063041 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:20250625T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250625T140000 DTSTAMP:20260426T063041 CREATED:20250616T231950Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250618T211342Z UID:10000283-1750856400-1750860000@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:June 25\, 2025 RSAP Summer Webinar #1: Introducing the Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan DESCRIPTION:This introductory webinar is designed for audiences newer to BCDC\, the Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan\, and SB 272. The webinar will explore: \n\nWhy shoreline adaptation is urgent and necessary.\nWhat SB 272 requires and what’s expected of local governments.\nHow the RSAP helps cities and counties balance local priorities with regional consistency.\nHow BCDC can support your jurisdiction\nLive Q&A with BCDC’s Planning team.\n\nRegister Here:https://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_AQbbjQAlR0Ww75aYefLk8Q \n  URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/june-25-2025-rsap-summer-webinar-1/ CATEGORIES:Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250619T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250619T170000 DTSTAMP:20260426T063041 CREATED:20241209T231859Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250110T163129Z UID:10000239-1750338000-1750352400@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:June 19\, 2025 Commission Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/june-19-2025-commission-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250611T093000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250611T120000 DTSTAMP:20260426T063041 CREATED:20241104T230947Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250529T201731Z UID:10000218-1749634200-1749643200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:June 11\, 2025 Enforcement Committee Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/june-11-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting-2/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250609T170000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250609T183000 DTSTAMP:20260426T063041 CREATED:20241217T183531Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250626T210605Z UID:10000256-1749488400-1749493800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:June 9\, 2025 Design Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) Design Review Board meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with Gov. Code 11123.5. To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below. Physical attendance at the site listed below 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 BuenaSan 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/81173617558?pwd=mmvNWHXPqVq8VT1vS1aLfVO9vpy0jc.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-50551 (816) 423 4282Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID853 7267 0563 \nPasscode641630 \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\nApproval of Draft Summary for the May 12\, 2025\, DRB Meeting\nBCDC Staff Updates\nPublic Comment for items not on the agenda\nChannel Park\, Brooklyn Basin Redevelopment Project\, Phase IV\, City of Oakland\, Alameda County; Third Post Permit Issuance Review \nThe Design Review Board will hold a third post-permit issuance review of Channel Park\, a proposed 6.2-acre waterfront park situated at the confluence of the Oakland Estuary and the Lake Merritt Channel\, within the Brooklyn Basin redevelopment area in the City of Oakland\, Alameda County. The proposed project features a 0.67-acre open water basin with a tidal channel and includes the Bay Trail and pedestrian walkways; a native scrub and bird garden; an interpretive learning garden and timeline trail; and a recreational lawn with picnic area.\n(Alyssa Plese) [415/352-3626; alyssa.plese@bcdc.ca.gov]\nExhibits\nSan Francisco Bay Water Trail Program Briefing.\nThe Design Review Board will receive a briefing about the San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail\, a regional program that encourages non-motorized small boaters to experience the San Francisco Bay through a growing network of boat launching and landing sites. The briefing will feature the history of the program and an update regarding trailhead signage implementation.\n(Yuri Jewett) [415/352-3616; yuriko.jewett@bcdc.ca.gov]\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Video recording and transcript\n \n\nTranscript\n\nYerba Buena Room: Thank you for joining us tonight for the Bcdc. Design Review Board meeting. \nYerba Buena Room: Thank you for joining us tonight for the Bcdc. Design Review Board meeting. I’d like to remind the Board members to please speak directly into the microphone in front of you and have it on only when you want to speak. And please ensure that your video on your laptops is always on. But your audio is disabled. \nYerba Buena Room: Okay\, so I think we’re ready to kick off here. My name is Jacinda Mccann\, and I’m the chair of the Bcdc’s Design Review Board. I’m located here at the Metro Center in San Francisco. Our 1st order of business is to call the roll Board members. Please unmute yourselves to respond\, and then mute yourselves again after responding. Staff\, can you call the roll\, please. \nYerba Buena Room: Chair Mccann\, present board\, member Battaglio. \nYerba Buena Room: Present board\, member hall\, presence board\, member leader\, present board\, member\, Pellegrini. \nYerba Buena Room: Present and staff attending the meeting tonight. Are myself Ashley\, Tomerlin\, Yuri\, Jewett\, Alyssa\, please\, and Catherine Pan. \nYerba Buena Room: Okay\, good. Thank you\, Ashley. We have a quorum present. So we are duly constituted to conduct business. \nYerba Buena Room: I want to share some instructions on how we can best participate in this meeting\, so that it runs as smoothly as possible \nYerba Buena Room: for everyone online and in the meeting room. Please make sure that you have your microphones or phones muted to avoid background noise for board members. If you have a webcam\, please make sure it’s on. So everyone can see you \nYerba Buena Room: for members of the public. If you would like to speak during a public comment period\, you will need to do so in one of 3 ways. First\, st if you’re here with us in person\, we will ask you to form a line near the podium. If you wish to make a public comment. Speaker\, cards are available at the door. You will be asked to come up to the podium one at a time. After all\, individuals who are present make their comments. We shall call on the participants who are attending the meeting remotely. \nYerba Buena Room: The second way\, if you’re attending on the Zoom Platform. Please raise your virtual hand in zoom. Please click the hand at the bottom of your screen\, and the hand should turn blue when it’s raised. \nYerba Buena Room: Finally\, if you’re joining our meeting via phone\, you must press Star 9 on your keypad to raise or lower your hand to make a comment and star 6 to mute or unmute your phone. We will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order that they are raised. \nYerba Buena Room: Please keep your comments respectful and focused. We are here to listen to everyone who wishes to address us\, but everyone has the responsibility to act in a civil manner. \nYerba Buena Room: We will not tolerate hate\, speech\, threats made directly or indirectly\, and or abusive language. \nYerba Buena Room: We will mute anyone who fails to follow these guidelines\, or who exceeds the established time limits without permission \nYerba Buena Room: for public comments. If you’re attending online\, please note that we will only hear your voices. Your video will not be enabled. \nYerba Buena Room: If you are attending this meeting on the Zoom Platform we recommend using the gallery view option in view settings in order to see all the panelists audio for in-person panelists is recorded through the room’s audio system and is not synced to the individual panelists videos. \nYerba Buena Room: If you would like to add your contact information to the interested parties list to be notified of future meetings concerning this project tonight. Please call or email Ashley Tomlin\, whose contact information is on the screen\, or is also found on the Bcdc’s website. \nYerba Buena Room: So with that\, we’ll move on to the next item\, which is the approval of meeting the meeting summary for May 12\, th 2025. \nYerba Buena Room: I think everyone you’ve seen the draft meeting summary from our May 12th meeting. This was the Berkeley Peer meeting\, and I just want to check if anyone has any comments or corrections to those meeting notes. \nYerba Buena Room: Anyone\, Ashley\, I mean\, I just had one small\, very picky minute comment. \nYerba Buena Room: which is in. I don’t have the file open right now\, but in \nYerba Buena Room: One of the comments about the ferry it says that I said to study to study the benefits of the ferry\, and I just would say\, study \nYerba Buena Room: the impacts\, positive or negative\, just so that there could be more understanding of how the ferry would be used as a public transit option and potential carbon \nYerba Buena Room: reduction. I didn’t want to presuppose a positive impact. I just wanted to say that it should be studied. \nYerba Buena Room: Okay\, yeah\, thanks for picking that up. Any other comments. \nYerba Buena Room: Okay\, I just want to make one comment. I thought\, I just \nYerba Buena Room: want to say how much I appreciate the level of detail that went into the public comment section that was. And I really appreciate it\, because there are a lot of great points brought up\, and there were a lot of people at the meeting\, so I appreciate how much work went into preparing those notes\, and they will be very helpful when that project comes back. So thanks for that hard work. Okay\, so let’s move on to the next item\, which is staff update. \nYerba Buena Room: Thank you. Chair. Mccann. \nYerba Buena Room: I’m excited to announce that we have released an Rfp. For an update to the Bcdc shoreline plants guidance document. Alas! Our legal team has advised that Board members would likely have a conflict of interest. But if you know of anyone who would be interested in or position to submit a proposal\, the links are available on the Bcdc website. And from yours truly\, we appreciate any help you can give in circulating the Rfp in your circles. \nYerba Buena Room: I plan to provide updates to the board as the project progresses. But the document was last updated in 2\,007\, and we’re hoping to incorporate traditional ecological knowledge and some site remediation \nYerba Buena Room: and more adaptive management for soils and sea level rise. \nYerba Buena Room: So please circulate. I’m happy to share the link. If you have anybody that comes to mind. \nYerba Buena Room: next\, we will not be having a meeting in July. Our next meetings are tentatively scheduled for an August 11th meeting and a September 8th review of Alameda Shipways Project. And that\, concludes the Bcdc. Staff updates\, I’ll pause here if there are any questions from the Board. \nYerba Buena Room: none from me. Any questions from anyone else. Stefan Ashley\, can you tell us when the \nYerba Buena Room: Plant list update? Rfp is due? \nYerba Buena Room: The RFP submittal is due June 30.th Thank you \nYerba Buena Room: any other comments? \nYerba Buena Room: Okay\, we will move on. \nYerba Buena Room: So the next next item is public comment for items\, not on tonight’s agenda. \nYerba Buena Room: and we’ll open the meeting to public comment. Now for items which are not covered by the agenda tonight. \nYerba Buena Room: We don’t. I can’t see anyone in the room who will form a line\, so we’ll skip that\, is there anyone online who has any comments? No. One online chair. Okay\, we will keep moving. Then. \nYerba Buena Room: Okay\, that brings us to the 3rd post permit issuance review of the Brooklyn Basin Channel Park Project. \nYerba Buena Room: and really appreciate the team coming back\, and very grateful to have seen the additional work\, and got to say\, I really appreciated this nice\, clear comparison chart that you guys made. So thank you very much for that. \nYerba Buena Room: So with that we’ll begin our review on this is agenda. Item 5. \nYerba Buena Room: And just to remind you of the Project Review order\, we will start with the Bcdc. Staff presentation. We’ll then have board clarifying questions to the staff. \nYerba Buena Room: We’ll then have the project team presentation \nYerba Buena Room: and then broad board clarifying questions to the project team. Public comment follows that and then board discussion and summary and a brief staff response \nYerba Buena Room: or project proponent response. \nYerba Buena Room: And with that I’ll ask Alyssa\, the Bcdc. Permit analyst to introduce the project. So over to you\, Alyssa. \nYerba Buena Room: Great. Thank you. Chair Mccann\, and good evening Board members once again I’m Melissa\, please. A shoreline development analyst at Bcdc. \nYerba Buena Room: And now I’m happy to introduce the project for tonight’s review. This is the 3rd review of Channel Park\, a proposed 6.2 acre waterfront Park\, situated \nYerba Buena Room: situated at the confluence of the Oakland estuary and Lake Merritt Channel\, within the Brooklyn Basin redevelopment area in the city of Oakland\, Almeda County\, while many of us have seen parts of this presentation. I hope it can be a helpful refresher for those of us \nYerba Buena Room: who weren’t here during the project’s previous review\, as well of\, as well as for those of us who were \nYerba Buena Room: so once again\, in 2011\, the Commission authorized the Brooklyn Basin project\, which involves the redevelopment of a former maritime and industrial district into a mixed use. Waterfront neighborhood. The development covers a 64 acre site at the Oakland waterfront\, which is bounded by the Oakland estuary to the South Lake Merritt Channel\, to the west\, the Embarcadero and I 80 to the north\, and the Broadsett local restaurant and North Basin Marina to the east. \nYerba Buena Room: The proposed project site for Channel Park is\, as you can see in the yellow dashed line bounded to the north by the embarcadero to the east by the Brooklyn Basin Development parcel M. Outlined in the following slide and by private property along the project sites southeastern corner at 5th avenue \nYerba Buena Room: along the southwestern edge. The project shares a shoreline with the Oakland estuary\, and is also across the Lake Merritt Channel\, from Oakland’s Estuary Park. \nYerba Buena Room: the overall development of Brooklyn Basin is phased into 4 parts. This slide shows how open space requirements on the permit overlap with the overall development phasing as well as the extent to which the overall development is located within Bcdc’s 100 foot shoreline band jurisdiction \nYerba Buena Room: construction phase one is complete\, including the development of Shoreline Park\, which is now called Township Commons\, with phase. 2. Construction partially Underway. \nYerba Buena Room: Channel Park is the 4th phase development within the larger Brooklyn Basin Project\, which includes several parks established in the original Master Plan\, such as Township Commons\, Shoreline Park\, Clinton Basin\, South Park\, and Estuary Park. \nYerba Buena Room: The develop the overall development project underwent 4 reviews by the Design Design Review Board prior to its approval by the Commission. \nYerba Buena Room: And now I’d like to briefly review the site’s existing conditions and discuss the existing permit requirements. \nYerba Buena Room: Once again\, here’s an aerial from Google Earth to get a sense of the site as it’s currently situated. And since the industrialization of the Oakland waterfront. The project site has been used primarily for shipbuilding and repair industries\, and though it’s remained vacant oops \nYerba Buena Room: 4 \nYerba Buena Room: the past 20 years\, historic fill placement and remnant contamination from the site’s industrial history have led to soil contamination throughout the site. \nYerba Buena Room: So to address this remnant contamination and to compensate for overall fill impacts. The original permit requires mitigation efforts before commencing \nYerba Buena Room: phases 3 and 4 of the project. This will involve the removal of approximately 0 point 9 3 acres of contaminated material \nYerba Buena Room: on the project site and backfill with clean material to create point 6 5 acres of new tidal waters along the shoreline of Channel Park. \nYerba Buena Room: And so here we have an overview of those permit requirements\, including \nYerba Buena Room: 1\,200 feet of pathways\, 14 benches\, one public view\, corridor\, bay trail\, directional map and an approximately 30 foot wide segment of the Bay trail \nYerba Buena Room: with separated bicycle pedestrian pathways. \nYerba Buena Room: Today Channel Park remains a mostly vacant industrial Brownfield site with an interim\, public access trail around its perimeter. As seen here\, the images above illustrate views from the public access towards Lake Merritt Channel and 5th Avenue. \nYerba Buena Room: and here’s an exhibit showing how the site connects to nearby recreation and transit amenities. The site offers vehicular and bicycle and pedestrian connections to embarcadero or via the Embarcadero to Estuary Park\, Jack\, London Square\, and the broader Brooklyn Basin Development. \nYerba Buena Room: It’s located approximately one mile from transit amenities\, including the ferry Terminal and Amtrak station\, and within a half mile of a weekday commuter shuttle service serving Brooklyn Basin. \nYerba Buena Room: Here are some perspectives from Google Earth approaching the site with views towards the bay\, where the site will be accessed at the Embarcadero towards Lake Merritt Channel and the Oakland estuary. \nYerba Buena Room: another access point will be provided where the bay trail is diverted around parcel M\, which is not yet developed. \nYerba Buena Room: The Bcdc. Community vulnerability mapping tool shows the project site census block as having high indicators of high social vulnerability and highest contamination. Vulnerability \nYerba Buena Room: for this census block limited English proficiency proficiency has also been identified as a social vulnerability indicator in the 90th percentile \nYerba Buena Room: the census block is also in the 90th percentile for multiple contamination vulnerability indicators\, including cleanup sites\, groundwater threats\, hazardous waste and impaired water bodies \nYerba Buena Room: regarding potential sea level rise. This map shows what 24 inches of sea level rise would look like if the site remained unchanged on top of mean\, high high water\, using the Ocean Protection Council’s sea level rise guidance. 24 inches of sea level rise is equivalent to a king tide at mid-century\, under the under the intermediate high scenario \nYerba Buena Room: under the scenario. There’s flooding along the shoreline with overtopping at such \nYerba Buena Room: at sections along the northwestern perimeter of the project site. \nYerba Buena Room: and this map shows what 66 inches of sea level rise on top of mean\, high or high water would look like if the site was unchanged. From this map you can see that the site will experience significant flooding and shoreline overtopping along the entire perimeter of the project site\, along with much of the neighboring shoreline along the Oakland estuary. \nYerba Buena Room: And now I’ll briefly mention the Board’s high\, level comments from the project’s March 10th Review. And just for context\, here is a side by side comparison of the previous Site plan and the Site plan that will be presented tonight. \nYerba Buena Room: During the Board’s previous review\, comments were related primarily to the Park’s public access and bay trail\, orientation\, sea level rise\, adaptation scenarios\, planting and landscape maintenance and the open water basin and breakwater design. \nYerba Buena Room: But I will leave our project team to explain in more detail how the project design has been modified in response to the Board’s comments. \nYerba Buena Room: But before that I’ll provide an overview of the question in the staff. Report that we’d like the Board to consider in your review. \nYerba Buena Room: First\, st please consider\, as usual\, how the project meets the public access objectives provided in Bcdc’s public access design guidelines \nYerba Buena Room: summarized above \nYerba Buena Room: and after the Board’s multiple reviews of this project staff has one question for your consideration tonight\, which is\, does the revised project sufficiently address the Board’s previous concerns. \nYerba Buena Room: including transitions between Channel Park and adjacent uses\, such as embarcadero and parcelain? \nYerba Buena Room: And now I’d like to see if the board has any clarifying questions for staff. \nYerba Buena Room: Okay\, thanks very much. Alyssa. Any clarifying questions. \nYerba Buena Room: Are are we gonna hear from the project applicants. Again\, we ask\, okay\, I don’t have any questions for the staff. \nYerba Buena Room: None question\, no questions from me\, and I none from the board. So we will continue. Thanks. Very much. \nYerba Buena Room: Great. Thank you. Okay\, we’ll move to the project team presentation now. So go ahead. Please go ahead. \nYerba Buena Room: Good evening. My name is Claire Janest. I’m a landscape designer with ein Willer keel\, landscape architecture here tonight with Sarah Keel\, Patrick Van Ness and Matt from Wra and signature development. Thank you\, Alyssa\, for the introduction and the background on the project. We’re looking forward to showing the board our Updated design for the For Channel Park. \nYerba Buena Room: There were some very helpful comments in our last presentation in March\, and we really appreciated the opportunity to sharpen our pencils and refine the design moving forward \nYerba Buena Room: as a refresher. The park is located within the larger Brooklyn Basin Development\, right at the confluence of the Lake Merritt Channel as it lets out into the Oakland estuary \nYerba Buena Room: and Channel Park is part of a group of 5 Parks in the Brooklyn Basin Development area\, and as a whole they read as as a family\, but each of them has their own unique character\, and channel. Park\, in particular\, is planned as sort of the greenest space within the Brooklyn Basin development. It’s got the most sort of wild and open character and the most relationship with the surrounding natural world. \nYerba Buena Room: This is the plan that we presented back in March\, \nYerba Buena Room: and it featured a section of the bay trail that winded through the park\, the new open water basin\, and then 3 main programmatic areas. There’s the Peninsula\, an interpretive garden sort of in the center of the park\, and then a more recreation focused area where the lawns are in at page South \nYerba Buena Room: The comments that we received from the board spanned 5 main categories. They were about the design of the bay trail and its connections to the public realm\, as well as questions around public access\, the planting palette\, the water basin itself\, and then sea level rise adaptation. \nYerba Buena Room: So we’ve incorporated many of those comments into our updated design\, and we’ve also taken the opportunity to go back to the site and ground truth some of our design decisions. \nYerba Buena Room: and returning to the site has really confirmed for us that there are really no bad views looking outwards. There’s great views all along the edge of the park. In some places you get views all the way out to the downtown Oakland skyline. There’s interesting views over to the 5th Avenue Marina\, where you see some of the industrial history. The only place where there’s a less desirable view would be looking back towards i. 8\, 80\, and we will be doing our best to plant trees to mask those views. \nYerba Buena Room: So our updated site plan reflects many of those changes that we spoke about in March. \nYerba Buena Room: primarily\, that would be the the bay trail itself. We’ve softened the course of the bay trail. We’ve made those turns a lot softer. We’ve tried to incorporate more meander\, especially out in the recreation area. And we’ve consolidated some of those lawn spaces to to get a more sizable \nYerba Buena Room: gathering space. \nYerba Buena Room: You’ll also notice in that Red Arrow shows where this the Bay trail could more easily connect through the 5th Avenue Marina parcel. Should that ever become an option or an opportunity. \nYerba Buena Room: and otherwise. They’ve just been some minor modifications to the geometry\, but it’s all still very much in the spirit of our previous design. We’ve also worked to clarify the connection points between the Bay trail and Embarcadero Street\, and we’ll have more details on that in the next slides \nYerba Buena Room: in red. You’ll see the Bay trail\, and \nYerba Buena Room: where it connects to Embarcadero Street is the dashed red line. And so what we’ve done now is made clear that \nYerba Buena Room: the pedestrian and bicyclists are always separated from vehicular traffic\, except where there are crosswalks that are already existing around the site. \nYerba Buena Room: We’ve also designed the bay trail to respond to a comfortable speed of travel for bicycles\, and in many ways all the paths around the site respond to speed of travel. So the purple paths that you’ll see\, relate to the pedestrian experience. Those are tighter\, more meandering curves\, and that’s really intentional\, so that people spend time in the landscape. It takes longer to get through the the space. \nYerba Buena Room: and that’s really to encourage people to explore\, whereas the bay trail itself is meant for a faster speed of travel. \nYerba Buena Room: There were some questions about how we are designing the width of the bay trail. And so this is our minimum condition that \nYerba Buena Room: responds to the minimum bay trail standards. So we’ve got a 30 foot wide area. \nYerba Buena Room: and in within that you’ll have 12 feet of planting area\, 6 on either side\, 3 feet of \nYerba Buena Room: paved shoulders on either side\, and then a 12 foot shared. Use trail that is paved throughout. \nYerba Buena Room: and that planting area may accommodate some lighting or benches or other amenities throughout\, but for the most part it will be planted. \nYerba Buena Room: We also wanted to clarify the distinction between pedestrian spaces and vehicular spaces\, especially along the 4th Avenue corridor. And so we’ve cut 3 sections through there\, and you’ll see that in each case the red and purple paths are separated from vehicular areas by planting. \nYerba Buena Room: The only exception to that rule would be in Section B\, where we have a crosswalk at the parcel\, M. Access and per the Board’s comments from March. We have lifted that crosswalk up onto a speed table to slow cars down as they access in and out of parcel M. So we’re prioritizing the pedestrian user rather than the the vehicular\, the vehicles. \nYerba Buena Room: And here’s a view of what that bay trail experience looks like at the embarcadero connection. Point. So you’ve got planting between people and the 4th Avenue Road\, and then on the right hand side\, you can see a bit of the meandering pedestrian paths that are winding around the bioswale. \nYerba Buena Room: This is at the eastern edge of the park\, the other point of connection to Embarcadero Street\, where there will be a curb cut that allows people to come in between the 5th Avenue\, Marina\, and parcel M down the throughway. \nYerba Buena Room: We recognize this is a tighter condition than some of the park. But we think that with \nYerba Buena Room: extensive planting and benches and signage and lighting\, this can become somewhere that really calls for the public to to enter\, and it shows that they are welcome into this space. \nYerba Buena Room: And this is the view from the the flip side of that. So back at the recreation lawns\, looking back towards Embarcadero Street\, and you can see that parcel. M is on the left 5th Avenue Marine on on the right\, and the bay trail goes between the 2. \nYerba Buena Room: There were some concerns as well about \nYerba Buena Room: the site being situated higher at a higher elevation than the surrounding context. And we’re we’re well aware of that\, and making every possible effort to \nYerba Buena Room: make that transition comfortable for pedestrians. \nYerba Buena Room: And so we will be working on this as we move forward\, but our intention is to keep this as as open and and comfortable as possible. \nYerba Buena Room: There were also some questions about bay trail amenities throughout the park there will be lighting all along the Bay trail. We’re intentionally keeping lighting out of the Peninsula\, as that’s really meant to be more of a nature focused space. And so \nYerba Buena Room: we felt like \nYerba Buena Room: to prioritize habitat. We should keep lighting out of there and along the bay trail\, where most of the public use will be happening\, especially in the evenings. There will also be trash cans\, picnic tables\, benches\, bike racks in the most sort of heavily used areas \nYerba Buena Room: in terms of the relationship between the pedestrian spaces and the open water basin. There were some questions about how we are \nYerba Buena Room: limiting public access to the water basin or limiting folks from walking down to the water\, and we’re really doing that by incorporating planted shoulders\, especially on the bay trail. There’s a 12 foot wide planted shoulder. \nYerba Buena Room: And we’re taking our cues from other existing open space areas and bay trail sections throughout the bay. The examples that you see at the bottom of the screen. A few of them have more riprap\, but we are trying to move away from using as much riprap as possible and shifting towards planting. And so we’re hoping that the planting really encourages folks to stay on the path and signal where people are invited in and where it’s supposed to be for the natural world. \nYerba Buena Room: And with that I’m going to pass it over to Matt to speak about the open water basin and sedimentation. \nYerba Buena Room: Sure\, we recognize that the the board had some comments about sedimentation \nYerba Buena Room: in the open water basin. The civil engineer that’s a Simpson Simpson\, Gumpertz and Hager Sgh. What they had done in the pre-design phase of this is\, they had done a bathymetry analysis between the 2 data sets shown here 2017 and 2024\, and the 1st of those shows that the mean High water line had not changed in that time. \nYerba Buena Room: So we didn’t find there was a a change in this area of the Oakland estuary or the Channel. \nYerba Buena Room: and if you can go to the next slide. \nYerba Buena Room: and similarly\, when looking at the local bathymetry\, we found also\, or the Civil found also that there was really no change at this location where we were designing the open water. \nYerba Buena Room: Given the local conditions that seem to indicate that there’s no net sediment\, increase or accretion at this location. That’s where we that’s where our concerns were laid that we’re not going to have similar issues with the open water feature. \nYerba Buena Room: And lastly\, we’ll just touch on the question of sea level rise resiliency to 2\,100. We showed 2 options last time one diagram showed a walled condition and the other was a berm\, and there was a unanimous desire for us to move forward with the berm condition as it offered a more\, a managed retreat scenario for sea level rise. So we’ve incorporated that into our current design and made space for that berm for that berm to be built in the future. \nYerba Buena Room: It would be a 2 foot tall berm\, and it would allow the park to be resilient to 2\,100. In the interpretive garden and recreation area the Peninsula would support\, managed retreat\, and would slowly become marshland. \nYerba Buena Room: and the berm would work in tandem with a breakwater modification which you’re seeing in the top right section\, and then a wall that would kind of transition between that breakwater and the berm itself. \nYerba Buena Room: And this is Sarah Keel. I’m going to conclude by just trying to contextualize what I think is important about this project for Oakland. One thing is. \nYerba Buena Room: there are places in Oakland where you can go to a park\, but the places where you can go to a park and experience sort of a healthy natural world and ecology are the really beloved ones. And so this project is trying to be a place where healthy ecology is an environment that people are invited into rather than sort of drawing a line between them. \nYerba Buena Room: And the other thing is that within particularly the last 5 years in Oakland\, Brooklyn Basin is a real success story. There have been tremendous challenges in cities in Oakland in particular\, and Brooklyn Basin is actually doing well. It’s built 465 units of affordable housing\, and they built them first.st So there’s \nYerba Buena Room: much more of a mixed community of people living there. The park\, which is township commons. I actually just got an article while I was sitting here saying that they’re having a contest for what’s your favorite 3rd place in Oakland and Township Commons is one of the top contenders. \nYerba Buena Room: It’s well maintained. It’s not having some of the challenges of other parks. And so we really see this as building on something that’s working in Oakland building on what’s happening at Jlac\, and something that potentially can extend the range of experiences. So we feel like it’s in a place in Oakland\, and it really matters that it’s building on things that are already working. And so we’re we’re believing in the ambitiousness in some ways of the design for that. \nYerba Buena Room: and it’s not just anywhere. It’s somewhere where we’ve seen things succeed in the past. And with that\, Patrick\, did you want to add anything \nYerba Buena Room: Patrick Van Ness with the project development team. And yeah\, I’m here to answer any detailed questions you might have about the history of the project or the interactions with surrounding properties. \nYerba Buena Room: Okay\, thank you very much. It was a very clear presentation and appreciate the extra detail\, evaluation and review of the various aspects of the design in the last couple of months. So thank you for that. \nYerba Buena Room: We’re now going to move to clarifying questions on the presentation from the board. I just wanted to kick off with one\, and I wonder if you could just flip back to the \nYerba Buena Room: the 2 sketches perspective sketches that you prepared showing the Embarcadero Street interface. And it’s the southern one that I just yeah. Sorry. The one \nYerba Buena Room: flip today. Yeah\, I just wanted to double check. It shows a curb cut there. \nYerba Buena Room: Just remind me\, is this an emergency access vehicle \nYerba Buena Room: way as well or or not? \nYerba Buena Room: It could end up. I think that will relate more to the final design of parcel M. But it doesn’t have to be. The curb cut is primarily provided for bicycles coming from the bike path. Yeah\, yeah\, I mean\, I. It’s it’s \nYerba Buena Room: in the sketch. It looks like\, perhaps there could be confusion from vehicles who might \nYerba Buena Room: decide that that’s an access way\, but to be determined in the design\, of course. And I just wanted to clarify that. \nYerba Buena Room: Okay\, any other clarifications. Bob\, we’ll start with you. \nYerba Buena Room: Thank you. \nYerba Buena Room: What can I ask about the the basin? \nYerba Buena Room: I know you had discussions about this last time\, but I \nYerba Buena Room: What is the the design elevation of the basin. And what is it? It’s expected condition. Is it going to be bare ground or vegetated? And what kind of \nYerba Buena Room: habitat\, or\, you know vegetation. Are you anticipating? \nYerba Buena Room: Yeah. The the inlets tied into the Oakland asteroid\, a subtitle level \nYerba Buena Room: and the open water itself is also below mean high water\, and below the where we typically find low marsh vegetation. \nYerba Buena Room: So it’s it’s kind of going to look like \nYerba Buena Room: what you’d see\, perhaps a natural mud flat. We’re not expecting a lot of vegetation growth. \nYerba Buena Room: With the channel at the elevation it’s we’re recommending would likely not stay full of water\, but only on the lowest of low tides. Would it also be empty in the middle by the 6? Right. \nYerba Buena Room: Thank you. Thanks \nYerba Buena Room: other questions\, Stefan. \nYerba Buena Room: Thank you so much for this really helpful presentation\, and I also found it very helpful because I wasn’t here for the previous review to see what the comments already were. \nYerba Buena Room: Fantastic. Board discussion. And I just a a few kind of grab bag of questions. \nYerba Buena Room: that future connection to Lake Merritt Channel is the idea that would go under the embarcadero or over. And is this very speculative? What’s the sort of story with that? \nYerba Buena Room: There is a many tons of 1 million dollar bike path project. That is an elevated bridge that goes over the railroad and the freeway. It is as of yet unfunded. But if it ever happened\, it’s touching down from above. \nYerba Buena Room: Got it. So it does. It sort of loops around. Got it? Okay\, yeah\, that’s helpful. \nYerba Buena Room: I was wondering for the programming. It seems like\, kind of primarily picnicking and walking. Maybe bird watching \nYerba Buena Room: was there. You mentioned a desire for this to be more natural? Was there some a process that led to those specific activities like a public process. Or how did you select that programming for this site? \nYerba Buena Room: So we’ve had the benefit of working on all of the parks at Brooklyn Basin\, and particularly when we started with township commons\, which is very built. \nYerba Buena Room: Some of the public who lives in the 5th Avenue community\, and others really wanted a place that was for birds\, for the natural world that spoke to that. And so this park \nYerba Buena Room: was always going to be a passive recreation park. But the dial towards ecology got turned up through feedback that we got during our other park meetings\, and in other hearings that people did at Estuary Park was\, which is the one across the Channel. And in conversations. It’s something that people said they wanted here \nYerba Buena Room: those activities of picnicking and the kind of recreation lawns specifically. \nYerba Buena Room: There’s always\, you know\, people putting tabs on picnicking and the trail uses themselves. But as a like detailed\, I want a picnic lawn at this park. \nYerba Buena Room: Not not exactly. No\, I’m also wondering. \nYerba Buena Room: the parking kind of comes very far into the park. \nYerba Buena Room: and I was wondering if there\, I see that there’s a desire to make a vehicular connection into the blocks there. \nYerba Buena Room: But is there a reason why the parking isn’t closer to the road. Is it? Is there some the bioswale needs to be there\, or is there some. \nYerba Buena Room: or is it just? That’s sort of where it landed? \nYerba Buena Room: More than one reason. So one partly it’s the existing bioswale and the need to make a grade change from embarcadero to a higher ground. \nYerba Buena Room: Partly it’s a question of ease\, of access to the water\, and other things for people who are mobility impaired\, and a desire to have some close spaces for them. And partly. It’s just a geometry of trying to get the\, you know\, a square thing in a round thing and getting it to look good. \nYerba Buena Room: and then for the Bay trail. Was it important to achieve a 30 foot bay trail? \nYerba Buena Room: Was that like a because I noticed there’s a lot of planting which isn’t typically part of the Bay Trail section. \nYerba Buena Room: So Patrick can speak to this more the before my time document that guides all of the development at Brooklyn Basin called out for a 30 Foot Bay trail section\, but when we drilled down to that for township Commons \nYerba Buena Room: we were told to follow the guidelines for the Bay trail standard\, which is obviously less. But then amenities and things that support the trail\, planting benches\, lights should be within that 30 foot section. And so that’s the guidance we have continued to follow is that there’s \nYerba Buena Room: an 18 foot wide trail section which includes the trail itself and the paved shoulders and the remaining 12 feet is supportive elements that make the trail a good experience\, basically. And that’s the way we’ve been following it on the whole project. \nYerba Buena Room: Okay\, thank you? \nYerba Buena Room: And then last question\, what are people connecting to across the embarcadero? \nYerba Buena Room: What’s the? There’s a crosswalk. There? Is there a future connection that would be made because it looks like it’s just the sidewalk\, basically on the other side of the embarcadero. And the reason I’m asking is if there should be some sort of \nYerba Buena Room: light or pedestrian safety something\, or if it’s really just not going to be a heavily used crosswalk\, or if that was considered at all. \nYerba Buena Room: we are just drawing the existing condition. That’s sort of out of the purview of the project. But in terms of uses on the other side there’s an facility and a lumber yard\, and the crosswalk is mainly being used\, for if you happen to use one side of the bridge or the bike path that’s on the other side. But there’s not really a parcel destination\, I would say. It’s just a movement across the road itself. \nYerba Buena Room: Do you know\, if there’s been any like traffic studies\, or anything to indicate that there should be some sort of enhanced pedestrian safety for crossing? Or is it not really a desire line. \nYerba Buena Room: The crosswalk\, as I understand it\, was installed with the Embarcadero Bridge\, and in that design they had enhanced pedestrian access on both sides\, so it was put in place to bring pedestrians from one side of the bridge to the other side\, the thought process being\, if somebody’s on \nYerba Buena Room: the upland side of the bridge. They’ll want to go to the Park\, and so they would have done any pedestrian studies with that project. They’re the ones that installed the crosswalk. \nYerba Buena Room: Thank you. Those are all my questions. \nYerba Buena Room: Tom. Any questions? Yeah. Just 2. \nYerba Buena Room: Quick ones. \nYerba Buena Room: The \nYerba Buena Room: possible future bay trail connection to the south. I guess it is. Could you talk a little bit more about what would have to happen? \nYerba Buena Room: Would that become a reality? \nYerba Buena Room: Or maybe maybe there’s a bigger context map\, too. \nYerba Buena Room: Yeah\, maybe go back to one of the bigger context maps. This is pretty good\, actually. Well\, either one of these the sort of white zone between South Park and Channel Park is a piece of property owned by someone else. \nYerba Buena Room: And at the time that this development came about they did not want to sell it\, so what would have to happen would be\, they would have to decide to develop or sell that parcel\, and then there would be an opportunity to request a connection. \nYerba Buena Room: and if they did develop they would have to accommodate Paytrail some way correct. That was the theory at the time\, but they were very specific that they wanted to be excluded from all planning efforts for this project area got it. They did not agree to anything. The city of Oakland had asked\, makes sense. Okay? One more question on siltation. \nYerba Buena Room: If somehow expectations were not met and there was some silk came in there. God forbid! \nYerba Buena Room: What would happen! \nYerba Buena Room: What would that be like? Is that bad or good? Or \nYerba Buena Room: I think certainly we’d go into a adaptive management mode. \nYerba Buena Room: I think the 1st thing we’d start to watch out for is what vegetation really is coming in. So the the current design of the open water is about at mean high water mean high water\, the level of mean high water\, so \nYerba Buena Room: like a like I mentioned before\, almost like a mud flat. If vegetation did start coming in. I think we would likely be looking for things like Spartina \nYerba Buena Room: or other low marsh vegetation that would come in \nYerba Buena Room: and we’d look to the regional plans to to manage that\, if need be\, or to let it keep growing. \nYerba Buena Room: Now\, if you know\, I think if the channel was filling in. \nYerba Buena Room: That would be something a little bit different. \nYerba Buena Room: right? Especially into how it was. The intention of the open water is to invite the tide in right for that experience. Right? We’re watching. We’re watching the water go in and go out on a daily basis. It’s marking the time as you’re in the park. \nYerba Buena Room: So I think the idea there is. If that experience was being interrupted right by the saltation\, that’s\, you know\, when we might consider \nYerba Buena Room: corrective actions right to to clear the channel or clear the inlet. \nYerba Buena Room: Corrective action like you mean\, deep in the Channel. \nYerba Buena Room: I don’t think that would. Necessarily. It’s it’s designed pretty deep\, right as an open water feature. \nYerba Buena Room: you wouldn’t necessarily you’d look for. \nYerba Buena Room: I think. I guess what I’m saying is corrective actions might be. If there’s specific blockages right? A blockage at the Channel\, a blockage at one of the trees\, right? Not necessarily a \nYerba Buena Room: wholesale sediment\, accretion going on\, so would it be fair to say that if it did salt up more. \nYerba Buena Room: that it’s not necessarily creating a blight or anything. That’s it’s gonna it’s gonna go to saltwater marsh in some form. \nYerba Buena Room: Yeah\, I I think the difference between this and and other planned \nYerba Buena Room: you know\, more traditional like a restoration right? Instead of a park feature is that this is designed \nYerba Buena Room: well\, deeper than you might \nYerba Buena Room: right. It’s it’s designed to hold the water. Mark the time as as the tide comes in. \nYerba Buena Room: So so again\, if it did silt in\, we’d start to see vegetation. And and I think the evaluation is there is whether that’d be beneficial to the experience of the park or not. Not necessarily that the whole system would stop working. \nYerba Buena Room: Thanks. \nYerba Buena Room: Okay\, yeah. Stefan. \nYerba Buena Room: I have a question about parcel parcel\, M. And so I’m hoping that \nYerba Buena Room: staff can also weigh in on this. The parcel M will be proposed by others. It’s out of the purview of this project\, but it also \nYerba Buena Room: is impacted by the shoreline band. \nYerba Buena Room: But so the way that I understand that is that there’s some expectation that parcel. M. Would \nYerba Buena Room: also be subject to maximizing public access to the shoreline. \nYerba Buena Room: Is that a correct assessment? \nYerba Buena Room: Do you expect? Parcel M to come through for review? \nYerba Buena Room: It’s my understanding parcel. M is not in the shoreline band\, so we wouldn’t review it. For \nYerba Buena Room: for the project. \nYerba Buena Room: it’s Catherine. Did I get that right\, because I’m just looking at the little purple band there that goes through the corner. So I think if \nYerba Buena Room: oh\, it might be that with the new configuration of the shoreline resulting from this project that it \nYerba Buena Room: enters the shoreline band. \nYerba Buena Room: I’m not sure\, if like\, without \nYerba Buena Room: you know this project\, whether it would be as that. I don’t know if Sarah is that correct\, Patrick? \nYerba Buena Room: I believe that the purple band you see there is the new shoreline. So that’s with the reconfiguration of the shoreline. It pulls the \nYerba Buena Room: Ccdc jurisdiction line. In \nYerba Buena Room: that being said\, we went through extensive discussions about development parcels through the entire. You know 4 plus \nYerba Buena Room: design review hearings that were in the original entitlement. And every time that we have a project that comes back to Bcdc design review. \nYerba Buena Room: so the development parcels are private development parcels that \nYerba Buena Room: are part of the project. But it was always intended that they were to be high density housing \nYerba Buena Room: in around the parks. \nYerba Buena Room: So I would say at the time the project comes forward. \nYerba Buena Room: Depending on what the shoreline is at that point. \nYerba Buena Room: It might require some action from Bcdc. \nYerba Buena Room: I think we’ll have to see kind of how things converge. \nYerba Buena Room: Well\, Stefan\, I I mean\, I think it’s you’re raising a good question. \nYerba Buena Room: Can I put it to Ashley and Staff to look into that\, and to determine what the position would be? \nYerba Buena Room: And I take it from previous. \nYerba Buena Room: the the sequence of reviews. Maybe you could help us with this. The \nYerba Buena Room: previous 4 reviews that happened during the Master Plan\, or the planning process for the entire \nYerba Buena Room: parcel\, the the master plan. Have you come back to Bcdc. With architectural proposals\, ever or\, yeah. \nYerba Buena Room: Not. With. So the original design review process envisioned that each parcel was a big block\, 86 feet tall\, property line to property line. So the what was reviewed was\, you know\, shadow view impacts\, but the assumption being that that it would be a complete \nYerba Buena Room: covered parcel \nYerba Buena Room: we have the parcels that sit around Clinton Basin that are clearly within Bcdc’s jurisdiction and staff has reviewed those and \nYerba Buena Room: we did go to design review on \nYerba Buena Room: on one of them\, I believe. But it was more for how the public access \nYerba Buena Room: was developed in that area\, not for the parcel\, but it was the final design \nYerba Buena Room: of that section of public access\, and then\, where the openings were from the future development. But it wasn’t \nYerba Buena Room: determined at that time that the Pcdc sort of overarching view of \nYerba Buena Room: requiring public access on the parcel development site\, because the public access was the 30 acres of \nYerba Buena Room: right waterfront park. Yeah\, I mean\, there is a timing and sequential relationship here that in\, you know\, in other projects. We’ve certainly reviewed projects where. \nYerba Buena Room: the implications of the building as in shadow or wind\, or \nYerba Buena Room: access or visibility privacy\, you know all the issues that we would consider. You know we we are. It’s not uncommon for us to be looking at those issues and reviewing the the trail \nYerba Buena Room: in this instance the trail is being established\, and the park. \nYerba Buena Room: before seeing any of the buildings which I presume on their own timeline. But \nYerba Buena Room: So it’s a little unusual to I don’t know what is the timing for the development of the buildings. Is it the same? Or \nYerba Buena Room: they would go likely of at the same time. Everything you discussed about\, you know\, shadows\, wind views. \nYerba Buena Room: When we went through design review before it was an understanding that there’s a similar to Mission Bay. It’s a big building sitting on the \nYerba Buena Room: waterfront\, and we’ll have those impacts because it’s a big building sitting on the waterfront. The the \nYerba Buena Room: really\, the focus was on \nYerba Buena Room: the public access around there\, similar also to Mission Bay and what those interactions were. And that’s kind of how it went through the design review process. And yeah\, now\, that was a long time ago\, and and no one on this board was here. But that was a lot of the discussion at the time was\, how do the development parcels interact with the open space staff gave guidance to the designer view on how to do that. And that’s how we ended up with these \nYerba Buena Room: parks. Yeah\, actually\, I think a few of us were on the board at that time\, but we were reviewing master Plan proposals\, and you know the park design\, for example\, here has evolved significantly from the master plan. So which again\, is not unusual\, but it does raise the question of \nYerba Buena Room: I I don’t know. If you’ve been able to find anything else out while this conversation is going on. But \nYerba Buena Room: Can you clarify anything for us? \nYerba Buena Room: No staff will have to look into the \nYerba Buena Room: preview\, the plan\, review history\, and the design review history for the site and see how the permit is structured related to input on the building. I do recall from the last the Drb meeting in March \nYerba Buena Room: Gary string had requested more information on the interface with the public access and the site development \nYerba Buena Room: and we can look into that right. \nYerba Buena Room: Yes\, go ahead. \nYerba Buena Room: Sorry. I guess just maybe just one follow up question is\, is the vehicular access to parcel M \nYerba Buena Room: limited to the 4th Avenue connection? \nYerba Buena Room: Or will that be something that’s subject to future determination. \nYerba Buena Room: based on the layout of the ultimate project. \nYerba Buena Room: 4th Avenue was always envisioned to be the main access point for parcel M. \nYerba Buena Room: The design guidelines that we operate under with \nYerba Buena Room: city of Oakland\, discourage direct access or development onto Barcadero\, trying to limit the amount of \nYerba Buena Room: access points on the main thoroughfare and crossing the bike lanes and whatnot that are there \nYerba Buena Room: so 4th Avenues? And is your main access to parcelain and the park? \nYerba Buena Room: Is it possible that the number I’ll call it the number 9\, \nYerba Buena Room: a bay trail connection could be \nYerba Buena Room: requested or used for future vehicular access. \nYerba Buena Room: The bay trail location on 9 served 2 purposes. One was originally intended to be an emergency vehicle access for parcel M. Because when I said before\, we looked at large developments. They were required to have that access point there\, but also because we have no ability to cross the out parcel. It was the Bay trail section \nYerba Buena Room: that got you back to the connection of other pay trail sections and bike and pad on \nYerba Buena Room: in the area. \nYerba Buena Room: So it served 2 purposes. \nYerba Buena Room: depending upon what happens on parcel M. That may or may not be used for an Eva for parcel M. But it may be still desired by the fire department \nYerba Buena Room: to have emergency vehicle access. \nYerba Buena Room: because now they could use that to potentially fight a fire or have access the site from an emergency standpoint \nYerba Buena Room: along the adjacent parcel that doesn’t currently exist\, and I would not be surprised if. \nYerba Buena Room: regardless of whether or not we need it on parcel\, M. That the fire department requests that that be a emergency vehicle\, access to access the park and access this section of the park because it is \nYerba Buena Room: somewhat isolated from the rest of the site. \nYerba Buena Room: Just a follow up on that. Can you describe \nYerba Buena Room: how that section would change if if the fire department requires that for Eva? \nYerba Buena Room: Oh\, go ahead! \nYerba Buena Room: Really not much in terms of the width of the path right now is designed at 18 feet\, which would almost accommodate a fire truck. You need 2 more feet\, and then we might need some places potentially to stop and have slightly wider areas. But it wouldn’t really change much from what we’re proposing. \nYerba Buena Room: They would use the trail as the vehicular access \nYerba Buena Room: the roadway it would\, it would have a different section or wait. \nYerba Buena Room: I really appreciate this this additional clarification. It’s really helpful. I have one more question\, and I promise I’m not gonna ask any more questions right now. \nYerba Buena Room: Is\, is is there a precedent or \nYerba Buena Room: Is there a situation where a permit could include considerations or conditions of approval for a \nYerba Buena Room: internal private property that would bring considerations of public access into play when it is developed. \nYerba Buena Room: cause it sounds like there’s a scenario here where that would be out of Bcdc’s future purview. \nYerba Buena Room: And this is\, I can’t think of a situation where we have. \nYerba Buena Room: I’m not saying that there isn’t 1 i can’t remember a situation where there is kind of an internalized parcel like this. That is maybe \nYerba Buena Room: potentially has future impacts on the outcome of public access. \nYerba Buena Room: That’s being considered right. Now. \nYerba Buena Room: You don’t have to answer that question. But that’s that is a question about like the reason why I’m asking this is because you have asked us is the considerations around the things that are outside of the purview of this project being parcel M. And the 5th Avenue properties\, are we feeling? Okay with that? And so I’m \nYerba Buena Room: I’m putting a question back to you. so I’ll stop. \nYerba Buena Room: I would say\, if it’s something that the permitee has control over or can enter into an agreement over and it’s something that would \nYerba Buena Room: protect or preserve some aspect of the public access. Specifically\, \nYerba Buena Room: you know\, we do often include conditions in our permits that are that affect locations outside of our immediate jurisdiction. \nYerba Buena Room: But it has to\, you know\, any condition that we include like has to like\, have some \nYerba Buena Room: place in the findings that we make about maximum\, feasible public access\, and it also has to be something that the permitee is actually able to provide. So \nYerba Buena Room: you know\, something that’s like\, either on property that they control\, or something that they’re able to enter into an agreement with the property owner over\, you know something like that. So so it is possible. \nYerba Buena Room: I that answers your question. \nYerba Buena Room: you know\, just not to overdo this right now\, but just to clarify one other thing\, the current \nYerba Buena Room: building\, the the building areas that are shown \nYerba Buena Room: on parcel M\, are they all residential over garage? Or are they separate garage structures. \nYerba Buena Room: What’s shown is a schematic plan that was submitted to the city of Oakland and was running through a design review process. But it’s been put on hold. But this design\, if it moved forward\, has garages on the ground floor\, pedestrian or access at the ground floor as well along 4th Avenue. Okay? \nYerba Buena Room: Can. \nYerba Buena Room: I just want to say that I do think that? \nYerba Buena Room: You know\, we’re in a housing crisis. \nYerba Buena Room: and we desperately need housing\, and I would hate to see us adding a layer of review to an already very complicated thing to do\, which is build housing in the Bay Area\, especially at this moment. \nYerba Buena Room: and it sort of feels like we might be penalizing them for having increased the habitat\, because that’s what’s moving that jurisdiction line in to catch the corner of parcel. M. So I think we should talk about any concerns we have about this Bay trail access. But I would just hate for us to say that housing has to come in for another review\, because \nYerba Buena Room: it’s all this. This plan has already been through review\, and I think they should be able to move forward with building housing without us having another review over that. That’s my personal feeling. Maybe not the feeling of the board. But I just want to say that. That’s I think it’s an opportunity we have to help \nYerba Buena Room: housing production. Yeah. And Kristen\, I think that’s well said. And you know\, I think to Stefan’s Point. It’s just \nYerba Buena Room: more typical\, in fact\, really usual for us to be able to appreciate the interface between the you know\, a park and whatever the building development is proposed to be just so that \nYerba Buena Room: the protection of public access is maintained. Yeah. \nYerba Buena Room: for what it’s worth. Township Commons followed this model. We built the park first\, st and there’s a lot of there’s a road\, and there’s a lot of lots behind it that weren’t built and it’s worked out\, I guess is what I would say\, yeah\, yeah. Okay. \nYerba Buena Room: Good. \nYerba Buena Room: I’m good. Yeah. \nYerba Buena Room: Okay. With that\, we’ll move to public comment. Is there? \nYerba Buena Room: Before I read the preamble? Is there any public comment? \nYerba Buena Room: There’s none online. But I think\, Ashley. \nYerba Buena Room: okay\, we received 2 public comments submitted prior to the meeting. The 1st was from Mtc. Bay trail. Planner\, Lily Brown \nYerba Buena Room: and her points were\, she requested\, clarification on the inclusion of shoulders on the bay trail\, and suggested maintaining the paved portion of the bay trail at 18 feet to accommodate the anticipated higher use at this waterfront\, observing the new neighborhood district in the nearby shoreline destinations that make connections through the site. \nYerba Buena Room: she requested clarification on the permit condition that requires a 30 foot wide segment of the bay trail where this is located\, and how long that segment is supposed to be. \nYerba Buena Room: and she also requested the addition of a drinking fountains with a bottle\, full station\, and bike repair stations within the park\, as well as a drawing depicting the locations and quantities of the Park and Bay trail amenities. \nYerba Buena Room: We also received a letter of support from Sullivan\, Houser\, Executive director of the Jack London Improvement District\, emphasizing the crucial link that this helps fill between Brooklyn Basin and Jack London Square. \nYerba Buena Room: Thank you very much. \nYerba Buena Room: Okay\, that concludes public comment. We’ll now move to board discussion and advice\, and we’ll follow the usual approach here. As you know\, we’re always \nYerba Buena Room: keeping the 7 objectives for public access in mind\, and I won’t read them\, because we know them very well. And I think we’ve already had \nYerba Buena Room: a very productive conversation with the applicants on those 7 objectives. There was the question\, though\, that the staff have asked us to consider as we discussed the project\, and and that’s whether the transitions between Channel Park and the adjacent uses\, such as the Embarcadero and Parcel M are adequate\, so that touches on some of the conversation already. \nYerba Buena Room: So would someone like to \nYerba Buena Room: lead off on our conversation. Yeah\, yeah\, I wouldn’t mind leading off if you don’t mind. Yeah\, go ahead and just \nYerba Buena Room: finish my thoughts. \nYerba Buena Room: so you know\, I’m an engineer\, and I’ve done a lot of wetland restoration. And so I kind of focused on the basin. But before I get into that I’m really happy to see a project where the bay trail is pulled back from the shore. \nYerba Buena Room: and that there’s a \nYerba Buena Room: a wetland basin excavated into the shore. I I don’t know how many times we’ve seen this\, but usually it’s the other way around. So I I really like that a lot\, and it’s nice to see. \nYerba Buena Room: So I like the design. I really like that as far as the sedimentation potential of the basin. \nYerba Buena Room: Typically\, if you have a tidal basin. \nYerba Buena Room: You expect more sedimentation than you would on the \nYerba Buena Room: shore\, or the perimeter of a site that’s \nYerba Buena Room: got higher hydraulic activity\, like waves and tidal currents and stuff like that. And this is because \nYerba Buena Room: well\, and also the so the basin’s calmer\, and then you also the water that flows into the basin has more calm what we call residence time. \nYerba Buena Room: and so the sediment that’s in suspension\, the estrine sediment\, the vines\, like the clays and the silts\, tend to have. They have longer to kind of settle \nYerba Buena Room: and quiet water settle down in deposit. \nYerba Buena Room: and so you have more of the suspended sediment depositing. \nYerba Buena Room: and then. So I would actually expect sedimentation in the Basin is where I’m going now. \nYerba Buena Room: I don’t really see that as a problem\, because\, especially with sea level rise\, because then\, if anything\, your site grade will just go up with sea level rise. Depending on it all depends on the suspended sediment concentrations that you have \nYerba Buena Room: and then it depends on the existing depth and the size of the basin and all these other things. \nYerba Buena Room: and I think that if you’re around mean higher high water and lower with any kind of slope you’re likely to get emergent \nYerba Buena Room: saltwater of vegetation\, cord\, grass\, pickle weed going to sawgrass\, whatever. \nYerba Buena Room: I’m not sure the salinities here. I think they’re probably pretty salty\, but to the extent that you have some drainage swales\, and it’s a little more brackish. You might get something like a Thule\, or more like a bulrush\, maybe. \nYerba Buena Room: But anyway\, my point is\, those are all good things\, I think\, and I’m not sure why they would be objectionable. I think you could still have the water coming in and out\, and there would probably. Still\, it’s nice to have channels excavated. \nYerba Buena Room: I think that’s the right thing to do. \nYerba Buena Room: I would tend to recommend providing. \nYerba Buena Room: making sure you’re providing enough width a big enough gap for the Channel\, especially if it’s a little bigger than a tidal marsh\, because you’re going to get a little more water going in and out. \nYerba Buena Room: and it’s better to avoid the scour around sharp edges. It’s a little more stable\, and if it’s a low energy environment it’ll be fine. You don’t need to squeeze it with the rocks and stuff like that. \nYerba Buena Room: or walls. So I would actually recommend that you have somebody look at the \nYerba Buena Room: at the guidance on on these wetland restoration\, or try to understand what the equilibrium of the project will look like. \nYerba Buena Room: Look at this\, the set of suspended sediment concentrations\, and there’s some guidance \nYerba Buena Room: that if you have enough suspended sediment\, you can look at some regression curves applied your morphology regression curves that relate the size of the basin \nYerba Buena Room: to \nYerba Buena Room: the area of the Channel\, the channel sizes and all those types of things. And there’s the \nYerba Buena Room: San Francisco Bay\, tidal Wetland Restoration guidelines that were put together by Philip Williams and associates some years ago. And they’re widely available on the Internet. And they have all these curves and wra probably contributed to those years ago. But anyway\, I just want to say I think it’s great\, and I wouldn’t be afraid of some vegetation. \nYerba Buena Room: I don’t know what adaptive management\, because once the vegetation establishes\, you’re probably not going to be able to get rid of it from a regulatory standpoint\, but I don’t know why you would. Actually\, I think it’s it’ll be nice. So \nYerba Buena Room: I just felt like I should say that as somebody that’s done Wetland Restoration for about 40 years in in the bay. Quite a bit. \nYerba Buena Room: But I also really thank \nYerba Buena Room: you for the design where you actually have a basin\, and you pull the darn \nYerba Buena Room: they trail a little inland so people can enjoy that that natural space. I think that’s going to be really nice. \nYerba Buena Room: So that’s that’s all I have. \nYerba Buena Room: Yeah\, no\, thank you both. That’s \nYerba Buena Room: very\, very well said\, thank you. \nYerba Buena Room: Comments from others. Kristen. \nYerba Buena Room: Well\, yeah\, I just am sort of embarrassed to say. I just went to Brooklyn Basin for the 1st time this morning to check out the site. \nYerba Buena Room: And it was amazing. It’s beautiful. There’s so many people. It was there at 7 30 in the morning. There’s people out rollerblading and walking their dogs. And it just was a really wonderful experience. And it’s sort of really an act of vision to imagine that such a vibrant\, wonderful neighborhood could be built in such a tough location \nYerba Buena Room: next to the freeway and sort of separated by these tracks and all of the obstacles there. And so I just want to commend you all for having built such a wonderful place that really felt exciting and special\, and I’m sure on a sunny day and not a foggy morning it’s even \nYerba Buena Room: it’s even better. \nYerba Buena Room: and I just I was as I was looking at this plan\, I’m I’m understanding the desire for this kind of natural counterpoint juxtaposition to the kind of more hardscape really active township commons. And I think that this is a plan where the planting really matters\, and we’re not seeing the level of planting at this level of design. And so without that \nYerba Buena Room: when I read this it. \nYerba Buena Room: I’m struggling to see the sort of clarity of the hierarchy. There’s sort of a lot of winding paths that feel without the sort of planting or the topography. It sort of feels like they’re sort of arbitrarily meandering \nYerba Buena Room: and intersecting. Can I jump in? Yeah\, the previous presentation had a lot more detail on the planting and the strategy\, if you like\, for the secondary path systems and \nYerba Buena Room: grading relationships. So so that’s there. I’m just it’s there. And Gary\, you know\, responded on some of the planting great points. Yeah\, it’s not from today’s presentation. Those details are not clear. Right? But there was. \nYerba Buena Room: you know\, I thought\, quite a thoughtful yes\, and and quite convincing. The the designers\, I think\, are approaching it very appropriately for this sort of \nYerba Buena Room: for the ambition of the project. Great? Yeah. \nYerba Buena Room: That’s great. Then the only other comment that I had was \nYerba Buena Room: I’m from the renderings and from the plan. The parking feels very visible. I don’t know if there’s a strategy there about planting that would kind of help \nYerba Buena Room: hide it away a little bit more it just for a desire to be in this natural place. It feels like\, you know\, in the renderings everywhere you look. There’s cars still\, and I am understand. You know cars are always the hardest part of any plan. And understanding that it’s an existing bioswale\, and that that may not be a great place for parking. \nYerba Buena Room: I would just encourage you to think about more ways of kind of making that parking feel less present\, particularly in the central part of the plan. I think once you’re out on this sort of the nose out there that goes towards estuary that could feel like a very lovely kind of removed space. And I think that’s what people are looking for when they’re looking for natural. This sort of like away from cars specifically \nYerba Buena Room: And then the the just. The last other point is\, you know\, this artist community next door? I could anticipate. There might be some friction between \nYerba Buena Room: that community and a new development. But I actually think that that identity there is really interesting. And if there’s ways to kind of integrate the quirkiness and the arts into this space\, that that might be an interesting opportunity to kind of help give it a unique identity like how township Commons brings in the history of that space. Maybe there’s an opportunity here to add this overlay of kind of the quirky artistic \nYerba Buena Room: community. \nYerba Buena Room: Just a thought. \nYerba Buena Room: Yeah. \nYerba Buena Room: And I think that’s that’s a that’s an excellent point\, because it is a very interesting place next door\, despite them\, not wanting to participate in the development. Stefan\, any comments? \nYerba Buena Room: I just wanna say I I appreciate the \nYerba Buena Room: way that you approached responding to the previous review. I think that it is very helpful \nYerba Buena Room: to sort of address the Board’s comments in this way. \nYerba Buena Room: I’m sort of fixated on this. \nYerba Buena Room: The question that you’re asked. You’ve asked at the end. So I’m going to try to say \nYerba Buena Room: something about this that maybe makes sense. \nYerba Buena Room: Is that the way I understand it because of the existing multimodal infrastructure that’s along the embarcadero is that the primary access from the San Antonio side of Lake Merritt is via the 5th Avenue underpass. \nYerba Buena Room: and for those folks the primary entrance until \nYerba Buena Room: the Laney College flyover is built\, which we know is sometime between the future and \nYerba Buena Room: right it\, so that the access is at this new 4th Avenue intersection which has been constructed and which this park will now allow \nYerba Buena Room: folks to basically get to the Bay via that point. \nYerba Buena Room: So that means that from the San Antonio side\, right? I \nYerba Buena Room: there’s a spot in the middle along the number 9 additional alignments where I really \nYerba Buena Room: I can’t make a southbound connection in that location\, because I can’t cross the embarcadero directly at at. There’s no intersection there. \nYerba Buena Room: right? I can cross 5th Avenue or 4th Avenue\, but where the Number 9 connection comes up \nYerba Buena Room: there is no intersection there. \nYerba Buena Room: So for folks coming from 5th Avenue they need to be able to stay on the north side of Embarcadero \nYerba Buena Room: and go to the 4th Avenue intersection \nYerba Buena Room: in order to get into the Park. That suggests that maybe most of the \nYerba Buena Room: multimodal traffic on the number 9 alignment is actually northbound \nYerba Buena Room: because it’s that’s really a write in. Write out access off of embarcadero for for pedestrians and bicyclists. \nYerba Buena Room: All of that points to a question about should there be enhanced multimodal \nYerba Buena Room: access on the front of parcel M. \nYerba Buena Room: And \nYerba Buena Room: that’s kind of a question in my mind\, because\, again\, the 5th Avenue community is just providing a sidewalk \nYerba Buena Room: ideally\, you would make that connection across both of those properties on the water side. \nYerba Buena Room: Of the embarcadero. But that’s \nYerba Buena Room: that is sort of a question in my mind is\, if there was a \nYerba Buena Room: future condition of approval that you would put on parcel\, M. Maybe it’s about the \nYerba Buena Room: access on along the the pedestrian access along the the embarcadero frontage that would allow for \nYerba Buena Room: that frontage to be used bidirectionally as opposed to \nYerba Buena Room: It’s that’s it’s just eastbound. \nYerba Buena Room: It’s just an eastbound connection on that side of the roadway right now for for bicycles. \nYerba Buena Room: Stefan\, just to to make sure it’s what I understand what you’re saying. So you would suggest that \nYerba Buena Room: and this is I I when you say multimodal\, pedestrian and bicycle. So \nYerba Buena Room: you know\, in you would potentially have a wider\, a wider sidewalk\, I mean in theory\, the bay trail. \nYerba Buena Room: you know\, following a bay trail approach width so that the bay trail\, you know you get that. Yeah\, if I talk about sort of looking at this diagram\, right. The the 5th Avenue intersection is off this diagram. Yeah\, right? It’s it’s below it to the south. But that is the prime. Right now. The 5th Avenue \nYerba Buena Room: connection under the highway is the primary connection to the San Antonio side of Lake Merritt. All that that whole neighborhood access to the waterfront goes through the 5th Avenue. \nYerba Buena Room: I mean that is\, that is the point of least resistance for that neighborhood to to connect. \nYerba Buena Room: It’s right there in the middle of of this drawing \nYerba Buena Room: right? So I can. There’s a very well designed intersection there. I can come down there. \nYerba Buena Room: I can find my way down 5th Avenue\, but I can’t get to. \nYerba Buena Room: There’s no public access to the water at the bottom. This project will open up public access at the 4th Avenue \nYerba Buena Room: intersection to the north\, slash west\, left hand side of this drawing. \nYerba Buena Room: but where this Number 9 access comes out I cannot. I can’t cross the embarcadero in that location \nYerba Buena Room: right? So if I’m coming from the neighborhood\, I really need to go down. Be of the \nYerba Buena Room: Via the 4th Avenue connection. That’s that’s why I really need to be comfortable to doing\, because it’s really not safe for me to cross at the number 9 connection. There’s no intersection there for me to do that. I can cross it fit that. \nYerba Buena Room: Yeah. \nYerba Buena Room: right? And I can cross the 5th Avenue. But then I’m on the sidewalk right? Right? Which is maybe not ideal. I mean it’s possible\, but it’s not ideal. And then when I come out on the number 9\, section \nYerba Buena Room: right? If I’m traveling east west on Embarcadero\, I can get in on the Number 9 piece. \nYerba Buena Room: But if I’m coming out of there I need to be able to travel either up to the 5th Avenue intersection or to the left \nYerba Buena Room: to get up to the 5th Avenue intersection in order to to get back into the neighborhood. \nYerba Buena Room: So all of us\, I don’t know if I’m I’m telling this\, but it raises a question about the frontage parcel. M. \nYerba Buena Room: Because a parcel M is improved to the condition\, that is. \nYerba Buena Room: But both of those parcels in a future development situation \nYerba Buena Room: probably need more pedestrian and bicycle frontage \nYerba Buena Room: along embarcadero. And in my mind that is\, it doesn’t have to be solved by this project. But it’s this question. It raises this question about the future design condition of parcel M. \nYerba Buena Room: Well\, and it also \nYerba Buena Room: should apply to the parcel which is not part of the development and didn’t want to be. But ultimately the frontage to that parcel that you know\, you would hope that there’s a an ultimate \nYerba Buena Room: aim. Yeah\, how that would be handled as well. Yeah. And then the other piece of that right is that if the connection on the water side \nYerba Buena Room: of Number 9 of the number 9 alignment. If that actually also happens\, then that it sort of lessens the pressure of correct. Because then I can. I can go. What I want to do is to be able to just go straight to the water on my path right? I don’t want to have to cross. \nYerba Buena Room: Yeah\, another intersection\, and we can go straight to the water. And then I can choose to go left or right. So that that is also something that we can’t determine when or if that will ever happen so again\, it just raises this question. \nYerba Buena Room: It doesn’t. I do not. I’m I’m trying to sort of go back to answering the question that’s in the \nYerba Buena Room: staff report. I don’t believe that this project needs to deal with this\, but it raises the question about what? How we deal with parcel M in the future. \nYerba Buena Room: That makes sense. \nYerba Buena Room: yeah. And I think the discussion here. I think you know\, our role is to provide advice on you know how\, especially for for staff. You know\, for because they are dealing with these issues on a daily basis. So \nYerba Buena Room: I think we should be clear that you know the at \nYerba Buena Room: someone needs to be thinking about the you know the length of the the treatment. Sorry the treatment of that cross section on the looking at this drawing on the south side of the embarcadero. It’s really not South\, but and you know\, and how it will ultimately connect between 5th and 4.th And you know what’s optimal in terms of \nYerba Buena Room: accommodating the Bay trail connection and the sense of how public the Bay trail is to. Yeah. \nYerba Buena Room: You mind if I jump in. Yeah\, I mean\, I think one of the challenges of these large master plan projects is that they? \nYerba Buena Room: We sort of look to them to solve all of the problems. \nYerba Buena Room: When this is I. I agree with you\, Jacinda. This is a a connection that’s being \nYerba Buena Room: frustrated by the existing parcel there. \nYerba Buena Room: and I would imagine that that parcel is required to provide bay access just like everyone else along the shoreline is. And so I think. \nYerba Buena Room: asking this number 9 connection\, as we’re calling it to in some ways calling it a bay trail connection on the plan isn’t really \nYerba Buena Room: there. It’s like an interim. It’s a connector to the bay trail. It’s not really part of the bay trail. \nYerba Buena Room: and I think\, looking\, because 5th Street is a public street. You can go down it to the waterfront if you like\, and I’m not sure I actually didn’t see if there was a fence or anything that would block the access to the North\, let’s call it \nYerba Buena Room: to the to the west\, but I mean\, I don’t \nYerba Buena Room: think that that personally\, I think that that problem \nYerba Buena Room: shouldn’t have to be solved by this plan. \nYerba Buena Room: Yeah\, I think we’re saying the same thing. Okay. \nYerba Buena Room: yeah. I mean? The question was\, Oh\, okay. \nYerba Buena Room: well\, and I think maybe just to be a if I can just jump in on this to be a little more\, maybe \nYerba Buena Room: to dial it back to the project. You know it was very helpful to see the 2\, and if you wouldn’t mind if you could just show us those 2 illustrations of perspectives at the 2 connection points that were in your presentation. \nYerba Buena Room: So this\, I mean\, I think\, one thing that we \nYerba Buena Room: discussed last time. And\, Kristen\, you brought it up tonight as well is the sense of publicness\, and you know openness. And you know that that parking lot that you can see those cars in that. \nYerba Buena Room: People who are thinking about coming to the park actually \nYerba Buena Room: can determine that there are some parking spaces in there. So you can see that in this illustration that you can see the cars\, and I think that’s very helpful\, because it is in the\, you know\, embedded in the site a little. I think the thing that struck me\, and and even in this sorry before I jump to that\, you can see some indication of some of the the grading\, the birming\, you know\, to the right\, but the \nYerba Buena Room: the the visibility\, if you like\, of the park\, is is very good. At this entrance. This doesn’t. It’s not. The shot is obviously not taken showing the connection to the road. But if we go to the other perspective \nYerba Buena Room: you know. I just think. \nYerba Buena Room: I think that there’s we had the conversation about. Would this be an Eva? And we’ve had the conversation that ideally\, you would connect across water\, so we won’t revisit all of that. But but I think the \nYerba Buena Room: as the team is detailing this up further particularly\, you know what will be project entry signage that would go into both of these. You know the the previous perspective\, and possibly this\, you know\, naming the project and just the relationship to bay trail signage. \nYerba Buena Room: you know I would \nYerba Buena Room: if if this is not an Eva you know\, I think there should be a couple of bollards there to just make it really clear that to a vehicle that they’re not meant to drive down the you know the \nYerba Buena Room: the bay trail and you know\, maybe they’re \nYerba Buena Room: Ballards that\, you know can be unlocked\, you know\, in an emergency. But I mean that I think that for me the thing that was very critical and helpful to see this. And I really appreciate you all producing these 2 perspectives\, because \nYerba Buena Room: you know\, what you can see here is that there is some which we talked about last time. You know\, there is some space being devoted to planting. \nYerba Buena Room: and I really appreciate that illustration. I just think that there’s further the detailing of this\, the connection\, the sense of \nYerba Buena Room: clarity around\, you know\, public access here. \nYerba Buena Room: you know\, could could be a little further enhanced. You know the the trail sign\, is there? \nYerba Buena Room: But there could be something more if we flip back to the previous \nYerba Buena Room: one\, you know the I mean. Similarly\, I presume this is because it is the \nYerba Buena Room: 4th Street entrance. I’m sure there will be some you know more signage there. But \nYerba Buena Room: my primary concern at the last. Our primary concern at the last review was that \nYerba Buena Room: you know\, people really know that this is public space\, and to come in and be welcomed\, you know\, as into the Park\, because when you have a lot of buildings there. \nYerba Buena Room: sometimes it’s a little unclear \nYerba Buena Room: but Kristen to your point. The other phases of the development have made. The relationships are all working very well\, so you would expect this. This should \nYerba Buena Room: I found these very helpful. So\, as far as you know\, just being a little. \nYerba Buena Room: very just\, very practical about this. \nYerba Buena Room: I think the project is\, is has is demonstrating to us that you know the maximum feasible amount of of attention\, or given the given the space constraints\, I think the \nYerba Buena Room: treatment of the landscape. \nYerba Buena Room: the approach to signage which could be a little more enhanced\, and you know the actual connection\, safety\, and so on\, is\, is \nYerba Buena Room: is looking good\, Tom\, what do you think you think I should talk? \nYerba Buena Room: Only if you \nYerba Buena Room: sorry I jumped in and I missed. I always get lost. Sorry\, Tom. Feel like I’ve already gone on too long. \nYerba Buena Room: I just have really simple comments. Can we go back to the plan? \nYerba Buena Room: The the parkland? \nYerba Buena Room: Yep\, so. \nYerba Buena Room: I feel like within the con context of this application. And what this applicant can do and can’t do\, they’ve done what they can do\, and I totally agree with everything that is being recognized and understood about how to make it better alone. \nYerba Buena Room: embarcadero. But this can only do certain things\, and so I really feel like \nYerba Buena Room: we shouldn’t\, you know\, stand in the way of this any further on the issue of the design of the bay trail. I think these have been really been smoothed out to make the approach \nYerba Buena Room: work better\, and both there at the 4 and 3\, but also at 8. Hairpin is gone\, and I also feel that? Does it matter \nYerba Buena Room: whether the little lagoon silts up or not? It’ll be something positive\, and sea level rise will do its thing\, and it’s going to migrate\, and in whatever way it needs to\, but it will continue to be a natural resource with a dynamic nature to it that’s influenced by \nYerba Buena Room: seawater\, and and habitat\, so forth. So I just \nYerba Buena Room: I don’t have anything to say except that I just support what we got here. Yes. \nYerba Buena Room: Tom\, I’m glad you brought that up because I think the response\, the applicants response to the bay trail alignment and the geometry is really good. It looks great. So\, and one last thing that what everybody was saying about about \nYerba Buena Room: this applicant is important\, I think\, because\, you don’t know what’s going to happen with regard to parcel M. Or the thing next door. But I think it’s it’s proven that there’s a trustworthy player \nYerba Buena Room: at work here. You don’t have to worry. There’s something. \nYerba Buena Room: Bizarro. Things gonna happen\, I think. And that’s the benefit of the whatever does happen in the future\, they’re responsible. But yeah\, that’s it. Yeah. \nYerba Buena Room: Great. Okay? Well\, I think that concludes our comments. \nYerba Buena Room: Does the project team want to say anything at this point? \nYerba Buena Room: But \nYerba Buena Room: well\, thank you for your comments. I think we had some direction that we can respond to. And we’re looking forward to moving this project forward. \nYerba Buena Room: I think just I don’t want to draw this out \nYerba Buena Room: too far\, but I think a couple of comments that really stand out for me from the board\, and I think are generally supported\, is\, you know\, we really want to see this project happen. The design is very good. It’s an appropriate\, I mean\, I’m actually really excited to see a design with this intention to\, you know\, produce a very natural area in this \nYerba Buena Room: part of Oakland. I think it’ll be an incredible draw for people \nYerba Buena Room: so great job on the design. \nYerba Buena Room: I think\, the other comment that Kristen made. You know we are really \nYerba Buena Room: enthusiastic to see housing go ahead in the in the bay. So. You know. I hope. Parcel M. Moves ahead quickly as well. And \nYerba Buena Room: I think that’s it. I won’t reiterate the other comments that have been made all worthwhile. But \nYerba Buena Room: I just want to ask the Board whether you would like to. \nYerba Buena Room: with. Just let the project move ahead with the staff and the proponent working together from now on. \nYerba Buena Room: Great\, that’s I’m hearing a yes from everybody. So \nYerba Buena Room: that’s good. Okay? Well\, I think with that we move to the briefing of the San Francisco Baywater Trail Project. \nYerba Buena Room: So that concludes that for all of you. \nYerba Buena Room: thank you very much. Yeah. Yep. \nYerba Buena Room: Give us a second to transition here. \nYerba Buena Room: There’s something. \nYerba Buena Room: Okay. \nYerba Buena Room: Okay. I shall wait. \nYerba Buena Room: Little rare room and a half like you doing. \nYerba Buena Room: It’s okay. So we’re reconvening here \nYerba Buena Room: for a briefing of the San Francisco Water Trail program\, which is agenda. Item 6. \nYerba Buena Room: And just to remind you of how this will go\, the Bcdc. Staff presentation will occur. 1st \nYerba Buena Room: we’ll have board clarifying questions to the staff public comment \nYerba Buena Room: from folks\, and then that will be it. So\, I think. With that\, let’s I’ll ask Yuri to introduce the project. \nYerba Buena Room: Thank you. Okay. \nYerba Buena Room: Good evening. Chair. Mccannan. Members of the Design Review Board. My name is Yuri Jewett\, the associate. \nYerba Buena Room: Oh\, hold on. Okay\, the Associate Bay Design analyst here at Bcdc. And tonight I am joined by Shalini Kanan from the State Coastal Conservancy\, and she and I are going to tell you all about the San Francisco Bay Water Trail program. \nYerba Buena Room: So our roadmap for this evening is I’m going to kick it off and go over some of the basics of a water trail\, and then we’re going to do a deep dive into the planning process that went into creating the program. And then I’m going to pass it on to Shalini\, who will speak more about implementation and give you a peek of our new signage program and next steps. \nYerba Buena Room: So water trails are not exactly a new idea. There are many of them all throughout the United States\, and have proven to be an important vehicle for promoting water\, oriented recreation for citizens of all economic means. Water trails can inform the public about natural\, cultural and historic features and foster public stewardship of these resources\, and they can aid urban renewal in industrial waterfronts as you’ve seen today. \nYerba Buena Room: And so wait a minute. \nYerba Buena Room: Something happened. \nYerba Buena Room: Okay? Sorry. But \nYerba Buena Room: but let’s focus on the San Francisco Bay and our water trail\, which is a network of launching and landing sites around the 9 County Bay area and not for non-motorized small boats. \nYerba Buena Room: These little red dots represent both existing as well as planned water trail sites\, and\, to be clear\, there’s no actual trail in the water. I like to kind of think of it as sort of a free form. Nonlinear. Choose your own adventure kind of trail. You can use these launch sites to follow along the shoreline\, or cross across the or cross over to the other side of the bay. I mean\, it’s completely up to you\, but the key is that it allows you \nYerba Buena Room: access and enjoy one of the largest open spaces that we have\, which is the bay itself. \nYerba Buena Room: So you heard me mention the term non-motorized small boats\, which is exactly what it sounds like. It’s a human powered or wind powered vessel\, and is a key part of what makes a water trail site. Non-motorized small boats basically means kayaks stand up paddle boards\, dragon boards\, kiteboards. All the watercrafts you basically see here on this slide fall into that non-motorized small boat category. \nYerba Buena Room: So I just want to recognize that it’s been a while since the water trail has come to the board\, and I thought. We take a sort of Bcdc’s deep involvement during the early days in the creation of the water trail. And I want to highlight that one thing that makes our water trail so special is that it was born out of community advocacy. A small group of citizens called Bay Access\, Inc. Voiced the need for more access to the bay and partnered with Senator Lonnie Hancock to adopt Ab. 1296\, the San Francisco Bay Water Trail act back in 2\,005. \nYerba Buena Room: This legislation\, then included in Bcdc’s and State Coastal Conservancy laws\, but it specifically outlined that Bcdc. Would lead the charge to create a steering committee and develop the water trail plan\, which is sort of serves as our North star to guide the Coastal Conservancy’s implementation of the program. \nYerba Buena Room: This is the Bcdc. Part of the story. As we really held a lot of public meetings\, workshops\, we wrote many\, many white papers to explore and analyze how to provide this network of unique public access in the bay. All of this effort then\, led to the certification of the programmatic Environmental impact report and the final water trail plan known as the Enhanced Water Trail Plan\, which is still in place today to guide the implementation of the program. \nYerba Buena Room: So again\, the law was passed in 2\,005\, and finally\, through all of this planning effort here at Bcdc. Coastal Conservancy\, Mtcabag\, and the Department of Boating Waterways\, and of course\, the public. \nYerba Buena Room: the 1st water trail site was designated into the program in 2012 at\, can anyone guess the 1st designated site? Just curious. No\, okay. \nYerba Buena Room: thought I tried. It was at Tidewater Boat Center\, in East Oakland\, which is a really great\, great\, great spot I highly recommend for you guys to check it out. It is part of the East Bay Regional Park system. And today this is still a very popular site launch\, and that supports a diverse population in East Oakland. So really recommend that you guys go check that one out. \nYerba Buena Room: But there’s actually more \nYerba Buena Room: So let’s see. Again\, my notes are crazy. \nYerba Buena Room: Okay. \nYerba Buena Room: I’m missing one. Okay? So so as we continue to implement the program\, there were sort of other guiding documents that we relied on. One of them was the Water Trail accessibility\, accessibility plan that we adopted in 2015 or sorry. The Coastal Commission created in 2015 the lovely Ashley Tomlin worked on that document. It’s lovely. Recommend that you look at it. And then\, after the accessibility plan\, we also developed some design guidelines. And basically the accessibility \nYerba Buena Room: plan and the design guide sort of work together to really sort of help shape what these launch sites look like. I mean\, as designers. You know that landslide improvements are really important\, right? I mean\, you can’t just design a launch in the water. It’s like\, is it an urban location? \nYerba Buena Room: You know\, like restrooms parking all the things that we think about are sort of in that design guidelines document. And that’s something that Ashley and I use to review when we\, as applications come to us. So I do want to mention that. And then\, lastly\, of course\, there’s a regional shoreline adaptation plan that was just adopted by the Commission in 2024\, and the water trail is actually contemplated as being sort of a asset\, like a part of the public act. \nYerba Buena Room: Public access program for the sub regional plans\, and the water trail is mentioned as a possible asset. So something at the very early planning stage to consider the water trail as part of your design is starting to be sort of contemplated\, and that’s a lovely thing. \nYerba Buena Room: So I’m just going to end here and just say\, you know of all this planning a lot of times when you do a planning presentation\, you start with the vision at the beginning\, and I just kind of wanted to put it at the end. Because what’s really interesting is that this started in 2\,005. And here we are 20 years later\, and this vision hasn’t changed at all. It’s really strong. So \nYerba Buena Room: you know\, to preserve and strategically enhance access. I mean\, we really want to respect the bay as an open space\, and\, you know\, including all the wildlife and habitat and all the creatures that live here\, plan for future growth\, to explore ways\, to increase water. Oriented recreation is part of our changing shoreline\, and as our notes\, you know\, it is going to change. And so we want to be a part of that \nYerba Buena Room: promote safety and environmental education. Spreading the word about the water trail as best we can. Shalini is actually going to touch up touch upon a new signage program. So learn more about that. And then\, lastly\, increase funding to create opportunities for all the program has a core mission to support inclusive design and continues to find creative ways to fund that work. So\, and that’s when I’m going to pass it on appropriately to Shalini\, who’s going to talk about implementation of the water trail and funding. \nYerba Buena Room: Hi\, everyone. So \nYerba Buena Room: the water trail program gets implemented in 3 key pathways. We have planning and partnerships\, facilities and grants and outreach and education. \nYerba Buena Room: This program crosses the 9 counties of the Bay area\, and it’s fully voluntary. So it requires really good partnerships with a lot of different stakeholders that have been cultivated over multiple years by the project management team. \nYerba Buena Room: Me and Yuri haven’t been on it the entire time\, but we build on the trust established by the earlier project management team members. And this is actually like a key challenge and important feature of the water trail. There’s a lot of staffing changes at our agencies\, as well as all of the partner agencies that manage the sites. But having everybody on board and in the loop is so essential for the program success. \nYerba Buena Room: This is our organization model. We have the project management team made up of 3 agencies\, the State Coastal Conservancy\, Bcdc. And San Francisco estuary partnership\, which is a part of Abag or Mtc. \nYerba Buena Room: And our small core group meets regularly and really moves forward the water trail. We plan implementation meetings that are public meetings held by annually right now\, and at those meetings we invite in our advisory committee and stakeholder group. \nYerba Buena Room: They really provide a lot of guidance on trailhead designation and other implementation issues. And when we want to designate a trailhead. \nYerba Buena Room: the Advisory Committee is the voting members that will \nYerba Buena Room: vote to designate a site. \nYerba Buena Room: And lastly\, we have the site managers like I mentioned. It’s a voluntary distributed \nYerba Buena Room: management of the site. So various site managers operate the sites according to their own standards\, and are part of our part of the network. \nYerba Buena Room: To make the water trail happen. \nYerba Buena Room: The process of site designation is how we adopt the launch or landing into our network. And this map here is what you’ll find on our website with all those points marking the designated sites. And this is a little bit about what that process is like. First\, st the site owner or manager expresses interest in the designation of a launch site. \nYerba Buena Room: and then the Water Trail Water Trial Staff. That’s us assemble a Site description report. \nYerba Buena Room: And this report will have information on location\, photos and maps\, ownership and management information\, information on what type of launch it is. Description of the facilities and accessibility for people with disabilities\, proximity to other water trail sites as well as wildlife and habitat considerations and safety information. \nYerba Buena Room: We’ll review and discuss these at our implementation meetings with the advisory committee\, and then folks discuss and vote \nYerba Buena Room: for a conditional designation that might have conditions like minor site improvements\, or adding in putting in the signage that marks that it’s a water trail site. And then\, once those conditions are met\, they’re finally designated. \nYerba Buena Room: and of course\, the designation benefits the water trail. But what’s in it for the sites? One key thing is that being part of the water trail network allows them to be eligible for our grants. \nYerba Buena Room: I’ll go into grants a little bit more later. We also provide educational and wayfinding signage and include sites on our website maps and outreach materials\, so that more people from the Bay Area’s public and beyond know about these sites and come to use them. So really helps with usership. \nYerba Buena Room: Next\, I’ll go into facilities and grants \nYerba Buena Room: the second pathway of program implementation. So we give grants for launches and landings that will become designated sites\, or that already are designated sites. \nYerba Buena Room: and by providing funding we can encourage implementation of facilities that contribute to the goals of our network. So we want to make sure they are accessible to a variety of people\, and for a variety of types of uses like different water sports require different amenities. We also want to have different habitat types like more urban settings as well as more natural wetland settings. \nYerba Buena Room: and we also have a goal of having overnight options approximately every 8 miles\, so that people can plan multi-day trips. That’s something that we could definitely keep working on \nYerba Buena Room: and our team also provides technical assistance and guidance to help site designers plan their \nYerba Buena Room: plan\, their water trail site. And we really use those documents that Yuri mentioned\, like the accessibility guidelines and the site design guidelines. \nYerba Buena Room: And \nYerba Buena Room: at the bottom of this slide on the left you’ll see an example of an improvement that was funded with a water trail. Grant. \nYerba Buena Room: Just really\, briefly\, I’ll touch on some of the grants we give. The State Coastal Conservancy gives grants on a rolling basis. You can reach out to me. If you want to talk about that. \nYerba Buena Room: My info is here and will be on the last slide as well\, and the Conservancy has a strategic plan goal around the water trail because it’s a regional trail\, and so funding improvements to the water trail is a priority of ours\, though \nYerba Buena Room: what we can fund always depends on the fund sources that are authorized to us by the legislature. So right now we have funding from proposition. 4. So that’s the climate bond and tie-ins to climate resilience projects make projects more competitive. So when a launcher landing is part of a broader climate\, resilience \nYerba Buena Room: project or plan that’ll make it more competitive. \nYerba Buena Room: And then Sfvp \nYerba Buena Room: under a bag or Mtc. Has the priority conservation area grant program and the water trail is a designated priority conservation area in the Bay area. And that means it’s that any water trail projects are eligible for funding under this grant program\, and they have a grant round every year that will open up in Fall 2025\, and our colleague Ben\, who’s the other representative on the project management team from Sfep. He leads that grant program. So his contact info is here\, too. \nYerba Buena Room: We also like to share any grant opportunities we know of that are not led by our own agencies. So this is one that can fund water trail types of improvements from the California Department Division of boating and waterways for non-motorized boat launching facilities. And here’s just some more information on the grant. But I won’t go into it. \nYerba Buena Room: The 3rd component of the water trails. Successful implementation is education and outreach\, and \nYerba Buena Room: the water trail really provides access to the bay\, which is our largest open space\, and a goal of ours is really for more people to know about and to access the bay. \nYerba Buena Room: Our biggest resource for the public is our website\, sfawatertrail.org. A lot of people find this as they Google for \nYerba Buena Room: kayak or paddle board information in the bay. And we have a great map here that there was a picture of on an earlier slide. There’s also information on each of the trailheads. If you click on the point on the map\, you can learn a lot of details on what each site entails safety information\, things to look out for details on\, like parking accessibility. How far you have to go from the parking lot. If there’s bathrooms\, other facilities\, etc. \nYerba Buena Room: We also have information on trip ideas and lists of local boating clubs and outfitters where you can rent \nYerba Buena Room: gear or go on tours. \nYerba Buena Room: Yuri foreshadowed to this before. But this past year a big effort of ours has been refreshing our signage program. \nYerba Buena Room: Every water trail site has an interpretive sign as well as a wayfinding sign. And this is also a key form of outreach\, as a lot of people might only hear from the water trail by seeing this sign and then wondering what is that and looking it up. \nYerba Buena Room: So this is this plays a key role in spreading the word about the water trail signage is also required by our Eir as a mitigation measure to offset potential impacts related to safety and wildlife disturbances. So we provide information on safety and wildlife disturbances on the signage. \nYerba Buena Room: And this is the new signage. On the left is the wayfinding sign. We’ve inverted the colors. So it’s a little more bold. We worked with the consultant team. That did a great job\, we think. \nYerba Buena Room: And here’s an example of the interpretive panel. \nYerba Buena Room: So on the last version that you may have seen out and about in the bay. There wasn’t as much site specific information. So we wanted to bring that in. In this version each sign will have some site specific information as \nYerba Buena Room: highlighted in that light blue section with those \nYerba Buena Room: orange icons to draw attention to some safety features or safety information for each site. \nYerba Buena Room: And at the top we have a QR code as well. That links to our water trail website where there is all that information that can help people as they plan their trips. \nYerba Buena Room: And then at the bottom\, we really refresh this section. The wildlife disturbance used to have like a picture of every single type of species\, and the distance you should be from them. But we realized that that was not very helpful for the public\, because it’s really hard to remember what it says when you’re actually out on the water. So we \nYerba Buena Room: had a great intern who helped us figure out better\, better messaging for wildlife disturbance. Where\, like\, we have these cute seals. And it’s a very simple message that if the wildlife’s reacting to you\, you are too close. \nYerba Buena Room: So this is our new signage that will be going out to our site managers later this year. So look out for that. \nYerba Buena Room: Another way we do. Outreach is through media. So here’s just some recent examples of media coverage of the water trail. Just yesterday we had a short feature aired on Nbc’s open road. There’s just a few minute segment on the water trail where they interviewed me\, which is exciting. You can also find it on their website. \nYerba Buena Room: Bay Nature Magazine and website wrote an article about Pacheco Marsh\, which is a recently opened \nYerba Buena Room: new restoration site with a great kayak lunch. \nYerba Buena Room: And this one’s really exciting. 2 paddlers from Point Reyes Adventure Company. Liz Wilhelm and Dallas Smith\, earlier this year\, completed what we think is the 1st ever circumnavigation of the bay by Kayak. They paddled 225 miles about 20 miles a day\, and we met with them before and after their trip to help them \nYerba Buena Room: navigate the water trail\, though they definitely brought a lot more expertise of actually being on the water than we could ever have\, and they did a great job raising awareness of the water trail. It got picked up by several media outlets\, and \nYerba Buena Room: they were a great example of the the great potential of the water trail. They got really creative about overnight accommodation\, sometimes like reaching out to Marinas and sleeping in their storage room. So not everyone can do that. But it is \nYerba Buena Room: the ultimate vision that more people can do these overnight trips and plan like a broader\, bigger adventure on the water trail. So they were inspiring for sure. \nYerba Buena Room: The last thing about outreach that we like to do is presentations and tabling. This is a presentation we’d love to do more tabling\, though we’re often limited by capacity. But in the past we have tabled at Bay day. \nYerba Buena Room: film festivals\, other festivals\, and talk to clubs and organizations. \nYerba Buena Room: So those were the 3 ways we implement the water trail\, and that’s all for our presentation. If you want to contact me\, Yuri or our colleague Ben at Sfp\, we’re the Pmt. And happy to talk more\, and also happy to take questions now\, or discussion. \nYerba Buena Room: Well\, thank you\, Shalini and and Yuri and look\, I just want to start off by saying \nYerba Buena Room: how exciting it is to hear a briefing like this. I mean\, this is \nYerba Buena Room: a really important program. You know\, a lot of the time we are talking about the Bay trail landslide. But we have so many projects where water access is part of the \nYerba Buena Room: proposal\, and I just want to applaud you and \nYerba Buena Room: your team and everyone behind you and over the years for getting the program to where it is today \nYerba Buena Room: I have a question. The \nYerba Buena Room: and I know I could look on the map and probably do this. But you said 2\,005 was\, you know\, when the \nYerba Buena Room: the water trail idea\, if you like\, started to coalesce. And \nYerba Buena Room: so how many trailheads or how many points are around the bay today? 20 years later. \nYerba Buena Room: I want to say\, there’s 52 designated sites. Yeah. So it’s actually one of the big things about the water trails like\, within the 20 year from the idea to I think it was 2022 was the last time we designated a site. So how we? And then so the water trail plan was adopted in 2011\, and then the and then 2022 was the last. It was like 10 years. We just \nYerba Buena Room: plowed full speed ahead and got over 50 sites to be designated. Yeah\, no\, it’s fantastic. And I really just congratulate you guys\, because I love the fact that it’s a sort of an organic grassroots\, you know\, multiple stakeholder \nYerba Buena Room: stakeholders that you\, you know\, communicate with plus the 3 agencies I mean. I think that’s \nYerba Buena Room: I think that’s government working at its best. To tell you the truth\, you know\, when you see a program like this. \nYerba Buena Room: you know\, with such a impactful result on the bay. So I’m glad you’re getting media attention. I’m just gonna I’m just talking. But there are more questions\, I’m sure. So\, Bob\, do you want to kick off? \nYerba Buena Room: Yeah\, I I was wondering\, do the \nYerba Buena Room: The landings have to accommodate all the different types\, because I know. So there’s you know\, kite boarders and windsurfers. And then there’s the kayakers\, and \nYerba Buena Room: there may be a little different in in how they like to get in and out of the water and \nYerba Buena Room: there may be some conflicts between the different groups depending on. \nYerba Buena Room: You know what type of location it is? So. But and so that was one question. And then I mean\, I’ll follow on\, that is\, would you fund \nYerba Buena Room: water access? That is more specific to \nYerba Buena Room: kind of kite borders and sail borders that are kind of a little more serious\, you know\, like intense about what they do. \nYerba Buena Room: to answer your 1st question. Not every site has to accommodate every type of use. We want to have a variety of uses around the bay. And \nYerba Buena Room: yeah\, it just depends on what the site presents possibilities for\, like we don’t want to exclude uses that would be possible\, like\, I think that like to maximize the types of uses\, but also understand that uses can be conflicting. So yeah\, we would fund \nYerba Buena Room: projects that have limited uses in terms of like more expert \nYerba Buena Room: users. I think it would be very situational. \nYerba Buena Room: Yeah\, I just mentioned that because sometimes they get really excited about the high winds\, and of course they’re probably in the water when \nYerba Buena Room: kayakers might not want to be necessarily in the water when the wind’s blowing really strong and stuff like that. So maybe it’s not as much of a con. I’m not a \nYerba Buena Room: I’m a regular surfer. I don’t do that other stuff\, but I know that there are people that do\, and they’re they’re looking for more access to the water. \nYerba Buena Room: That’s for sure. \nYerba Buena Room: There was a project a couple of years ago that came to you 4 10 airport\, which was one of the Brit projects. It was another one where they were carving out part of an inlet\, but it was both a site that was supporting kiteboarding and kayaking\, and that was exactly what they found was there wouldn’t be the same user conflict because those 2 user groups were using it at different conditions. Yeah. \nYerba Buena Room: that makes sense. I just wanted to add\, sort of at a high level. You know\, a lot of times the water trail site is contemplated as part of a much larger project\, with many other recreation\, you know\, amenities and things happening. So that’s where \nYerba Buena Room: the design guidelines come in quite handy\, and to address what you were just saying. You know the variety of users\, and \nYerba Buena Room: you know what happens. There is oftentimes already sort of driven by the project itself when it comes to us to be Cdc\, so think about that\, too. But yeah\, that. And we like that diversity in the bay and the accessibility plan that we worked on to does sort of address\, like sort of Geo regions throughout the bay\, and making sure that in what in each Geo. Region there is at least like maybe an accessible kayak launch in each region. So there is sort of connectivity \nYerba Buena Room: for that one user that wants to network\, you know\, throughout the using that one\, whatever vessel it is that they choose. So we try to also. Balance that as well like looking at the system as a whole. \nYerba Buena Room: Thanks. Appreciate it. \nYerba Buena Room: Thank you very much for this \nYerba Buena Room: information. I agree with everybody. It’s really exciting. \nYerba Buena Room: I have a question about advocacy\, and how you’ve worked with \nYerba Buena Room: particularly sort of private property owners in encouraging them to \nYerba Buena Room: open up to these types of water uses if the setting is appropriate. And if there’s been any sort of examples that you can just \nYerba Buena Room: recall. \nYerba Buena Room: Well\, recently\, you guys reviewed Wind River\, and that was a life science project in Alameda\, and we were really hopeful to get a water trail site and with the Design Review Board’s comments\, we were able to actually get a launch there. \nYerba Buena Room: So and another thing with a lot of the private development that’s happening throughout the bay. I would say that there is a lot of interest in water taxis and sort of kind of a Co. Like a partnership between like a water taxi\, and then we can say\, Hey\, how about a public doc\, too\, you know. So we’ve been trying to do that as well. Ashley might have a couple other examples \nYerba Buena Room: following that model Alameda landing \nYerba Buena Room: where they have the new Woodstock boat\, and then the kayak\, the yellow. Yeah\, yeah\, Woodstock \nYerba Buena Room: And then the kayak dock is a low\, free board that’s on the backside. So it’s actually still protected a little bit more from the wave action. Also Loch Lomond\, Marina in San Rafael. Don’t believe you’ve seen that\, maybe in decades\, but that’s a Marina in San Rafael that has a couple of different \nYerba Buena Room: approaches for launches\, so they have a low freeboard dock and also a boat ramp to accommodate. \nYerba Buena Room: there’s a number of marinas\, but I think the large portion of water trail sites are public entities like East Bay. Regional parks district is a big partner. \nYerba Buena Room: They tend to be parks often. Yeah\, recreation already. \nYerba Buena Room: But we do to answer your question. Yes\, we love to talk to our private folks and and see what kind of access we can get. \nYerba Buena Room: Yeah\, I have one more question. Do do you? \nYerba Buena Room: just sort of understand that you’ve been really involved with this now for a long time? Are there \nYerba Buena Room: opportunities for opening public water access in the San Francisco Bay that you are feeling \nYerba Buena Room: really strongly about? Or sort of? Are there key opportunities that \nYerba Buena Room: are useful to sort of opine on. \nYerba Buena Room: I don’t know that we’ll give you any specific sites\, but we have been hearing more from open water swimmers about increased access for that use. \nYerba Buena Room: board. Sailors are also a vocal group. As we heard from the la at the last review\, like they are particularly impacted with closure or increased intensity of use at like the limited number of launches they have available to them that meet their conditions for wind and waves that they find desirable for their own \nYerba Buena Room: level of expertise. See you. \nYerba Buena Room: Kristen. \nYerba Buena Room: thank you so much. It is very. I didn’t realize that. This has been something that you all had been working on for such a long time. \nYerba Buena Room: and it makes sense. I am a user of many of these sites\, because I paddle and I’ve started outrigger canoeing. And it’s just it’s really amazing to see the thoughtfulness that’s gone into creating what I sort of enjoyed without realizing how much thoughtfulness had gone into it. So thank you so much. I my question that I had was about \nYerba Buena Room: clubs and sort of boat storage. And I you’re mentioning the kind of desire\, for you know we know that the wing\, foiling and other sports are kind of like growing. And I just. You know\, I noticed that there’s a lot of development pressures and a lot of areas that have kind of always been \nYerba Buena Room: boat storage yards and things like that. And if you coordinate with clubs to think about \nYerba Buena Room: you know those kind of longer term\, larger boat storage facilities that might not be as public facing\, but are definitely important for the kind of more frequent intense users of these areas. \nYerba Buena Room: That’s a great question. And I will say that you know. Recently the Commission adopted India Basin Shoreline Park. So a lot of times for these sites. \nYerba Buena Room: the operator hasn’t been identified yet\, and so it’s an opportunity to sort of reach out to some of those organizations to see if they’re\, you know\, wanting to use. I know India Basin is actually for rent. They’re looking for people. A lot of. Also a lot of those book clubs are just long standing. There’s a lot of history there. They’ve been at the same site for a long time and again the advocacy is so important with the water trail\, and we listen. So \nYerba Buena Room: you know\, if there is an opportunity\, it’s a 1 good point is that\, or in the past\, as Charlie mentioned with these sort of smaller capital improvement projects\, you know\, the water trail was really good about doing funding smaller like. I mentioned the big projects\, but the little ones. The water trail program at 1 point was really good about helping funding those small types of improvements. So a club\, for example\, that maybe just wanted to do some enhancement \nYerba Buena Room: to a launch\, you know\, instead of a part of a large project could come to us if they were designated\, and then also\, just maybe a reminder that there’s hundreds of launches all throughout the bay\, I mean. In a way\, it’s like we only have 52 that are designated\, you know\, like there’s so many\, there’s so much more so. That’s kind of part of the education and outreach is to get the word out that we exist\, and people can come to us and get designated and like hopefully\, further whatever club or you know program that they’re trying to promote on the shoreline\, we can make it happen\, you know. So yeah. \nYerba Buena Room: thank you. I look forward to looking at this\, because I’m always trying to get my friends to come with me\, and if there’s some amenities that I could entice them with\, I’m gonna map out a little route where we can stop along the way and get some bites and some drinks and then \nYerba Buena Room: make it worth our while. Thank you. \nYerba Buena Room: Yeah. I’ve been witnessed in the growth this program where I live. There’s a fairy point \nYerba Buena Room: there’s a spot there\, and then there’s quite elaborate\, elaborate\, very nicely designed \nYerba Buena Room: facility. The point\, Isabel\, for for getting your \nYerba Buena Room: mouse up in the air\, you know. \nYerba Buena Room: and I hate to ask a question like this\, but I worry. And this is where the way we’re living now is anything about your funding at risk? \nYerba Buena Room: Well\, the State Coastal Conservancy is state funded. So we are okay\, and we have bond funding for now. So we still have funds. \nYerba Buena Room: And \nYerba Buena Room: I think that Sfep’s funds are also not Federal. So they still are planning to have their grant round later this year. \nYerba Buena Room: wasn’t there? But there was a big shortfall this year. The State budget wasn’t there? \nYerba Buena Room: Yeah\, we can never like\, totally predict the State’s budget. But bond funds are secured \nYerba Buena Room: regardless. Are you allowed to have private sponsors\, too? \nYerba Buena Room: We haven’t had any before\, but I think we could potentially. But it’s not really something we’ve thought about or work towards. \nYerba Buena Room: Anyway\, it’s great work\, thank you. \nYerba Buena Room: So just to clarify the 51 you’ve got the 51 designated sites. But \nYerba Buena Room: you said there are hundreds of points around the bay. I mean\, I’m just thinking about\, you know\, just not far from here\, you know Crane Cove\, for example\, which has\, you know\, a very significant access point\, I mean\, how do \nYerba Buena Room: is that a designated place? Or it is\, yeah\, yeah\, green Cove is designated. And we actually ran out of signs. Which was another reason why we wanted to get some new ones\, I see. So that’s kind of part of it. And so\, like a place like Pier 40 would be designated. You showed a slide there\, because that’s a really great\, you know\, dads. And I mean\, it’s a really great access point. So so the question I really have is. \nYerba Buena Room: do people reach out to you\, or do you reach out to them\, or is it both? \nYerba Buena Room: So the initial waterfront plan actually did contemplate a lot of these sites sort of as a possible. So sometimes\, when we get like an application for development\, Ashley and I will look at the waterfront or water trail plan and you know. See if there’s a match there? But yeah\, that was a while ago\, I mean\, in a way\, maybe we should update it. I mean\, there’s but there are quite. There’s hundreds of sites that have been \nYerba Buena Room: identified in that plan. Yeah\, I just think the more that can make it onto the website the better. I mean\, if if they meet the criteria that you have\, of course. Yeah\, yeah. \nYerba Buena Room: Okay\, well\, thank you very much for that briefing. It’s very helpful. Is there any public comment? \nYerba Buena Room: Okay\, no public comment. Okay\, thank you. \nYerba Buena Room: Good. Well\, I think that brings us to the meeting adjournment. \nYerba Buena Room: So I would like someone to pass someone to make a motion and a seconder to adjourn our meeting. \nYerba Buena Room: Look to adjourn. \nYerba Buena Room: Second\, I second\, thank you\, Bob. Okay\, the meeting is adjourned. \nYerba Buena Room: Has everybody voted to adjourn? \nYerba Buena Room: Hi\, yes\, okay. The meeting is now adjourned. Okay\, thanks very much. Everyone appreciate the work tonight.\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-9-2025-design-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Design Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250605T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250605T170000 DTSTAMP:20260426T063041 CREATED:20241209T231804Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250722T155318Z UID:10000238-1749128400-1749142800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:June 5\, 2025 Commission Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Commissioners are located at the primary physical location and may be located at the teleconference locations specified below\, all of which are publicly accessible. The Zoom video conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually are also specified below. \n  \nPrimary physical location \nMetro Center375 Beale Street\, Board RoomSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \n  \nTeleconference locations \n• Office of Supervisor John Gioia: 11780 San Pablo Ave.\, Ste. D\, El Cerrito\, CA 94530• 500 Castro St.\, 3rd Fl.\, Clerk’s Conf. Rm.\, Mountain View\, CA 94041• 675 Texas St.\, Ste. 6002\, Fairfield\, CA 94533• 715 P St.\, 20th Fl.\, Trestles Conf. Rm.\, Sacramento\, CA 95814• Earl Warren Hiram W Johnson Building: 455 Golden Gate Ave.\, San Francisco\, CA 94102• 176 E. Blithedale Ave.\, Mill Valley\, CA 94941• City Hall: 701 Laurel St.\,1st Fl. Allied Arts\, Menlo Park\, CA 94025• East Sonoma County Services Center: 19080 Lomita Ave.\, Sonoma\, CA 95476• 2379 Sheffield Dr.\, Livermore\, CA 94550• Napa County District 5 Office: 4381 Broadway Ste. 102\, American Canyon\, CA 94503•  835 E.14th St.\, San Leandro\, CA 94577• 1201 O St.\, Sacramento\, CA 95814 \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. \n  \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/87245153779?pwd=8L1EcYIGUAXEyKdbv2kZOBOK8FU6cZ.1  \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID872 4515 3779 \nPasscode961409 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak \n \n \n \n \n Agenda\n \nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period (Each speaker is limited to three minutes)A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.(Sierra Peterson) [415-352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]Public Comment\n  \n\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nConsent Calendar\n\nApproval of Minutes for May 15\, 2025 Meeting(Sierra Peterson) [415-352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\n  \n\n\n\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415-352-3611; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\n  \n\nPublic Hearing and Possible Vote on the California State University Maritime Academy New Vessel Pier and Berth Project\, at 200 Maritime Academy Drive in the City of Vallejo\, Solano County (Application for BCDC Permit 2024.003.00)The Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote on an application submitted by the California State University Maritime Academy to remove an existing pier and replace it with a new\, larger pier to accommodate a larger vessel. In the Commission’s jurisdiction\, the project will result in the removal of 9\,496 square feet of fill in the Bay\, the installation of 39\,019 square feet of fill in the Bay\, and 86\,150 square feet of new dredging.(Rowan Yelton) [415-352-3613; rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov]Staff Recommendation // Exhibit A // Exhibit B\nApplicant Presentation // Staff Presentation // Public Comment \n\nPublic Hearing and Possible Vote on the Cargill Salt Ponds Operations and Maintenance Project\, by Cargill\, Incorporated\, in Alameda and San Mateo Counties (Application for BCDC Permit 2021.003.00)The Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote on an application for Cargill\, Inc. to continue existing operations and maintenance activities for its Solar Salt System facilities\, over approximately 12\,100 acres in Alameda and San Mateo Counties\, primarily in the cities of Newark\, Fremont\, and Redwood City. Maintenance activities will occur in BCDC’s Salt Pond and Bay jurisdictions\, on existing earthen berms around the various ponds\, pond intake and support structures\, the salt ponds themselves\, and other various structures. The Commission considered and approved\, on May 1\, 2025\, the Final Environmental Assessment in compliance with its responsibilities under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is acting as the CEQA lead agency for purposes of the submitted permit application.(Sam Fielding) [415-352-3665; sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov]Staff Recommendation // Exhibit A // Exhibit B // Exhibit C // Staff Presentation\n  \n\nBriefing on SLR Adaptation Investment Strategy & Plan Bay Area Resilience Project List\nBCDC and MTC/ABAG staff will brief the Commission on the status of regional funding initiatives for sea level rise adaptation. This includes an update on how MTC/ABAG’s Plan Bay Area 2050+ addresses sea level rise\, including its Resilience Project List and forthcoming implementation plan of near-term actions. Staff will also describe a new joint initiative to develop a regional sea level rise funding and investment strategy\, which will start in May.(Cory Copeland) [415-352-3644; cory.copeland@bcdc.ca.gov]Plan Bay Area 2050+ Final Blueprint Resilience Project List \n  \n  \n\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Supplemental Materials\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Minutes\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Video 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/june-5-2025-commission-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250605T100000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250605T120000 DTSTAMP:20260426T063041 CREATED:20250515T220445Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250610T204339Z UID:10000279-1749117600-1749124800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:June 5\, 2025 Rising Sea Level Commissioner Working Group DESCRIPTION:Join the Meeting Via Zoom:https://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/87542986571?pwd=gprnmmrEAfQnhzjHKifPUnnb0plcMT.1 \nMeeting ID875 4298 6571Passcode: 597125 \nTeleconference Numbers:(214) 765-0479 US Toll;Conference Code: 900680(888) 278-0296 US Toll-FreeConference Code: 900680 \nIf you call in by phone:Press *6 to unmute your phonePress *9 to raise/lower your hand \n \n \n \n \n Agenda\n \nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nUpdates and Discussion on Permitting Improvements and Regulation ChangesThis presentation will include two parts. First\, a status update on efforts to improve the Commission’s permitting program. Second\, a deeper dive into the proposed concepts for updating the Commission’s permitting regulations first introduced to the Commission at its May 15\, 2025 meeting\, in particular concepts to increase the number of habitat restoration\, creation\, and enhancement projects that qualify for administrative permits.(Ethan Lavine) [415/352-3618; ethan.lavine@bcdc.ca.gov]PresentationProgram overviewDraft concepts for regulation changes (Working Group conversation focuses on Section 10601(e)(5)\, see page 11)\nUpdates and Discussion on Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan Outreach StrategyUpdates from staff on the Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan implementation\, including an overview and discussion of planned 9-county outreach this summer and fall. (Jaclyn Perrin-Martinez) [415/352-3631; jaclyn.perrin-martinez@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nPublic Comment\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/june-05-2025-rising-sea-level-commissioner-working-group/ CATEGORIES:Rising Sea Level Working Group END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250528T093000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250528T120000 DTSTAMP:20260426T063041 CREATED:20241104T230848Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250513T180748Z UID:10000217-1748424600-1748433600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:May 28\, 2025 Enforcement Committee Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/may-28-2025-enforcement-committee-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250521T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250521T170000 DTSTAMP:20260426T063041 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:20250521T100000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250521T120000 DTSTAMP:20260426T063041 CREATED:20250513T184613Z LAST-MODIFIED:20251125T200900Z UID:10000278-1747821600-1747828800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:May 21\, 2025 Sand Studies Commissioner Working Group DESCRIPTION:Join the Meeting Via Zoom:https://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/88663722653?pwd=NmPBcEW2IMvYa2a0uwaPNjaWQ2Ev7s.1 \nMeeting ID886 6372 2653Passcode: 597125 \nTeleconference Numbers(214) 765-0479 US Toll;Conference Code: 900680(888) 278-0296 US Toll-FreeConference Code: 900680 \nIf you call in by phone:Press *6 to unmute your phonePress *9 to raise/lower your hand \n \n \n \n \n Agenda\n \nWelcome and IntroductionsPatricia Showalter (Chair) will open the meeting and conduct Commissioner roll-call.\nMining and Benthic Ecology 101Jaime Lopez will present a brief overview of the sand environment\, benthic community and function\, and wildlife foraging to provide context for the Commission and public. (Jaime Lopez) [415/352-3648; jaime.lopez@bcdc.ca.gov] Staff Presentation\n2009 Applied Marine Sciences Benthic StudyApplied Marine Sciences Senior Oceanographer\, Jay Johnson\, will present the findings from the “Benthic Survey of Commercial Aggregate Mining Leases in Central San Francisco Bay and Western Delta.” This study was conducted as part of the State Lands Commission Environmental Impact Report on mining in San Francisco Bay. The Commission Working Group members and the public will have an opportunity to discuss the study and its findings.(Brenda Goeden) [415/352-3623; brenda.goeden@bcdc.ca.gov] Applied Marine Sciences Presentation\nNewFields Benthic StudyNewfields Senior Scientist\, Tim Hammermeister\, will present the findings from the Benthic Assessment of Sand Mining in Point Knox Shoal (Central San Francisco Bay) and Suisun Bays (2016\, and 2018) study conducted as a requirement of the Commission permits. The Commission Working Group members and the public will have an opportunity to discuss the study and its findings.(Brenda Goeden) [415/352-3623; brenda.goeden@bcdc.ca.gov] NewFields Presentation\nCommission Discussion\nGeneral Public Comment Period\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Additional Materials\n Benthic Survey of Commercial Aggregate Mining Areas in San Francisco Bay & Western Delta (AMS 2009)Benthic Assessment of Sand Mining in Central San Francisco Bay and Suisun Bays (NewFields 2018)Benthic Assessment of Sand Mining Final Memo (NewFields 2020)Sand Mining Industry Comment Letter on Benthic Studies \n \n \n \n \n \n Recording & Transcript\n \n\nTranscript\n\nbgoeden: It’s like they’ve got 14.bgoeden: Just gonna keep it. Many people. \nbgoeden: Good morning. Everyone. \nPat Showalter: Hello! \nErika Guerra: Good morning! \nPat Showalter: Glad you could all make it. \nPat Showalter: Okay. Well\, it’s always good to start right on time. \nPat Showalter: I’m Pat Showalter\, and I’m the chair of this committee. And I want to. \nPat Showalter: just start off by thanking everyone who has contributed science to this. This is a very valuable exercise for us to hear about the science that’s happened\, and and ask questions and understand it better. So I think it’s really valuable for Bcdc’s process. And I appreciate that. \nPat Showalter: So we’ll start off with. Oh\, the other thing I wanted to mention is that we have. We have several. We have a couple presentations\, and we’ll be taking public comment after each presentation\, and and we’ll give the miners an opportunity to to talk about each study and share their perspective. So with that I think we can move on to roll\, call. \nKathryn Riley\, BCDC: Commissioner\, Gunther. \nAndrew Gunther: Here. \nKathryn Riley\, BCDC: Chair. Show Walter. \nPat Showalter: Here. \nKathryn Riley\, BCDC: We have 2 out of 3 commissioners present. \nPat Showalter: Okay. \nPat Showalter: All right. \nbgoeden: It looks like we have 24 participants. At the moment pat. \nPat Showalter: Okay. \nPat Showalter: all right. Great. Well\, thank you all for being here. And we’re going to start with benthic ecology\, 101 with Jaime Lopez and \nPat Showalter: He will present this background. Information kind of as a \nPat Showalter: as a refresher for all of us\, or some of us may be \nPat Showalter: won’t be as much of a refresher as others\, and but to pull it all together. And\, Jaime\, are you available. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: Yeah. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: Can you guys hear me? I’m here. \nPat Showalter: We can. Yes\, all right. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: Let me get this ready to go. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: since we’re on. Zoom\, it’s a little bit different. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: Hmm! \nbgoeden: Share. Button green down in the middle. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: Yeah\, okay\, is that working hopefully. \nbgoeden: I give it a minute for the screen to load. There we are. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: Okay\, so what are you guys seeing right now\, like the actual presentation\, or like the presenter view. \nbgoeden: The cut\, the actual presentation. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: Okay\, so what if I do this is this\, is this still a presentation. \nbgoeden: Yes. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: Okay\, great awesome. Okay\, yeah. Like. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: like Commissioner showalter said\, I’m Jaime Lopez\, and I’m 1 of the environmental scientists here on the Bcdc team \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: working with Brenda. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: And so since it’s been a while since we last met\, and there’s probably a couple of new people that have joined \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: like the group\, we thought it’d be a good idea to kind of do a brief recap on \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: on the sand mining activities that it has occurred\, not also basically on like so who’s involved? How’s it done and where it’s happening and and what the second half \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: basically introducing like San Francisco\, based Pic environment \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: just to set the stage for for their discussions that are gonna that day. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: So okay\, so as we’re all familiar. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: send money occurs in 3 locations across the bay\, and the 1st location is Central Bay\, which is \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: leads to modern lease\, to modern Marietta by the State Lands Commission. And typically\, this area is this mining area \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: which are seen here in blue \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: they are up to 90 feet deep. And it’s also important to note that. So Raccoon Strait. There’s no mining happening there which is kind of northwest of Angel Island\, and so much of the \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: went to the mining area \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: contains coarse green sand\, while finer sand are kind of located on the southern end. Here\, near residial shoal\, which is adjacent to crazy fields. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: and are primarily used\, and like the sand\, is primarily used for concrete and and asphalt production \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: and moving up towards Sussoon. So Sussoon Bay has 2 lease areas. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: and the 1st is some middle ground show\, which is a \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: which is near an island and has a private lease that is typically mined by Lynn moraine. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: and with the second lease area being further east in the channel \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: that’s typically mined by Swiss and associates. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: And this is a partnership between Lynn\, Marine\, and Martin Marietta\, and this is also leased by the State Lands Commission. So both these locations contain finer sands\, which are used for trench filling asphalt\, and like other purposes. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: Now the whole purpose of sand mining is to be able to obtain so construction aggregates\, and it is not typically used for navigation. As such. The mine sand is a waste product\, and therefore mining is considered \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: beneficiary use. So the mining occurs \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: year round. As there are no established work windows. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: But the equipment that’s used for these events are typically equipped with fish greens on the \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: on the water intake pumps\, and and this is to avoid entrainment of the fish. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: Also. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: It’s. It’s also important to note that these lease areas are typically mined \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: multiple times a year based on location\, the desired grain size\, and and the need of the industry. And here are some images of some of the equipment. That’s the hydraulic equipment that’s being used. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: So you have a selection drag head\, which is here\, and I’m here in the center page where my cursor is pointing. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: and on the right it’s more of like a suction pipe. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: And here are 2 examples of mining event of mining that has occurred in Central Bay and and Middle ground shoal between 2\,007 and 2\,008. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: So you would like to keep your eye on the colors\, because each color represents a mining event. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: So many repeated is repeated in these areas. So within the leads that contain the desired grain size \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: of sand. And it’s also important to note that when mining this area\, when it’s constantly being repeated. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: Mind the vendor communities in these locations are not allowed to \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: might recover\, and it’s also be removed constantly. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: Now\, kind of shifting forward more towards the ecology piece \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: so now we’re looking at the subtitle sandy habitat \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: which are within these lease areas. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: So we see that that location also influences the sand substrate and biodiversity. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: as you can see in the image. Sand is mostly found in the deep water channels and central \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: and within the central bay \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: so deep water shoals that that are across across the estuary. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: So if you were to focus just on Central Bay\, which is a stable marine system with strong currents and tidal exchange. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: You’ll typically see a coarser sand on the northern side of the area and much finer sands \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: towards the southern end\, and as we move towards susume\, which is a more brackish system\, which experiences strong. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: strong seasonal salinity changes. This is where we find medium to us\, we’ll find our sense here. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: No\, it now muddy and sandy habitats also come to support Benthic or Bottom Bay\, also communities. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: And these communities live on and within the settlement. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: So here’s an example from Chesapeake Bay and her muddy bottom habitat\, which shows clams\, worms\, oysters. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: and fish. So for San Francisco Bay. This could be a similar \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: configuration of organisms that that are found down there\, but they also have\, like other various fish species. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: such as like never sharks\, halibut. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: some bat rays\, some greased sturgeons\, some sand lances. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: and other critters like that. But that’s also\, but it’s also important to know that specific species are also being dependent \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: on different environmental factors. And the location \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: also want to note that that many of these graphics throughout the presentation are going to be just illustration points. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: and they are not journeys specific to the San Francisco Bay essentials\, because we’re looking through the literature. It’s pretty scarce. So there’s not that much information about our system specifically. And this habitat \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: now\, we’re gonna focus on why these communities are important. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: So they do provide various environmental benefits \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: to the system as a whole. So this includes by having the so decomposers which are \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: typically breaking down organic material. There’s also the storing and release of carbon\, nitrogen\, and other nutrients within the system. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: The water quality can also be enhanced\, as there’s sediment being removed from the water column. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: So sediments are also stabilized and oxygenated by these critters \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: that are in the bottom bed. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: And these communities are also important because they kind of link the food web and and pretty much that’s where it starts. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: And lastly\, these communities can provide information about the health of a specific area as they are sensitive to environmental changes. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: Here in the image is also another example of like the different types\, combination of critters that could be found but it. But again\, like this is not specific to our system. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: Now\, these habitats can also be used by other species for foraging\, resting\, some migrating\, and spawning grounds. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: but it’s also important to note that not all the ethic communities or habitats are the same. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: For example\, like what habitats which have \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: which occur in quieter areas\, which which are less disturbed\, tend to have more species and diversity \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: in part due to the nature of that habitat specifically as well. There are higher levels of nutrients \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: up present. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: You compare that to sandy\, deep water shoals. By their nature there are more disturbed by tides currents. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: but they also have species that are located there that are specialized in that given area. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: So we incorporate mining. That kind of increases the disturbance and creates an environment that’s kind of different from a naturally disturbed one. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: And that causes the removal of these bending critters. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: And also within these areas that are highly disturbed \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: there\, there’s typically to be like low species\, numbers in abundance\, and there are also at a \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: at like an early stage or moderate stages of of community so development. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: And here’s like more examples here on the right hand side. That kind of show you what a perfect community \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: that’s mostly sandy \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: at Corpus Christi\, of what it might look. So you have some worms\, some clams that are buried within the sediment. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: and then you have like crabs on top of that\, snails and some fish\, and then the bottom one. You kind of see another representation of what it might look like \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: at a soft bottom habitat that’s again at Chesapeake Bay. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: No\, this is now looking at pre accessibility\, because there are critters that are there that are important. So within the food chain. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: So there are different organisms and life stages of a species that can vary access\, varying specific depths so influencing like that food accessibility for predators. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: so depending on the predator\, like the mouth\, size\, and shapes\, can vary also. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: This makes this is kind of like making so different food sources important for different species. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: And if you look at the age of the predator\, that kind of also influences what prey\, size. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: and type they can access within \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: within the Beth floor. So\, for example\, if you focus on this picture specifically if we look at the leopard shark here \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: so we could see that the colors that those little colors around them that kind of influences like their food type. So we could see that for the leopard shark there’s higher densities within the upper layer of the sediment between\, like we \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: so between like 0 to 4 cm. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: as opposed to the lower densities that are from 4 to 10 cm\, that that are much deeper in the sand. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: So it’s also important to note that\, like an adult shark or like leopard shark\, would be able to access this whole depth \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: as compared to a juvenile. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: But then\, if my need happens\, like you are removing this upper layer. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: and that’s kind of removing a resource for juveniles. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: and if that resource is removed\, then that means they would have to forage somewhere else. And this is kind of why it’s important to have like a diverse benefit community that that’s important to wildlife foraging. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: Here’s a different perspective. But this is more looking at dredging on how it may be impacting \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: like the vendor community. But this is a more of like a sketch \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: of navigational dredging. But the overall message is the same. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: So if you were to focus just on the left hand panel\, which says\, Undred area. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: and you kind of notice that there’s like an abundance of critters. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: And throughout the sediment depth. There’s different size. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: invertebrates\, and that changes as you go deeper and deeper. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: And then\, since that’s there\, like\, you also have\, like a diverse presence of foragers that are feeding at different levels as well. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: And if you start shifting over to the dredged area\, you notice that that upper layer of sediment has been removed. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: So with that that comes with a decrease in price\, size\, and abundance. And you can also see that there’s a potential to lose those prices of \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: of forgers that are there. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: and if we and then on the last panel\, which is like between 2 to 4 \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: years of post dredge\, you kind of see how the banthic floor is recovering by the sediment that has accumulated\, and you’re starting to see a partial recovery of the community. But then again. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: but then\, like\, you’ll also see the return of some forwarders coming back slowly. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: and they’re feeding on different prey as well. But it’s also important here to know that like this takes a lot of time\, and it’s very dependent on how resilient the community is\, and like their ability to \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: kind of recolonize or reestablish that area after the disturbance has occurred. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: Yeah. So that was pretty much a very brief introduction of the world of the communities. And so coming up next\, like\, right after this presentation\, this would be 2 studies that are \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: focus heavily on the impact of sand mining. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: And that’s pretty much it. In the meantime\, if there’s any questions like\, feel free\, please feel free to ask them now. And yeah\, us. Thank you. \nPat Showalter: Okay\, well\, we have one question. This is time for questions. So if you have a question\, please \nPat Showalter: raise your hand. \nPat Showalter: And I will call on you. And there is one question in the chat. \nPat Showalter: Would you like to respond to that 1 first? st Jaime. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: And jaime. \nbgoeden: If you want. If you want me to help you with that question\, I can. \nJaime Lopez | BCDC: Sure bro yes. \nbgoeden: So I’ll I’ll go ahead and answer it. So the question is whether or not why sand mining doesn’t have work windows. \nbgoeden: So\, and I think Rea is with the Army Corps of engineers\, and I think the comparison is probably to navigation dredging\, which is subject to work windows. So nav dredging has work\, windows of June one to November 30\, th and August 1st to November 30th east of the Carquinez Bridge. \nbgoeden: So the sand mining projects went through individual consultations. \nbgoeden: and they as part of that consultation. Early on with cowfish and wildlife\, they implemented fish screens on the intake pipe. So when Jaime was showing you the equipment aria with the dredging. You saw those silver cylindrical pieces put on the water intake pipe \nbgoeden: of the mining equipment. That was a primary area of entrainment for fish over 15 and so the miners were able to reduce that impact by implementing fish screens and the resource agencies determined that that was sufficient to address the main concern on entrainment from the water. Intake and mining also needs to occur occur year round to supply \nbgoeden: sand to the construction industry\, and they found that to be a compelling issue there is a reduction in the amount of mining that can take place in the Sassoon lease areas during the spawning season kind of the late winter to mid early spring period\, where there is mining restrictions to greater than 25 feet\, and \nbgoeden: a volume limitation of\, I believe\, 54\,000 cubic yards total for those 2 lease areas during that period. \nPat Showalter: Okay\, thank you. Are there any more questions for Jaime? \nPat Showalter: I don’t see any raised hands. But I’m not \nPat Showalter: okay. All right. Then I understand that Commissioner Gunther would like to make a comment before the next presentation. So Commissioner Gunther. \nAndrew Gunther: Thank you\, Pat. I just want to advise everybody that prior to Mister Johnson speaking\, I was one of the founding partners of applied marine sciences starting in 1991 \nAndrew Gunther: and I worked full time there until around the year 2\,000\, then part time for many years after that. So I was likely a I think I was a part time employee at applied marine sciences. By the time when this study was done\, however\, my partners knew better than to let me near any analysis \nAndrew Gunther: apology. So I didn’t actually participate at all in this project\, and I am now no longer associated in any way commercially with applied marine sciences. So I just thought that should be on the record. And if anyone has any questions\, please reach out to me\, or if for some reason\, someone thinks I need to contact the Council of Bcdc. And discuss this\, I will do that as well. Thanks. \nPat Showalter: Right. Are there any questions associated with this at the moment? \nPat Showalter: I see none. Okay. Well\, then\, we move on to the presentation. By Jay Johnson. He’s the applied marine sciences\, senior oceanographer\, and he’s going to present findings from the Benthic survey of commercial aggregate mining leases in Central San Francisco Bay and Western Delta. \nPat Showalter: And this was this study was conducted as part of the State Lands Commission\, Environmental Impact Report on mining in San Francisco Bay. \nPat Showalter: and the Commission Working Group and members of the public will have an opportunity to discuss the study and the findings. Afterwards we have put the find\, the study. Oh\, I just want to mention that \nPat Showalter: the all of these studies are listed in the additional material section on the calendaring item for this meeting. So they’re readily available. If you would like to read the whole study. Okay\, with that\, Jay\, are you ready? \nPat Showalter: Stay here. \nbgoeden: He is here. He’s on mute. \njayjohnson: I’m hilarious. \njayjohnson: I might have to exit and get back in. I haven’t shared before on on Zoom\, and it’s telling me when I go to share my screen\, I need to exit and re-log in. So if you’ll just give me 30 seconds\, I’ll do that all right. \nPat Showalter: Sure. \nbgoeden: Thanks\, Jay. And actually\, that will give me a brief moment to say to folks who have joined us today\, thank you for joining\, if you would please put your name and affiliation in the chat. So we can add you to our interested parties list. Because some folks we just have a phone number. And so if you’re new to the group\, we won’t \nbgoeden: know who you are to be able to add you to the Commissioner Working group interested parties list. If you would like to be so\, if you could do that\, that would be great if you don’t want to. That’s okay\, too. But that’s 1 way for us to stay connected to you all. \nPat Showalter: I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Stoll Reeves for sending us a letter yesterday. It’s signed by Christian Marsh\, and basically\, it sums up all of the scientific information. \nPat Showalter: It’s sort of a summary of the scientific information relative to sand mining and the benefit impact in San Francisco Bay\, and I see Christian is here. I’m sure he’ll talk about it a little later. But thank you for sharing that\, and it is listed in the additional materials section. So it’s available for everybody to read. It’s a it’s a 6 pager. So it takes us a little while\, but it’s still very clear and easy to read. So thank you for that. \nbgoeden: Alright. I’m ready to go if you’d like me to start. \nbgoeden: Yay. \nPat Showalter: Perfect\, go. \njayjohnson: Okay\, let’s try this. Okay\, share. All right. Allow. Oh\, why is it telling me? Zoom workplace? Never mind. Can you see my screen. \nPat Showalter: We can indeed. \nbgoeden: You are in you’re not in presenter mode yet\, though Jay. \njayjohnson: Let me do that. I can do that. There we come on. \njayjohnson: there you are! Here we go. \njayjohnson: all right. So in 2\,008 \njayjohnson: ams. Applied marine sciences conducted a Benthic infunnel assessment of the mining leases\, and the field work was done in the fall of 0 8\, and then the report was published in 0 9\, and became part of the initial Ceqa. Analysis for the 2\,012 Eir. \njayjohnson: My name again\, my name is Jay Johnson\, and I’m a senior oceanographer with applied marine sciences. And I’m also a \njayjohnson: marine ecologist. So this study\, as as Jaime mentioned earlier\, that when we looked at \njayjohnson: what was going on\, and wanted to evaluate what the potential effects of sand mining\, aggregate sand mining in the bay might be on Benthic communities in general\, and there isn’t a lot\, especially in Central Bay\, known about communities. We designed a study to look at the various mining leases and try to assess what kind of ecological conditions\, habitat functionality\, benthic community structure\, etc\, was going on in the \njayjohnson: mining leases. And so our study goals were. The primary goals were to characterize benthic communities inhabiting the mining leases. We wanted to characterize what we’re inhabiting\, what kind of benthic communities. And when I say\, Benthic\, we’re primarily talking about infauna\, the animals that live inside the surface layers of the sediment\, and in some cases the Epipuna\, or those larger organisms that may be on top or attached to the top \njayjohnson: of the the seafloor sediment. \njayjohnson: and we were going to look at both mining lease\, composition as well as control sites or comparison sites. And then we were going to try to identify or assess the difference between communities inhabiting mining leases and control comparison sites. \njayjohnson: Let’s go. Okay. But we also had a secondary thought of obtain a better understanding of the recovery rates and timing of benthe communities inhabiting sand mining leases\, following sand mining events. There has been a lot of work done in the Gulf of Mexico and along the eastern seaboard by what is now Boem used to be minerals management service\, looking at aggregate mining for beach \njayjohnson: restorations and the recovery of those communities in an open ocean environment. So the study was designed around 20 samples being collected within mined leases. \njayjohnson: and of those 8 of those samples were collected along mine tracks. That means someplace where miners had come through\, and Jaime showed that image of what we call worm tracks. The samples were collected or attempted to be collected within those worm tracks\, and then 5 samples were collected from control and comparison sites. The delta being a smaller lease area. \njayjohnson: We collected 10 samples within the mine leases\, 2 of which were in tracks and 5 were in control comparison sites. \njayjohnson: and we said the work was conducted in August of 2\,008. This is an old figure\, showing at that time the mining leases that were up for consideration\, and most of these are still there. Some of them have changed their boundaries a little bit\, but they show you how we randomly distributed\, so that there were samples collected in every lease area\, at least 2\, if not more\, in some cases 3\, \njayjohnson: and then the boxes marked in white were our control comparison sites\, because we knew that the sediment composition in the northern area of Central Bay was a little bit different than that along the southern \njayjohnson: portion of Central Bay\, and we want to make sure we captured those for those of you who are amateur historians like me. If you look at that blue triangle up by Angel Island in Raccoon Straits. That’s where all the sediment was mined for Treasure Island \njayjohnson: back in the twenties. So just Fyi\, I mean\, that was one of the cocktail tidbits we picked up as we were doing this study and then back in the Delta. We already talked about middle ground shoals\, which is the site in blue\, and then what is called Susan Bay or the Delta sites\, and going through. So \njayjohnson: what did we learn I’m going to start going\, and there’s going to be a lot of slides here. I’m just going to skip over\, because this was a presentation we gave some years ago. And and the data is there. So what we discovered was that Benthic community composition is highly variable. \njayjohnson: It’s very responsive to microhabitat conditions\, and that physical factors\, water\, depth\, salinity\, temperature\, sediment\, composition and stability\, organic enrichment. And Jaime mentioned that about decomposers\, so in order for decomposers to be in the makeup of the Benthic community \njayjohnson: there has to be organic compounds. There’s got to be something for them to consume. And I think that’s a very important consideration. \njayjohnson: And so it’s really critical to controlling variation in the community. Composition data is understanding and controlling the ecological parameters. Sediment\, composition and water depth are the 2 major physical factors that we know affect Benthic community structure. And one of my earlier slides. We talked about Microhabitat \njayjohnson: and one of the things that we’ve learned both Ams and other researchers who’ve looked at mining aggregate mining of any kind is that you have very close microhabitat composition\, so you could literally move \njayjohnson: a foot away if you will\, from one sample to another \njayjohnson: and pick up a dem different benthic community. Excuse my phone. I can’t. \njayjohnson: 8. \njayjohnson: Sorry about that bent. The composition \njayjohnson: can change because the sediment composition may change\, or the amount of organic carbon may change. The classic example we see in the open ocean is when you get near shore\, where you have sand ripples\, and and in the ocean \njayjohnson: you have one benthic community on the leading edge of the sand dune if you will underwater one along the top and one on the backside\, and the reason being is that on the top of this sand ripple are being predominantly affected by ocean currents. More energy\, higher energy. The organisms living on the leading edge of the sand dune are being constantly moved by high energy. \njayjohnson: But then\, on the backside the shadow side of the sand dune\, if you will\, is where all the carbon is depositing. And so we’ll have actually different communities living there. \njayjohnson: So that’s 1 of the reasons why in our study we always take our samples and we split them so that we do our chemistry on one half of the sample and the biology on the other half\, so that we always know that the Benthic community that we’re describing is from the composition\, the sediment\, composition\, and the physical factors present. \njayjohnson: And this is just a real quick slide. But we tried. This is a central bay. All of the water depths were very similar within the same water zones. You can also see that in the central bay most of the sand is coarse to medium with a little bit of fine. \njayjohnson: and then in the more in Central Bay\, much the same\, and then in the Delta we’re seeing\, as Jaime said\, much finer sand\, mainly fine and medium sand\, and the water depths in meters is much\, much lower. \njayjohnson: I’m not going to try to make you understand this\, because there won’t be a quiz. \njayjohnson: But this just shows all the animals that were collected analyzed. One of the things that we did in our study is when you do Benthic\, in funnel analysis you get the mud\, and then you got to separate all the animals out of the seafloor mud. \njayjohnson: and you what’s called screening\, and you run them through micrometer millimeters. Yeah\, millimeter screens. And the typical standard is either 1 or half millimeter. We did the split in half millimeter. And we actually analyzed the 1 separate from the half millimeter samples because the smaller animals get caught on the half millimeter screen\, whereas the larger animals get caught on the 1 screen. \njayjohnson: and a lot of the species composition that we were able to use in our statistics actually came from the half millimeter smaller animals. So I think that’s important to note \njayjohnson: Central Bay. There is the presence of an epibentic community of barnacles\, briozones\, and hydroids that were attached to large shells in cobble \njayjohnson: covering surface sediments. In some of the locations there was a Megabentos epibentic community present in the case of sea anemone sea stars and various crustaceans. So once we got all our data\, what we quickly do is some kind of statistical analysis\, and this is multivariate clustering analysis. And what this told us is that when it looked at the differences in variation\, what made one \njayjohnson: site different than the sample from one location different from the sample from a separate location in the species. Composition\, abundances\, sediment\, composition of concentration of organics \njayjohnson: and central bay basically clustered into full 5 basic groups. The red\, orange\, green design\, you know\, there’s a blue one here\, but it wasn’t too important\, and then a navy blue\, but then at each level we can then re-look to where we can describe one master community. \njayjohnson: another slide. I really don’t want to worry about too much\, but what we see here\, which is\, I want to point out is that from 3 of our for 2 of those sets of samples little nematodes\, little round\, red\, round worms were predominant. I mean they dominated the community. \njayjohnson: In another one you had a little more cluster\, 3 evenly distributed over multiple species in Cluster 4. It was a series of sites\, that neutrocola\, which again is one species. And then we had another site\, another set of samples that had much higher abundances\, much higher species\, diversity. And that’s all I want to say there\, and this is why these species groups broke out \njayjohnson: cluster one was the nematodes cluster\, 2 was predominantly nematodes and cluster 3 was somewhat split between polychaetes and amphipods. \njayjohnson: And what I want to point out is that most of these polychape species were not detrital feeders\, but carnivores okay\, worms that actively look for other animals to eat\, and then in cluster 4\, we had predominantly bivalves small\, you know\, clams\, and then in cluster 5 again. Bivalves\, polychaetes\, and amphipods dominated the community structure. \njayjohnson: This figure quickly shows you those 5 colors and how they’re kind of distributed all over the place. \njayjohnson: We didn’t see any one set of dominant species. \njayjohnson: I want to go back to Green. So you see\, Green is the one that’s a little more evenly distributed. \njayjohnson: We’ve got a little bit of everything everywhere\, and that shows us that we have \njayjohnson: high high. What we suspected was a high level of microdiversity microhabitats throughout the area that are all somewhat similar in composition. \njayjohnson: What did our statistics ultimately tell us? There were no detectable differences in either. The taxa abundances\, the number of organisms\, the number of taxa between mining leases and the control sites. Now our control comparison. Sites are sites that have no mining activity at all\, but have similar physical conditions\, similar \njayjohnson: sediment\, composition\, because we spent a lot of time finding these sites that they were true comparison sites\, and we saw no difference in tack abundances\, organisms\, taxa dredged and undredged sites. So when we looked at those sites\, the samples that we had collected within tracks\, mining tracks that had occurred within a couple years\, we couldn’t see any difference. What detectable differences we did detect is that there was more medium and fine sand at the control sites than the mining leases. \njayjohnson: No\, duh\, because what are the miners looking for? Medium and fine sands? \njayjohnson: And cluster? 5. That last one that was\, you know\, very diverse multiple multiple species had higher abundances\, were water\, depth and medium gravel. So they were slightly deeper and they were \njayjohnson: gravel. You’ve got to be careful in geologic terms. Gravel isn’t what we think of gravel when you go to the store and buy a bag of gravel. Gravel is anything larger than \njayjohnson: large sand. Okay\, when we ran the stepwise regression\, which is a statistical technique that looks at. \njayjohnson: how do you continually account for increased variation until you account for all of the variation between all your samples. What we learned was that Ampelisca\, which is an Arthropod Megamora\, which is also an Arthropod Nemurdia\, which is a roundworm nephtease\, which is a polychaeaten triatella\, which is again an arthropod\, are positively associated with time\, since dredging \njayjohnson: basically it says that we get more individuals with increasing time since dredging\, whereas Armandia \njayjohnson: and that’s what’s called a pea colonizer. Armandia is \njayjohnson: in ecological terms. Those species that tend to show up the 1st time after a disturbance or some effect that is keeping other species out. They were negatively associated with times in stretching\, which means you have fewer individuals with increasing times in stretching. And that’s exactly what you would expect to find in a disturbed area \njayjohnson: delta cedations. The 1st thing that you should look when you look at this table and I apologize. It’s a lot of data is\, the numbers are extremely low. Abundances are very small in the Delta. When we did our clustering analysis. We basically saw 3\, but essentially only 2 different community structures \njayjohnson: cluster. One is dominated by bivalves\, which is the invasive Asian clam\, core\, corbula cluster. 2. \njayjohnson: The Polykeet was the dominant\, and this is a invasive\, not an invasive\, but but a \njayjohnson: polykea. And then the bivalve corbicula\, which is also an invasion. Asian clam. The difference between corbicula and corbula has to do with salinity and what the water salinity is\, and then cluster. 3\, the bivalve corbula. \njayjohnson: So this is important\, because these were the 2 dominant one and 3 were the 2 dominant community structures in the Delta cluster\, one cluster\, 2\, \njayjohnson: all right? So Corbela cluster. Yeah. Corbula is here\, and corbicula is over here. So here cluster 2. \njayjohnson: And again\, like we did with central Bay. These are\, how they kind of spread out\, and they are somewhat randomly spread out. \njayjohnson: What did we see in the Delta? We could not detect any differences in tax abundance between mining leases in the comparison sites. And once again\, what we did see was that higher amounts of medium and fine sand in clusters one and 3\, whereas cluster differ in number of organisms per taxa. \njayjohnson: The stepwise regression showed that media mass\, just the poly key and number of taxa negatively associated with the time zone stretching. So what this is telling us is that fewer taxa \njayjohnson: and media mastis becomes more dominant with increasing time since dredging. \njayjohnson: So what does it all mean central Bay Benthic community? It’s characterized by marine species. \njayjohnson: not brackish water or estuary species. We have low species\, diversity\, and abundances\, which is typical for sandy sediments\, because there’s no organic carbon. You don’t have any of those detrital feeders. They just don’t exist. There’s nothing for them to eat. Small scale. Microhabitats do exist\, and they are supporting shift in the species\, dominance and community. \njayjohnson: The central Bay region\, mining sites and comparison sites are subject to very high currents and unstable sediments which is reflected in the in funnel\, community and composition and structure. It’s the physical conditions in Central Bay that are predominantly affecting what you’re finding \njayjohnson: there. And that was because we didn’t see any difference between the comparison sites and the mining sites. Central Bay Benthe community natural disturbance and mining disturbance act in similar ways in controlling the Bentha community development and its recovery. Unstable sediments keep communities closer to what we call an R\, \njayjohnson: which is an opportunistic or invasive\, a recovery type site than a K community which is equilibrium. Many of the slides that Jaime was showing are what would be considered equilibrium communities\, communities that have peaked out that have developed to their maximum productivity and species diversity. \njayjohnson: our communities aren’t that way. Our communities\, if any of you ever took an ecology class in high school. The classic discussion is. \njayjohnson: the farmer comes in and cuts down all the trees and creates a field\, and he farms\, and then he lets the field go. What happens? Well\, the 1st thing that happens is the field starts to recover to pre disturbance conditions. So we see grasses. Then we see some bushes and some shrubs. We see pine trees and early invading type trees coming in\, and ultimately over. Some time it’ll return to its maple oak or birch forest. \njayjohnson: The other thing that was interesting is that those sites that we saw a higher gravel\, so coarser\, really coarse material contents in the sediments\, that it appears that the gravel itself is acting as a stabilizer\, which is enabling the community development to move towards a more K equilibrium community. And if you remember that 1 5\, th that 5th \njayjohnson: set of community structures and the figures we showed where you had a lot more diversity\, a lot more species abundance across the taxa. That’s what we were seeing in those sites \njayjohnson: done yet. So that was this cluster 5 \njayjohnson: and the same thing in the Delta \njayjohnson: changes over time. What were our Central Bay conclusions? The community appears consistent with past studies. There was a study done in 1990 by marine ecological consultants\, and they reported low diversity\, low abundance\, nematode and polychae dominated communities and a thriving epibentic community. This is in Central Bay. The regional monitoring program\, however\, has done a more\, as you’re all familiar with San Francisco Estuary Institute\, did a huge spendthic study over multiple years looking at \njayjohnson: benta communities throughout the Bay\, and this was published in 2\,000\, \njayjohnson: and so for San Francisco Bay. We probably have a much better idea of how diverse our Benthic communities are. And what are the physical and sediment\, composition factors that control those and the sandy marine habitat community that they talk about is one of low diversity\, low abundance as they’ve seen throughout the bay. \njayjohnson: and then\, finally\, that polychats and nematodes dominated the community in the Rmp. And red rock\, and we saw that with the nematodes in Central Bay \njayjohnson: conclusions\, sand mining effect on Benthic. In funnel communities it does not appear to be any different than natural conditions and affecting community composition. Recovery to Pre. Mining conditions should be quick less than one to one year\, because it’s not trying to recover back to a cake type community. It’ll never get there. The physical conditions are affecting it and preventing it from reaching that \njayjohnson: that state\, and then the constant release of coarse gravel and cobble from depth to surface should be beneficial to in funnel community development\, and that the effect on Megabentos megabentos are those large animals like crabs. \njayjohnson: large snails is unknown because they are not typically caught in grabs. \njayjohnson: Delta Benthic communities is characterized by an estuarine species dominated by the invasive mollusks\, corbicula\, and corbula. What those studies with what we believe\, and we would need to gather more data to confirm. But it looks like that when mining comes in it removes enough of the corbicula and corbula \njayjohnson: clams which are very effective competitors\, and allowing natural recovery to native type species. And then over time\, corbicula and corbula out\, dominate the existing native community. Mining appears to occur in depositional areas along navigation channels that are subject to natural disturbance and movement \njayjohnson: and small-scale microhabitats exist which support different species\, dominance. \njayjohnson: natural disturbance and mining act in similar ways in controlling the Benthic community development. The unstable sediments keep community closer to an r versus A. K community and the effects of the invasive clam species on benthic community composition is truly unknown\, but appears to be very significant. \njayjohnson: All right\, I think we’re going backwards. \njayjohnson: Yeah. Sand mining acts similar to natural disturbance and recovery should happen one to one year. \njayjohnson: All right\, let me stop share all right. Any questions. I guess \njayjohnson: it’s a lot of information. \nbgoeden: So the one question I have Jason’s nobody asked. Nobody else is asking a question. It’s 1 where we’re still feeling\, where there’s not a lot of information\, so I’d love your perspective on it. So your study looks at one year greater recovery. But when we have \nbgoeden: mining that’s taking place regularly do we have any idea of like \nbgoeden: whether or not the mined areas that Jaime showed\, for example\, would have some recovery within\, you know\, a month or so of a mining event. If the mining is taking place relatively steadily throughout the year. \njayjohnson: I mentioned earlier \njayjohnson: that there have been a bunch of studies that have been done on the east coast in the Gulf of Mexico\, and there was even a study that we participated as the marine \njayjohnson: biologists for what was minerals management service. Now Bohm and Bessie\, that looked at recovery rates and recovery and ecological destruction of benthic habitats where the States are mining sand for beach replenishment. So we’re talking\, you know\, huge huge volumes. \njayjohnson: and what they were what those studies have basically concluded\, and some have been done in Alaska where there’s mining for gold and other minerals. Is that how the mining occurs. \njayjohnson: and when the mining occurs has the biggest effect on recovery rates. \njayjohnson: When you go in and mine a huge\, you know\, 4 acre area or 10 acre area. Recovery takes longer because recovery is predominantly from \njayjohnson: recolonization. We talk about these animals spawn and they get into the marine soup\, and then they settle out and start to recolonize. \njayjohnson: That just takes a little bit longer. And also in that kind of mining\, the way they do it. And again\, the physical environment\, the open ocean. The sediment composition tends to change \njayjohnson: so that you end up going from a sandy\, coarser area to a depositional area which then collects more carbon\, and we talked about the same\, you know. If you think of a sand dune\, you know that’s my classic example. You know\, you’ve all been to the beach\, where you have sand dunes and they move. You know you have the leading edge. You have the top and you have the backside. The backside has the carbon\, the front side doesn’t\, and the top is more physically disturbed \njayjohnson: because we change the carbon composition. The total organic carbon in the sediments. Then the species that are going to reinhabit that area are going to be different. \njayjohnson: Just like here\, we’re seeing mainly very few detrital feeders. And we see a lot of carnivores. We see a lot of filter feeders\, worms\, and stuff that stick their head up in the water column and try to filter out the plankton and other stuff in the water column. \njayjohnson: The mining studies also then showed that if you do what I like to call strip mining\, if you\, instead of running mining all the sand out of a 4 acre area\, you did strips in which you left areas undisturbed between the strips. \njayjohnson: Okay\, colonization happens much quicker\, because the primary means of recolonization in those events is from immigration and emigration\, not \njayjohnson: colonization from the soup\, if you will. Does that make sense? \njayjohnson: Because we have areas that are undisturbed. Animals grow\, expand and move\, they immigrate into the disturbed areas. And so recovery is much faster. And that’s why we tend to say that recovery in most communities will reach pre-disturbance abundance within a year to 2 years\, depending upon the physical conditions. \njayjohnson: Now\, how does that apply to what we see in Central Bay and the Delta totally different circumstances. \njayjohnson: because any carbon that’s in the water column isn’t settling out. \njayjohnson: That’s exactly what the sediment transport studies are showing and what we showed even in the areas where mining had occurred. The sediment composition isn’t much different than the sediment composition in areas that have never been mined \njayjohnson: or that have been mined many years ago. Because the recolonization isn’t. \njayjohnson: You can’t recolonize to something different. \njayjohnson: because the physical factors that are affecting those sites are so great or appear to be so great. That’s the controlling factor. It’s not the mining. It’s the 2 and 3 not currents that we see in Central Bay. It’s the 2 not currents we see in the along the channels\, the main dredge channels where the ships are going in the Delta. \njayjohnson: That’s where the mining is occurring\, and as far as recolonization\, these worm tracks are more akin to strip mining my term strip mining where you do. Mining with strips and areas aren’t being disturbed over and over again \njayjohnson: that there’s a chance for some recovery. You could argue\, and this is just my personal opinion\, but I\, you know\, can’t prove it at this point is that probably mining in the Delta is probably a good thing\, because it’s greatly disturbing the potamo corbula and corbicula composition\, and at least\, you know\, allowing some of our native species to take hold and and stay there because you need some physical disturbance to get them out of there. But that’s not going to happen. Did that answer your question\, Brenda? \nbgoeden: Yeah\, no\, that did. Thank you\, Jay. I appreciate the expanding on that. And I also I guess that just one other question. I’m not sure I can articulate it correctly\, but I’m going to try. So when you say the physical factors are the determinant. \nbgoeden: you’re talking about the same species coming in\, instead of a different species coming in. \njayjohnson: Exactly. Well\, no\, it’s 2 things the same species will recover will come in because the habitat hasn’t changed. \nbgoeden: Right. \njayjohnson: So you’re not going to suddenly change to a lot of detrital feeders if there’s no organic carbon\, and we’re seeing no evidence of anything in the central bay being depositional at all. \njayjohnson: It’s all erosional. It’s all all heavily disturbed. The currents are moving any carbon that’s coming in any carbon that’s in the bay\, working through the various basins\, is staying in the water column because of the high energy. \njayjohnson: so you can. Only your species can only recolonize\, based on the habitat that that they like. \njayjohnson: And if you’re not changing the habitat\, if the habitat isn’t really changing. That was that statement about mining is behaving much like the currents and the physical conditions. It’s just that’s just it. And so and what we’re seeing is\, it is recolonizing. And in fact\, in some cases\, and this was\, I wish we were able to get more data. \njayjohnson: those sites that appear to have been \njayjohnson: mine that had coarse\, really coarse material. \njayjohnson: We’re the most abundant and diverse \njayjohnson: communities\, because they had the the gravel. Well\, that’s being excluded by the miners. They don’t want it. \njayjohnson: So yeah. \nPat Showalter: You know\, they’re avoiding those areas. \njayjohnson: What’s that? \nPat Showalter: They’re avoiding those areas. \njayjohnson: Well to a certain degree\, but it’s also because of the way. And then one of the mine. There’s several\, you know\, bills here. They have screens when the sand comes up that keeps anything larger than a certain size from being collected\, and it gets discharged off\, and it gets returned to the seafloor. \nPat Showalter: Interesting well\, as a hydrologist. I always want to know what was the water year 2\,008 like I don’t remember. Was it. \njayjohnson: Was it a wet year? Was it an El Nino or an a la Nina? Is that what you’re asking. \nPat Showalter: Yeah. Was it a wet year\, or was it unusual at all? Do you remember. \njayjohnson: No\, not particularly I’m trying to think. The last prior to that 97\, 98 winter was the was a really bad El Nino year. So we were probably 2\,008\, probably a\, you know\, mixed of\, you know\, not really an El Nino\, but really not a la Nina\, you know one of our intermediate. \nPat Showalter: Period was in. It was a long term drought\, but \nPat Showalter: period. But but there were some. You know\, years where things were better than others. Okay. \njayjohnson: Yeah\, I can’t. I can’t speak to that because I did. We didn’t look at that. I mean\, you know\, it was a good fall. We had wonderful weather when we sampled so. \nPat Showalter: So that usually means it’s a dry year. Yeah. \njayjohnson: Yeah\, a little bit drier. Yeah\, well\, we don’t. We don’t typically start seeing. Then that’s why we did this in August is we don’t typically\, historically\, in the Bay Area or the Central coast. See our 1st rainstorms until late October\, beginning November. And and you know we have been involved with the regional monitoring program since its inception \njayjohnson: and handle all of the field collections for the regional monitoring program\, and those are always always scheduled for August\, September\, and at the very latest early October. So you avoid rains. \njayjohnson: you know. \nPat Showalter: Yeah\, okay\, all right. Well\, I’m not seeing. Thank you. That was a very that was an excellent presentation. I’m I’m not seeing any more hands raised for questions. But I’d like to give an opportunity for the minors to make a comment\, and or anyone else who wants to make a public comment\, and I’m assuming that’s going to be Christian. But whoever \nPat Showalter: is the miners would like to \nPat Showalter: represent them. I we’d be glad to hear from. \nChristian Marsh: Thank you\, Commissioner Showalter. I really appreciate that. I think we’ll we’ll hold off. We’d rather really focus on the presentations and make sure you can get through those first.st \nPat Showalter: Okay. Alright\, that’s that’s fine. Are there any more public comments associated with this other than questions? \nPat Showalter: Again\, I’m not seeing any raised hands. Does anybody else see any raised hands? \nPat Showalter: Okay. \nbgoeden: I don’t either\, Pat. I just dropped in the chat that\, according to the water group\, california was in an extreme drought in 2\,007\, through 2\,009\, according to the Natural Resources Agency and the California Department of Water. \nPat Showalter: Thank you. \nbgoeden: Love\, Google. \nPat Showalter: It’s wonderful\, isn’t it? All right? Well\, let’s move on to our next presentation. \nPat Showalter: I think that’s Tim. Hammermeister. \nTim Hammermeister: Yes\, that’s correct\, and thank you so much for being here and \nPat Showalter: Do you? Are you ready to. \nTim Hammermeister: Sure. Let me go to share screen. \nTim Hammermeister: and let me know if you’re seeing my presentation. \nPat Showalter: Are okay. And it’s full screen. \nTim Hammermeister: Excellent. \nTim Hammermeister: Yes\, I am Tim Hammermeister. I’m with Erm Newfields. We were just recently acquired by Erm. \nTim Hammermeister: New. We did this study under new fields. \nTim Hammermeister: And this is the Benthic assessment of sand mining in Central and Sassoon bays that we conducted \nTim Hammermeister: the data collection was 2016\, 2017\, \nTim Hammermeister: and then follow up reporting 2018 and 2020. \nTim Hammermeister: I’m like cover screen. Here. I’ve included a picture of a \nTim Hammermeister: a tool that we used in our study\, a sentiment profile imaging camera \nTim Hammermeister: that Jay actually provided an excellent segue. We were looking at the habitat types as a big part of our study. And with this camera\, you’re able to get a \nTim Hammermeister: picture of the sediment water interface to evaluate the type of habitat you’re looking at\, both in \nTim Hammermeister: the various features of the grain\, size and \nTim Hammermeister: presence\, absence of organisms and other visual indications. \nTim Hammermeister: And as I just wanted to present the picture because it’ll be part of the study that we came up. \nTim Hammermeister: So let’s move on here. \nTim Hammermeister: So the history of our study was. \nTim Hammermeister: we had an approved sampling analysis plan back in 2016 \nTim Hammermeister: that was developed through the Btac. \nTim Hammermeister: We we did our initial sampling in 2016 and follow up sampling in 2017\, both in October. \nTim Hammermeister: as I said\, we initial reported our results in 2018 \nTim Hammermeister: apparently. It satisfied the permit conditions. But then there was a request for some supplemental work that we did in 2020\, \nTim Hammermeister: and just to get start with the original study design. \nTim Hammermeister: Our objectives were to characterize the benthic habitat conditions. \nTim Hammermeister: compare the characteristics of the benta habitat before and after sand mining occurred. \nTim Hammermeister: and assess the potential impacts from the sand mining \nTim Hammermeister: and how the habitat would function 12 months following the sand mining. So we were looking at. \nTim Hammermeister: Is a year an adequate recovery period\, and \nTim Hammermeister: you know initially\, the idea was seasonally assessing the habitat conditions. But \nTim Hammermeister: it’s quite cost prohibitive. These studies are quite expensive\, especially bent to community analysis. \nTim Hammermeister: So we did one year to cover a full set of seasons and \nTim Hammermeister: see what the how the recovery rate was at that point. \nTim Hammermeister: Oh\, so our study design included \nTim Hammermeister: study sites in 2 different lease areas\, the treatment areas \nTim Hammermeister: and immediately adjacent to those lease areas were our reference areas and were controlled. \nTim Hammermeister: And we we picked reference areas that were right next to the lease areas to \nTim Hammermeister: that. But there had never been \nTim Hammermeister: sand line before\, nor were they \nTim Hammermeister: in one of the lease areas. But just to get the similar of habitat types as possible\, and hopefully. \nTim Hammermeister: guild. \nTim Hammermeister: Basically the same macro conditions over the year would affect both the \nTim Hammermeister: treatment and reference areas. So the data types we collected were the setup profile images from the camera. I showed on the 1st slide \nTim Hammermeister: our sediment\, conventional parameters\, Toc grain size. \nTim Hammermeister: And we did Bentha community analysis. We had Mts marine taxonomic services did the Bentha community analysis for us? \nTim Hammermeister: As I said earlier today\, we had 2 sampling events. Our T. 0 was \nTim Hammermeister: immediately prior to sand mining\, and then A. T. 1212 months after the sand mining was completed. \nTim Hammermeister: our study design\, known as A before after control impact. \nTim Hammermeister: This graphic presents kind of a \nTim Hammermeister: well. It’s a graphic of how the study design. It says we have a treatment reference area so that we’re looking at \nTim Hammermeister: what the conditions are in both mining and non-mined area arm. \nTim Hammermeister: The B parameter is\, do we see changes in the treatment area 12 months. \nTim Hammermeister: Post mining the C parameter there between reference areas is\, what are the natural changes over 12 months? \nTim Hammermeister: That would have occurred in these areas. So that’s that’s the real control factor. \nTim Hammermeister: And then the the D parameter is \nTim Hammermeister: okay. Were the changes different in the treatment area than the changes we saw in the reference area that were natural changes. \nTim Hammermeister: So it’s trying to tease out. \nTim Hammermeister: Are any changes seen at 12 months due to mining? Or are they just due to the natural changes that would occur over time. \nTim Hammermeister: because\, as Jay discussed in his\, these are very high energy areas\, relatively speaking\, in the bay. So \nTim Hammermeister: they’re always they’re basically in a state of constant change relative to an acquiescent bay. \nTim Hammermeister: whether it’s a physical\, man-made physical disturbance or just natural disturbance. \nTim Hammermeister: So let me see. Okay\, so here’s a map of our study area in Sassoon Bay \nTim Hammermeister: we basically collected 60 images using the sediment profile at 60 locations. \nTim Hammermeister: 90 images\, or 3 images per location. So 120 images across the reference and treatment areas. \nTim Hammermeister: Then we did a subset of. \nTim Hammermeister: I want to say\, I think it was 20 locations for Benthack community analysis. \nTim Hammermeister: Just we use the camera to get greater coverage \nTim Hammermeister: and the obviously the community to get the specific data. \nTim Hammermeister: Now in this map\, you can see these \nTim Hammermeister: little squiggly lines are where the sand mining occurred \nTim Hammermeister: in the treatment area. Now\, our design was to have a grid of samples just for spatial coverage and to be non-biased on where sampling we really wanted to just characterize the whole area \nTim Hammermeister: and the habitat type. But it’s key. It is key to note that in Sassoon Bay \nTim Hammermeister: the dredgers tend to anchor and \nTim Hammermeister: dredge in one spot. So the dredge trails here \nTim Hammermeister: are much smaller portion of the lease area \nTim Hammermeister: than what we’ll see in Central Base\, and unfortunately\, during this study \nTim Hammermeister: there was some more dredging completed\, but the GPS system on the \nTim Hammermeister: mining vessel was out\, so we did not get data for the other tracks\, but I was assured there would be similar to the ones you’re seeing here. \nTim Hammermeister: Same study design in Central Bay reference area \nTim Hammermeister: adjacent to the treatment area that wasn’t dredged \nTim Hammermeister: and a treatment area that was dredged. And you can see this is what I was talking about\, and the difference of how they mine. Here they tended to drift with the current. \nTim Hammermeister: and therefore creating much longer tracks\, dredging tracks through the lease area. \nTim Hammermeister: So the result results of our Bentha community analysis was in Port Knox Shoal Central Basin. \nTim Hammermeister: There was a loss of complexity. \nTim Hammermeister: but that loss of complexity was observed in both the treatment and reference areas. \nTim Hammermeister: So \nTim Hammermeister: it’s in that case it’s not clear whether any observed changings are from change are from the mining or just natural changes from year to year \nTim Hammermeister: into 2 May. \nTim Hammermeister: There’s a change in the overall community \nTim Hammermeister: with both the quantity and representation of the beta community. \nTim Hammermeister: The general metrics that you look at didn’t really weren’t really changed. \nTim Hammermeister: And the changes in the tax distribution again\, we’re \nTim Hammermeister: were not significant enough in one area versus the other to attributed specifically to sand mining. \nTim Hammermeister: The results actually showed up in the \nTim Hammermeister: in the soon area that the \nTim Hammermeister: community is slightly more complex at T. 12. \nTim Hammermeister: That very well could I to dig deep enough in the data to to to her \nTim Hammermeister: trigger my memory. But I have the I seem to recall. It’s because we got rid of a lot of these clams \nTim Hammermeister: in the trudge area\, and therefore the complexity because it was not dominated by a single species. The complexity\, therefore increased because\, one species was \nTim Hammermeister: less abundant. \nTim Hammermeister: Now\, the habitat conditions this is more from the camera results very similar because \nTim Hammermeister: you have the same high energy areas. What we find with the camera imaging and the data in the reports \nTim Hammermeister: is that the vast majority of both these treatment and \nTim Hammermeister: study areas as due to the high Rga\, we can \nTim Hammermeister: in the image analysis\, we consider it a stage one community. That means it’s a colonizing community. \nTim Hammermeister: I mean\, I could repeat a lot of stuff that Jay said. It’s high energy. It’s the type of community that exists in this type of substrate\, and it’s in a it’s used to constant physical change\, whether natural \nTim Hammermeister: or man-made. The physical change is not. \nTim Hammermeister: It’s kind of a it’s. It’s used the colony. That habitats there is used to that because of the higher energy in the system. \nTim Hammermeister: Are are from the camera. There didn’t seem to be any major changes in the habitat \nTim Hammermeister: after 12 months\, because it was the stage one at time 0. It was stage one at T. 12. \nTim Hammermeister: High energy\, sandy\, substrate. \nTim Hammermeister: Based on kind of backtrack\, a little bit \nTim Hammermeister: based on our study design since we did do a grid. And this is these are sizable areas and the sand mining was done over. I think a 1 or 2 week period. \nTim Hammermeister: and in Sassoon it looks like\, you know\, our stations. \nTim Hammermeister: Sand mining was such a small portion of the area. Our stations were somewhere further afield from the obvious sand mining. \nTim Hammermeister: Little little more crossover in Central basin. \nTim Hammermeister: So the question was raised. Well\, maybe we should evaluate a subset of these stations to see if if you really looked at these stations that were much closer to where the sand mining occurred \nTim Hammermeister: in this area and through the central part of the test area of the treatment area. \nTim Hammermeister: would there be any impacts? And our supplemental study \nTim Hammermeister: with the reduced data points\, even though the statistical power is lower. We really got the same results as we did when we looked at the same \nTim Hammermeister: as full data set some slight changes\, but the changes occurred in both the reference and treatment area. \nTim Hammermeister: You couldn’t discern whether the presumably that means the changes are natural. So therefore\, we could not \nTim Hammermeister: assign any observed changes to the effects of sand mining. Basically\, we found the same habitat \nTim Hammermeister: one year later that we found when we did the baseline studies. \nTim Hammermeister: And my understanding is this\, supplemental study was \nTim Hammermeister: also accepted under the permit conditions for the mining companies\, and \nTim Hammermeister: we haven’t done any subsequent data analysis or data collection. So this is where our findings were \nTim Hammermeister: from 2020. \nTim Hammermeister: That’s all I have for you today. \nTim Hammermeister: I don’t know if I’m still sharing or. \nPat Showalter: Thank you. I have a question\, and and I thought I was listening. You might have gone over this. But can you talk a little bit more about \nPat Showalter: how the image you know. What exactly are you taking a picture of when you put that camera down there. \nTim Hammermeister: It basically takes a 20 cm profile picture of the sediment water interface. It’s used depending on the depth of penetration and in sand. You don’t penetrate as far because the density of the substrate. \nTim Hammermeister: But you basically see the upper portion of the sediment \nTim Hammermeister: where the Benthic organisms live. You know\, typically the biological\, active zone is about 10 cm in a \nTim Hammermeister: inland bay. \nTim Hammermeister: And then you see the overlying water. So you can basically see grain size. \nTim Hammermeister: There’s any type of material on the surface\, whether it’s natural or any type of detritus. \nTim Hammermeister: We use this tool a lot for wood\, waste and stuff\, so you can delineate things that exist on the surface\, it’ll show you the oxygenated layer and the redox zone. \nTim Hammermeister: So typically in sandy environments\, it’s much more oxidized because the porosity of the sand and the water allows it to \nTim Hammermeister: it doesn’t go anoxic\, whereas in a on it \nTim Hammermeister: a shallow embayment with a lot of silk\, clay and organic material. \nPat Showalter: Oh! \nTim Hammermeister: Oh\, thank you very much. Yeah. \nbgoeden: I just popped open the study into the appendices that show the the spy camera. I thought it would be very illustrative\, as you try to explain it to us verbally. \nTim Hammermeister: Yeah\, then\, yeah\, this is a. \nTim Hammermeister: This is exactly what I’m talking about. So the dark part on this left image is the overlying water. \nTim Hammermeister: and you can see \nTim Hammermeister: we got partial penetration because of sand. In both of these images\, you know\, soft\, silty clay substrates. Sometimes it penetrates all the way to the \nTim Hammermeister: the top of the image. \nTim Hammermeister: And\, as you can see\, because this is all the light tan color. \nTim Hammermeister: Think this is more shadow in the one on the left than actually anoxic. \nTim Hammermeister: It’s well aerated again. That’s a reflection of the porosity of the sand and the \nTim Hammermeister: the water exchange. Yeah\, there’s some good ones. \nTim Hammermeister: There’s an example\, some of the gravel that Jay was talking about on the surface. \nTim Hammermeister: and you know you can spot various images\, and again the lower the penetration\, the denser\, the substrate. \nbgoeden: Yeah\, that was actually one of my questions\, because I was reviewing the studies again. And you had said in the document that the bottom was hard. \nbgoeden: hard sand bottom\, I think\, is what you called it. \nbgoeden: And I just was reflecting on that and trying to understand. Does it mean like it’s a consolidated sand that has to be sort of \nbgoeden: pushed apart by water jetting\, or is it loose enough that \nbgoeden: the material can be pulled into the equipment. It just the terminology struck me as really interesting. That just raised a question for me. I was like\, maybe I don’t really know. \nTim Hammermeister: It is\, it is relative. Generally. \nTim Hammermeister: when we see Sandy substrates they are consolidated just because they’ve been laid down by \nTim Hammermeister: the way they’re formed. It’s \nTim Hammermeister: there’s not water circulating from the bottom that would keep it unconsolidated. In general\, it’s it’s just the Water Exchange over the top\, and the way the sands\, and I’m not a \nTim Hammermeister: transport guy\, but maybe someone on the call. Would you know the way the sand is laid down? It’s much more Consolidated than \nTim Hammermeister: you know what you’d see on a dry\, sandy beach. \nbgoeden: Yeah\, and I also. \nTim Hammermeister: When you get into muddy areas\, when you see really unconsolidated stuff where it’s really soft gooey mayonnaise like \nTim Hammermeister: consistency. \nbgoeden: Yeah. So I also just dropped in the chat trying to presuppose one of Pat’s questions. So I did also look up the water year. During this study I think I have it matched up. But according to Dwr. This was a very dramatically wet year. \nbgoeden: It says\, the second place for State water runoff was after 1983. So apparently October 1\, 2016\, to September 30\, th 2017\, was very wet. So pat. If you had that question. I looked it up for you. \nbgoeden: and then Bob is asking whether or not the bed photographs are available. And yes\, they are\, Bob. They’re in the Benthic study by Newfields\, the full report\, and they are around page 40\, \nbgoeden: 4 of 117 in the Pdf. So it is available for you to think about. \nbgoeden: Look at all in that link that I added to the chat earlier in the meeting. \nPat Showalter: Thank you. Okay. Well\, I also see that Commissioner Gunther has a question. \nPat Showalter: You’re muted. \nAndrew Gunther: Thank you\, Pat. The message\, the message that you have \nAndrew Gunther: is\, does this have as its beginnings the remarks. \nAndrew Gunther: camera work in the 19 nineties that Noah was doing. Are you familiar with that. \nTim Hammermeister: Yeah\, it’s the same system. It’s just we. We refer to it as a sediment profile\, imaging camera instead of a \nTim Hammermeister: 3 months. \nAndrew Gunther: Yeah\, you’ve got. You’ve definitely improved the name. \nAndrew Gunther: Make sure I was associated with the same thing. Thanks. \nTim Hammermeister: Yeah\, it all. It all came from the same. We worked with Joe Germano prior to all. \nAndrew Gunther: Yeah\, okay. \nTim Hammermeister: It’s a small community. \nPat Showalter: All right. \nPat Showalter: I don’t see any more hands raised for questions. \nPat Showalter: So so now. \nbgoeden: Can I ask one more question because it. \nPat Showalter: Of course. \nbgoeden: This has puzzled me\, and I think Tim’s familiar with my question about this\, because it puzzled me last time. So with a Bakke study before after treatment comparison impact. However\, that term goes \nbgoeden: and you did the grid and the mining was either on the sample points or not. \nbgoeden: What I’m wondering is just trying to think about like the study and how its results are reported\, if \nbgoeden: and this is where I struggled with it before. So we had this conversation before. But I still sort of have this question\, which is\, if you’re doing a Bakke study\, and you have before after treatment before and then control? \nbgoeden: If the treatment doesn’t happen on the sample point\, does that \nbgoeden: truly reflect\, reflect the results? Or is it because the stamp\, the \nbgoeden: the treatment was sparse\, and it was like one episode of mining that’s considered a successful treatment. That’s what I like really struggled last time. And maybe you could just speak to that to help me with that struggle that I still feel like I have over the before after \nbgoeden: type project \nTim Hammermeister: Sure the key thing here is a habitat is not a point\, but an area. \nTim Hammermeister: So what we’re really looking at is the benthic habitat within the lease area and an area adjacent to it \nTim Hammermeister: to see if you know there are observable impacts. \nTim Hammermeister: Now\, again\, you know\, it’s it could be a measure of degree if \nTim Hammermeister: they mined every day for the the entire year between the study and got every \nTim Hammermeister: piece of sand out of the tree lease area. Certainly you’d see different results. \nTim Hammermeister: But just by the nature of how they’re mining through these lease areas\, the the habitat area doesn’t change. \nTim Hammermeister: So I mean\, originally the objectives were like was there impacts up to the foraging fish and stuff \nTim Hammermeister: by seeing how they are dredging through these areas kind of like what \nTim Hammermeister: Jay referred to. I think it’s strip mining. Since you have areas untouched and areas touched within the \nTim Hammermeister: within the overall habitat\, it recovers faster. And there’s still it doesn’t. \nTim Hammermeister: It doesn’t period of effect. \nTim Hammermeister: The habitat as a whole. \nTim Hammermeister: It the habitat is. \nTim Hammermeister: and especially in these high energy areas\, is what the habitat is. So you’re going to see \nTim Hammermeister: basically the same type of organisms coming back to colonize it. \nTim Hammermeister: And by its very nature it’s a colonizing habitat. \nTim Hammermeister: I know that sounds circular. But \nbgoeden: No\, it’s. \nTim Hammermeister: So a physical disturbance\, whether natural or \nTim Hammermeister: man-made disturbance in this type of environment\, it’s really hard to see a a change. \nTim Hammermeister: It would have to be a matter of degree. \nTim Hammermeister: And then\, you know\, I think we had a discussion before whether 12 months was \nTim Hammermeister: a long time or not\, but or too much time to see an impact. \nTim Hammermeister: Well\, that’s a kind of a different question of \nTim Hammermeister: exactly how quick it takes to recollonize it. \nbgoeden: Okay\, thank you\, Tim. I appreciate that little bit of expansion that’s helpful. \nPat Showalter: Okay\, it looks like Bob Battagio has a question as well. Are the grain size categories defined in the reports. \nPat Showalter: and Tim is on mood\, but he’s shaking his head. Yes. \nTim Hammermeister: Yes\, yeah\, we did a visual evaluation of the major grain size modes in the images. And then we had physical grain size samples collected along with the benta community. So the physical ones are a subset. And then the visual assessment on the digital images \nTim Hammermeister: is all 60 locations\, presidiary. \nBob Battalio: Yeah\, just to clarify. I was wondering if you had tabulated the actual \nBob Battalio: grain size ranges in millimeters or other dimensions like\, you know\, coarse sand. What is between certain \nBob Battalio: particular grain size? Yeah\, yeah. \nTim Hammermeister: Yeah\, we we have 4 game sites. \nTim Hammermeister: The full grain side distribution is in with the benthics\, community samples and the visual ones are much more of a dominated by this grain size\, type\, assessment. \nBob Battalio: Okay\, but you define what a course sand\, grain\, sizes and millimeters \nBob Battalio: in your yeah. Okay\, thank you. Thank you. \nPat Showalter: Excellent. Okay? So I think that does bring us to the end of the questions. So now we come to public comment on this\, and I’m wondering if anyone has some comments they would like to make \nPat Showalter: And also\, if if the miners would like to talk now that they would be welcome. \nPat Showalter: and they may come. \nPat Showalter: Go ahead. \nChristian Marsh: Commissioner showalter\, and and others. Thank you\, Christian Marsh. Again. \nChristian Marsh: I’m with the law firm as Stoll Reeves. I’m I’m not a bethic ecologist\, although I do \nChristian Marsh: have a specialty in endangered species\, critical habitats\, sequa and Nepa. \nChristian Marsh: I also began my career at interior in the office of water and science. So the science is incredibly important\, and I think the process is also important\, and I really want to commend \nChristian Marsh: on behalf of the the Sand Miners. I want to commend Bcdc. For this working group process has been very helpful. \nChristian Marsh: I wanted to just really briefly\, back up a little bit and and provide some context on the process as well. \nChristian Marsh: And also sand mining. So first\, st as Commissioner Showalter mentioned. \nChristian Marsh: we had provided yesterday a summary of of studies and evaluations that have been conducted\, of the effects of sand mining on bent\, thick habitats over the last 20 years. It’s really just a summary. I think the \nChristian Marsh: the original studies are all available. \nChristian Marsh: And those build on the earlier studies that Jay Johnson had mentioned in his presentation. \nChristian Marsh: I also want to mention that \nChristian Marsh: Bcdc. And again\, we commend Bcdc. For holding a two-day science panel. This is about 10 years ago that focused one day on Bethic habitats\, and the other day on coastal \nChristian Marsh: or us sand transport and supply. \nChristian Marsh: That was also helpful as well as \nChristian Marsh: conditioning as part of the permits\, and this is a condition from the Regional Board and Nymphs as well \nChristian Marsh: to form the Benthic Technical Advisory Committee. \nChristian Marsh: That Benthic tack was a bit like the Santac\, although administered differently \nChristian Marsh: but it was also comprised of all of the regulatory agencies\, and a representative from Usgs as well as the Sand Miners\, and that Beth attack is is \nChristian Marsh: who guided the new field study that you heard presented today from Tim Hamelmeister. \nChristian Marsh: obviously\, as you’re kind of hearing today. There’s a substantial amount of work\, and I think a lot more knowledge and understanding and certainty about the benthic habitats and the effects from sand mining than we might have from coastal geomorphology and and sand transport. \nChristian Marsh: But I would also note just for context\, that sand mining sand. Mining events in a given year are only comprised about one to 2% of the bay floor \nChristian Marsh: in each year. So while the sand mining effect might be significant in the specific discrete area. Mind\, it is quite marginal as you start looking at the the bay as a whole\, which is where \nChristian Marsh: I think the the Ams and new field studies \nChristian Marsh: come into play and then\, really just other than that I wanted to to introduce Dr. Chuck Hansen. He is a an expert ecologist. \nChristian Marsh: He was engaged by Mark Marietta and Lind to do the original studies and and the biological assessments for \nChristian Marsh: the last round of of permitting and leases\, and also this round of permitting and leases. \nChristian Marsh: And he might just have a couple of comments on on the study presentations today as well as as his own evaluation of the Benthic community over the years. So \nChristian Marsh: if I could just pass it to him\, I think that’s all we have. We’re certainly here and available for comments or questions. \nChristian Marsh: and and again\, really appreciate the commission\, and \nChristian Marsh: and Brendan in particular for for steering the the working group process. This has been very\, very helpful and informative. \nChristian Marsh: so with that I would pitch to to chuck if he has just any\, any comments whatsoever. \nPat Showalter: That’s great. And before Chuck starts talking I need to. \nPat Showalter: make a comment about a conflict of interest. I don’t think there really is a contract of interest. But I just want to let everybody know that I hired Chuck Hansen for several years while I was the project manager on the face investigation for Santa Clara Valley Water district. So we have a or we had a very close professional relationship. I\, however\, have not talked to him at all about this benthic investigation \nPat Showalter: and \nPat Showalter: So I’ve not been at all that. But I just wanted to let everybody know. I don’t. \nPat Showalter: Greg\, if you think there’s any recusal requirement at this point\, please let me know. \nPat Showalter: No\, alright\, thank you\, Chuck. It’s great to see you. \nChuck: Hey\, Pat\, very nice to see you again\, and \nChuck: I am still working on face for Santa Clara Valley. \nChuck: So your legacy carries forward. \nPat Showalter: Thank you. \nChuck: But in terms of the Benthic disturbance issues. With regard to sand mining\, I want to applaud the 2 presentations by Ams and Newfields. \nChuck: They bring new science to the forefront on benthic ecology and disturbance. \nChuck: and I’d like to turn the clock back 25 years to the point where we didn’t have that information. \nChuck: and this starts in about 20\,000. \nChuck: When the Sand mining community was starting to prepare for lease renewals by the Coastal or by the State Lands Commission. \nChuck: and we recognized through that process that the information we had available was really sparse. \nChuck: It was fragmented\, it was incomplete. \nChuck: And we really at that point I don’t think understood what sand mining was all about. \nChuck: and so the Sand Miners decided to \nChuck: enter into a collaborative effort with the State and Federal agencies. \nChuck: It was a 3 year program of data\, collection\, analysis\, interpretation\, and discussion. \nChuck: We met about quarterly for that 3 year period. \nChuck: and then in 2024\, we prepared a draft report. \nChuck: and the report was really intended to be a compilation of information on sand mining \nChuck: specific to Central Bay and Sassoon Bay. \nChuck: It was intended to provide to the agencies and all the parties a foundation of information. \nChuck: and the information that we tried to provide was reviewed by the agencies. It was also reviewed by an independent panel of scientific experts from around the world. \nChuck: and in that report we describe the methods for sand mining. \nChuck: We described the equipment. \nChuck: We had the miners for a year monitor in detail their locations where these worm trails are occurring. \nChuck: We looked at the frequency and the duration of each individual mining event. \nChuck: and through that process of better understanding the mining methods. \nChuck: we\, as the other speakers\, have said\, we identified that mining was really focused on \nChuck: sandy high velocity\, high disturbance areas within the bay. \nChuck: These are areas that are characterized by sand waves that epitomize the frequent and an ongoing disturbance \nChuck: through natural velocities and tidal action and other processes that occur within these areas where mining occurs. \nChuck: and by looking at those areas where mining occurs in the areas where it doesn’t. We found that mining really doesn’t occur in areas with fine colloidal sediments. \nChuck: And the reason for that is that that’s not the product that the miners want to actually sell. \nChuck: They’re looking for clean sand with very low percent of fines. And those are characterized by areas that are erosional \nChuck: that are frequently disturbed\, and the community that inhabits those areas\, as the 2 prior speakers say. \nChuck: are really characterized by a benthic community that has evolved and adapted to this kind of naturally occurring disturbance. \nChuck: They have high fecundity\, typically \nChuck: they have dispersal early life stages\, and they have the ability to fairly rapidly recolonize disturbed habitats\, and \nChuck: we then looked at studies that were conducted\, and\, as both Ams and and new fields point out\, there weren’t very many studies that were done specific to San Francisco Bay or the Delta. \nChuck: And so we needed to look basically worldwide \nChuck: to get whatever information we could from various research investigations and studies\, of dredging\, of other mining activity. \nChuck: of the use of suction dredges for harvesting Benthic clams\, you know\, whatever we could find\, we tried to pull together to really provide a a background \nChuck: of scientific information on the impacts of these kinds of mining activities. \nChuck: On the Benthe community. \nChuck: we tried to focus on similar areas\, having characteristics of the sand mining events in San Francisco Bay. \nChuck: and what we found was that in those studies they were all characterized by rapid recolonization. \nChuck: and that recolonization of disturbed areas could occur within a day or a year. \nChuck: We then\, you know. \nChuck: drew from that body of information of both the techniques and the methods of mining as well as the synthesis of information from other areas. Some conclusions that we thought were appropriate for sand mining within the Bay Delta system \nChuck: and one of our conclusions. This is obviously sand mining results in a temporary localized effect of penthic disturbance. \nChuck: We speculated that that would temporarily affect the benthic community characteristics\, but that the Benthic communities would rapidly recolonize those areas following a mining event. \nChuck: And we hypothesized from that body of information that there was really no long-term benthic impacts \nChuck: that were likely to occur. \nChuck: But we didn’t have site specific studies to really evaluate \nChuck: those hypotheses or those preliminary conclusions. \nChuck: And that’s what led to. I think the formulation of these specific studies that Ams and new fields have described. It was the effort to go out and actually conduct site specific studies on actual mining areas compared to controls both in Central Bay and in Sassoon Bay. \nChuck: to really better characterize using actual data from our system what the impacts are. \nChuck: And I think from both the Ams and the new field studies\, we’ve seen that \nChuck: the the study results are basically consistent and supportive of our earlier conclusions and hypotheses. \nChuck: and it seems like the mechanisms and the functions that they’re describing are very similar to what we drew from the scientific literature that was available at the time. \nChuck: And so I’m pleased to see that \nChuck: the early studies\, the synthesis and compilation of information\, has led to the actual site specific studies. We’ve got new information from both Ams and new fields that helps us better understand the impacts of sand mining and benthic disturbance\, an important \nChuck: environmental issues\, certainly for San Francisco Bay. \nChuck: And to better put this entire issue into a proper context. \nChuck: And so I appreciate the opportunity to provide some comments. \nChuck: But\, more importantly\, I appreciate the advancement of science that’s occurred over the last 25 years \nChuck: to help us better understand what’s actually occurring within this portion of the estuarine ecosystem. \nPat Showalter: Thank you. All right. So does anybody have questions for chuck or comments? \nAndrew Gunther: And I have one. \nPat Showalter: Yeah. Commissioner\, Gunther. \nAndrew Gunther: I have one question for Christian related to the letter that was submitted the summary letter\, and I \nAndrew Gunther: I think I know the answer to this question\, but I thought it best if I asked. And it’s about that\, I think there’s a missing word that makes a sentence confusing to me. So I just wanted to double check \nAndrew Gunther: on page 4 the second full paragraph \nAndrew Gunther: that says\, Benthic\, samples collected months after mining events exhibited densities. \nAndrew Gunther: and I think it’s supposed to say exhibited higher densities. \nAndrew Gunther: and I just wanted to make sure \nAndrew Gunther: before I insert a word that demonstrates my misunderstanding\, and I thought I would verify. \nPat Showalter: Page 4. \nChristian Marsh: Yeah\, it’s page 4\, second full paragraph. It says\, Benthic samples collected months after mining events\, exhibited densities of 2 \nChristian Marsh: amphipod taxa and total amphipods which suggests a positive correlation between disturbance and recolonization. \nChristian Marsh: That’s from. \nbgoeden: It was on one of the slides that Jay presented like that exact quote. \nChristian Marsh: Yeah\, that’s that is\, I think it’s \nChristian Marsh: I think it’s not saying higher or lower. I think it’s just \nChristian Marsh: stating that the densities that were revealed suggested a positive correlation. \nChristian Marsh: and but but Jay Johnson would probably be the best person to to comment. Actually. \nPat Showalter: Jay\, can you help us out with that. \njayjohnson: Yeah\, I’m I’m gonna try. I’d I’d probably use the word. Andy altered. \nAndrew Gunther: Okay that there was. It seemed to me that densities need to be modified in size. \njayjohnson: Right\, right? And I’d have to go back in to see where that statement or what statement we’ve actually made in the original report that that’s been\, you know\, pulled from. But what we saw and we talked about that in the Delta specifically is that the sites that had recently been mined. \njayjohnson: and and I’d have to go back to find out how recently was recent. But we were trying to do it within 6 months to a year would indicate that we actually saw. And and Tim made the same comment. You see\, increased species diversity \njayjohnson: that you didn’t see beforehand\, because Potamocorbula or Corbicula \njayjohnson: go away\, and they’re such an outstanding\, very effective competitor that as they get established they out-compete everything else. \nAndrew Gunther: Okay\, great. Then I thank you. I I just I wanted to make sure that I \nAndrew Gunther: I understood that because I had marked it as not being something that wasn’t necessarily but intuitive. \nChristian Marsh: Yeah. \nAndrew Gunther: So great. Thank you very much. \nChristian Marsh: But I appreciate that you’re you’re doing such a close reading\, though. Thank you. \nPat Showalter: Yes\, we can count on Commissioner Gunther to always do his homework. Very\, very good at that. Okay\, \nPat Showalter: So we’re in the public comment. I mean\, you know\, I’m asking for any public comments about this. We’ve had questions and and that’s good. But this is also a time to have discussion. So would anyone like to \nPat Showalter: share their thoughts with the with the group? \nPat Showalter: You know\, it’s obvious this isn’t a group of politicians\, because \nPat Showalter: there would be lots of hands raised. Okay\, even local politicians. \nPat Showalter: All right. So then I with that\, I think that I will pass it. \nPat Showalter: Annie. Is. Is there any comments you would like to make. \nAndrew Gunther: No other than I appreciated Chuck chiming in in terms of what we’ve learned over time. \nAndrew Gunther: and it really takes a long time to do this kind of work and to clarify certain things. And and of course\, we also see they’re always \nAndrew Gunther: in a highly variable environment like this. There are always outstanding possible questions that we might have\, and whether this was an appropriate year or not to do the analysis. And so there’s a there’s. There’s a lot of there are always some outstanding questions\, but I feel like this is an example of us directing \nAndrew Gunther: the studies that have refined our knowledge and greatly improved our ability to understand \nAndrew Gunther: what the sand mining activities are resulting in in the Bendic environment. It doesn’t mean we know everything\, but it it’s certainly a impressive\, in my opinion\, effort to jointly fact\, find in the community. And this is something that I always try and take a moment to point out that this kind of joint fact\, finding\, in my opinion\, is currently under attack \nAndrew Gunther: by the Federal Government\, who is rejecting \nAndrew Gunther: joint fact\, finding\, rejecting evidence\, and I think that it’s incumbent upon us if we’re going to work as a community of stakeholders to find answers and adopt policies that we base that on evidence that we can jointly develop together. And I think this is going to be an ever more important model\, as some communities in the United States appear ready to reject this method. \nAndrew Gunther: And so I’m very happy to be part of this here at Bcdc. See\, this is something we have done at the water board. It’s something that the consulting firms that we have just heard from do on a regular basis for us in the region. And I just I think it’s really an example of the right way to go about understanding things. \nPat Showalter: Yeah\, I would have to say ditto to that. And for instance\, one of the reasons I asked about the 2\,000. You know the \nPat Showalter: the the water year in 2\,000. I think it was 2\,008. It might have been another year. We were trying to tag fish \nPat Showalter: and the steelhead trout streams of Santa Clara County\, and we weren’t able to do that because there wasn’t any water\, so there wasn’t any fish\, because it was so dry. If that’s what I remember. Anyway\, there was a year like that when and when Chuck was involved\, where where we just we couldn’t do the scientific program because the you know\, the water wasn’t there but So \nPat Showalter: so sometimes these\, you know\, these water years in certain circumstances can make a big impact. So that’s why I wanted to ask about that. The other thing I wanted to confirm is that this collaborative report that Hanson mentioned is on our annotated bibliography. That’s I remember seeing it there\, and that’s I think I just want to confirm that with Brenda. \nbgoeden: Yeah\, Pat\, I don’t think we have pulled together an annotated bibliography for this work group. I think you’re thinking of the Ben\, the beneficial reuse work group where we did pull an annotated bibliography together. \nbgoeden: I will double check\, but that’s my recollection\, and I maybe am just not remembering that we’ve done that\, Jaime\, if I’m not remembering\, can you remind me if you think we have an annotated bibliography for Sand\, I think we have it for. \nPat Showalter: Or just maybe a list of of yeah. \nbgoeden: Yeah\, we can create one for you for sure. I just don’t think we’ve done that. But we do have the report. Here in the office. It’s about 2 inches thick \nbgoeden: and has a nice peer review section in the back\, so we can probably make that digital and post it. If people want to see it. \nbgoeden: Yeah\, \nbgoeden: yeah\, or at least a link to it. I don’t know how big of documents we can put on the website without me getting in trouble. \nbgoeden: yeah. And I guess the only other thing. Sorry. I’ll just. I have a quick mention of the next meeting if we’re finished\, but I don’t want to interrupt. If we’re not. \nPat Showalter: no\, I I think I just want to say ditto to the to what Commissioner Gunther said about the collaborative efforts. \nPat Showalter: They’re so powerful because they bring together information that people from a range of perspectives can evaluate. As you go forward and you can bring up\, you can hear the questions of different constituencies as you’re doing the studies to make sure that the studies are relevant for everybody involved. \nPat Showalter: and that means that in the end they’re much\, much more likely to have credibility for everyone and be useful for everyone. So I\, too\, am really happy to kind of be part of this trajectory\, and I do very much appreciate the \nPat Showalter: the sand miners and the scientists taking part. So I just wanted to mention that as well. \nPat Showalter: So yeah\, about the next meetings. \nbgoeden: Great. Yeah\, thank you. Pat\, I echo that sentiment\, too. It’s been several years worth of working together on science\, which has been fantastic. \nbgoeden: so our next meeting we had planned\, I think\, for July 15.th We are going to ask the Commissioners to see if we can alter that meeting date to accommodate a scientist who has some information about how sea birds use the central bay\, and I think what we’re looking to probably do is look at the fish entrainment issues\, the studies that are available on that and kind of the \nbgoeden: upper level critters \nbgoeden: connecting to this\, not sure if that will take the whole meeting. We might combine that part of the meeting with another section\, but unfortunately\, that week that we have it scheduled is a little tough\, for this particular person. It’s Julie Thayer out of the Fairlawn Institute. \nbgoeden: So \nbgoeden: yeah\, I think we may have 2 more meetings to wrap this up as our as our hope. So pat\, check your emails for Kat. She’s gonna come back to you\, Commissioner Gunther and Commissioner Nelson\, to see if we can \nbgoeden: make a date that works a little bit little bit different from the date that we had proposed. But that is basically it. We will be doing a quick \nbgoeden: well\, not a quick! A meeting on how sand mine\, how the sand that is mined is used in the region\, because I know the Commission had a lot of questions about that\, so we will touch on that as well or not. Touch on that. We’ll have a meeting that includes that information as well. \nbgoeden: So just know that that is still in the game plan. \nAndrew Gunther: So we are not gonna have that meeting as currently scheduled on July 15.th \nbgoeden: If we can get another meeting date we will move it. \nAndrew Gunther: Okay. \nbgoeden: But we have to figure out if we can get another meeting date. \nbgoeden: Yeah\, thank you. And I appreciate your being willing to meet this many times on this issue\, so appreciate that commissioners. \nPat Showalter: Okay? So if that would bring us to 6\, which is general public comment\, and that’s this is an opportunity that we always have in public meetings to allow anybody to talk about what is not on today’s agenda. So if there’s anyone who would like to speak to this group about something that isn’t on this agenda. Please raise your hand in zoom or \nPat Showalter: on the screen\, and we will call on you so you can share your thoughts with us. \nPat Showalter: I’m looking for raised hands. \nPat Showalter: Kat\, are you looking to? I do not see any. \nbgoeden: I don’t either. \nPat Showalter: All right. Well. \nPat Showalter: okay\, well\, thank you. I mean\, it is a joy and a pleasure and a privilege to be part of this scientific endeavor\, and I want to thank everybody for their attendance\, and with that this meeting is adjourned. \nbgoeden: Thank you. \nbgoeden: Thank you. Thanks everyone for joining. \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-sand-studies-commissioner-working-group-2/ CATEGORIES:Sand Studies Commissioner Working Group END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250515T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250515T170000 DTSTAMP:20260426T063041 CREATED:20241209T231702Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250530T211336Z UID:10000237-1747314000-1747328400@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:May 15\, 2025 Commission Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Commissioners are located at the primary physical location and may be located at the teleconference locations specified below\, all of which are publicly accessible. The Zoom video conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually are also specified below. \nPrimary physical location \nMetro Center375 Beale Street\, Yerba Buena RoomSan Francisco\, CA \nTeleconference locations \n• Office of Supervisor John Gioia: 11780 San Pablo Ave.\, Ste. D\, El Cerrito\, CA 94530• 500 Castro St. 3rd Fl.\, Clerk’s Conf. Rm.\, Mountain View\, CA 94041• 197 Palmer Ave.\, Falmouth\, MA 02540• 675 Texas St.\, Ste. 6002\, Fairfield\, CA 94533• 715 P St.\, 20th Fl.\, Trestles Conf. Rm.\, Sacramento\, CA 95814• Earl Warren Hiram W Johnson Building: 455 Golden Gate Ave.\, San Francisco\, CA 94102• 176 E. Blithedale Ave.\, Mill Valley\, CA 94941• 500 County Center\, 5th Fl.\, Buckeye Conf. Rm.\, Redwood City\, CA 94063• City Hall: 1st Fl. Allied Arts\, 701 Laurel Ave.\, Menlo Park\, CA 94025• CALTRANS District 4: 111 Grand Ave. 15th Fl.\, Oakland\, CA 94612• 14265 Highway 128\, Boonville\, CA 95415• 1221 Oak St.\, Ste. 536\, Oakland\, CA 94612• Teheran-ro\, 521 Gangnam District\, Seoul\, South Korea• 1195 Third St. Suite 310\, Napa\, CA 94559• 2500 Acton St.\, Berkeley\, CA 94702• 835 E.14th St.\, City Manager’s Office\, San Leandro\, CA 94577• 575 Administration Dr.\, Rm. 100A\, Santa Rosa\, CA 95403 \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/85927149341?pwd=b0ZM1kb8oG9EGanVv0jAYHO6OhYbgs.1 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID859 2714 9341 \nPasscode280122 \n  \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak \n \n \n \n \n Agenda\n \nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period (Each speaker is limited to three minutes)A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.(Sierra Peterson) [415-352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nConsent Calendar\n\n\n\nApproval of Minutes for May 1\, 2025 Meeting(Sierra Peterson) [415-352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\n  \n\n\n\n\n\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415-352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov] \n  \n\n\nPublic Hearing and Possible Vote on the India Basin Shoreline Park Project\, by India Basin Shoreline Park\, by San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department and the Port of San Francisco\, at 401 Hunter’s Point Blvd.\, along the India Basin Shoreline\, in the City and County of San Francisco (Application for BCDC Permit 2023.008.00)The Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote on an application for India Basin Shoreline Park Project to redevelop\, expand\, and enhance the existing India Basin Shoreline Park within a 7.48-acre area for recreational and public access uses along the India Basin Shoreline in the City and County of San Francisco. In the Commission’s jurisdiction\, the proposed project involves constructing water-based recreational features and other public access amenities\, installing shoreline protection elements\, and impacting and creating wetland habitat areas. Approximately 7.48 acres of required public access areas would be developed along the project shoreline\, including existing required public access areas(Schuyler Olsson) [415-352-3668; schuyler.olsson@bcdc.ca.gov]Staff Presentation // Applicant Presentation Exhibit A: Public Access Area // Exhibit B: Site Circulation // Staff Recommendation Public Comment \n\n\nBriefing on Proposed Amendments to the Commission’s Permitting RegulationsStaff will brief the Commission on proposed amendments to the Commission’s regulations to streamline and improve the regionwide permit program\, expand use of administrative permits for habitat projects\, reduce permitting burdens for straightforward and routine activities\, and make other updates to clarify and improve permitting rules(Ethan Lavine) [415-352-3618; ethan.lavine@bcdc.ca.gov]Proposed Amendments // Technical Memorandum // Staff Presentation \n\n\nBriefing on the Resilient SR 37 Near-Term Sears Point to Mare Island Improvement Projects\, by California Department of Transportation\, Metropolitan Transportation Commission\, Solano Transportation Authority\, Napa Valley Transportation Authority\, and Sonoma County Transportation Authority\, located in Solano\, Napa\, and Sonoma countiesStaff will brief the Commission on the proposed Resilient SR37 Near-Term Sears Point to Mare Island Project that is currently in preapplication. The proposed improvements includes replacing the Tolay Creek Bridge with a longer wider bridge that facilitates large scale tidal marsh restoration north of the bridge\, widening the highway to add an additional lane in each direction\, adding transit and HOV prioritization\, and implementing habitat enhancement at Strip Marsh East\, by Mare Island which will serve as a nature-based solution to storm surge.(Julie Garren) [415-352-3624; julie.garren@bcdc.ca.gov] \n\n\nBriefing on SLR Adaptation Investment Strategy & Plan Bay Area Resilience Project ListBCDC and MTC/ABAG staff will brief the Commission on the status of regional funding initiatives for sea level rise adaptation. This includes an update on how MTC/ABAG’s Plan Bay Area 2050+ addresses sea level rise\, including its Resilience Project List and forthcoming implementation plan of near-term actions. Staff will also describe a new joint initiative to develop a regional sea level rise funding and investment strategy\, which is kicking off in May.(Cory Copeland) [415-352-3644; cory.copeland@bcdc.ca.gov] Plan Bay Area 2050+ Final Blueprint: Resilience Project List \n\n\nLegislative BriefingThe Commission will receive a briefing from the Director of Legislative and External Affairs on various legislative issues.(Rylan Gervase) [415-352-3611; rylan.gervase@bcdc.ca.gov] \n\n\nAdjournment \n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Supplemental Materials\n Articles about the Bay and BCDCSan Francisco Youth Explore Flood Risk on Their Home TurfPacheco Marsh gets rave reviews during sneak peak opening \n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Minutes\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Video 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/may-15-2025-commission-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250515T100000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250515T113000 DTSTAMP:20260426T063041 CREATED:20250501T175528Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250514T173915Z UID:10000276-1747303200-1747308600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:May 15\, 2025 Environmental Justice Commissioner Working Group DESCRIPTION:Agenda\n Meeting agenda URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/may-15-2025-environmental-justice-commissioner-working-group/ END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR