BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//SF Bay Conservation & Development - ECPv6.16.2//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:SF Bay Conservation & Development
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for SF Bay Conservation & Development
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:UTC
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:UTC
DTSTART:20230101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:America/Los_Angeles
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0800
TZOFFSETTO:-0700
TZNAME:PDT
DTSTART:20230312T100000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0700
TZOFFSETTO:-0800
TZNAME:PST
DTSTART:20231105T090000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0800
TZOFFSETTO:-0700
TZNAME:PDT
DTSTART:20240310T100000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0700
TZOFFSETTO:-0800
TZNAME:PST
DTSTART:20241103T090000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0800
TZOFFSETTO:-0700
TZNAME:PDT
DTSTART:20250309T100000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0700
TZOFFSETTO:-0800
TZNAME:PST
DTSTART:20251102T090000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240104T080000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240104T170000
DTSTAMP:20260525T222126
CREATED:20240118T065653Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240614T161333Z
UID:10000089-1704355200-1704387600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:January 4\, 2024 Commission Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:Supplemental Materials\n				Articles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nLevee breach creates new tidal marshland in San Francisco Bay\nProject works to restore tidal marshlands along San Francisco Bay\nRestoring San Francisco Bay wetlands\, one industrial salt pond at a time
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-4-2024-commission-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240108T170000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240108T180000
DTSTAMP:20260525T222126
CREATED:20240127T083112Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240614T163914Z
UID:10000113-1704733200-1704736800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:January 8\, 2024 Design Review Board Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Design Review Board meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 143 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. The Zoom video-conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually is also specified below. \nBoard Member Tom Leader will participate remotely in the meeting. \nPhysical Location \nMetro CenterYerba Buena Room First Floor 375 Beale StreetSan Francisco415-352-3657 \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/81620422280?pwd=dQumoXk9goaQYJJ1Rvb2lWc96hMy6Q.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (816) 423-42821( 866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID816 2042 2280 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order and Meeting Procedure Review\nApproval of Draft Review Summary for November 6\, 2023 Meeting  and the December 11\, 2023\nStaff Update\nPublic Comment Period\nDePave Park\, Alameda\, Alameda County; First Pre-Application ReviewThe Design Review Board will hold its first pre-application review of a proposal by the City of Alameda to develop DePave Park at the former Naval Air Station Alameda\, in the City of Alameda\, Alameda County. The proposed De-Pave Park Project is one in a series of waterfront public spaces surrounding the three sides of the Seaplane Lagoon in Alameda. The Project would involve creating an urban ecological park by removing much of the site’s existing World War II-era concrete runway spaces and onsite buildings; repurposing remaining materials for public access areas and amenities; and establishing new tidal wetlands\, a pilot eelgrass restoration area\, and other native habitats appropriate for San Francisco Bay. The project intends to maximize re-use of on-site materials and design the park as a model for open space and habitat restoration areas that can be adapted to sea level rise over time.(Schuyler Olsson) [415/352-3668; schuyler.olsson@bcdc.ca.gov]Exhibits\n1301 Shoreway Life Sciences Development Project\, City of Belmont\, San Mateo County; Second Pre-Application ReviewThe Design Review Board will hold its second pre-application review of the proposal by Four Corners Properties to redevelop a 6.91-acre site with a life sciences campus at 1301 Shoreway Road in the City of Belmont\, San Mateo County. The project proposes to demolish the existing four-story office building on site and construct two 7- to 8-level office/R&D buildings and a 9-level parking garage. The project proposes both on-site and off-site public access improvements\, including constructing a new sidewalk along Sem Lane to provide public access from Shoreway Road to the shoreline\, widening the Belmont Creek Trail\, and refreshing the landscape with seating areas and trail serving amenities.(Shruti Sinha) [415/352-3654; shruti.sinha@bcdc.ca.gov]Exhibits\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Summary\n				January 8\, 2024 meeting summary \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				\nJanuary 8\, 2024 meeting video \n  \nThank 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. \nIn 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. \nOkay. Thank you\, Ashley\, and we’ll open the meeting. My name is Jacinta McCann and I’m the chair of the BCdc’s Design Review Board. \nI’m located here at Metro Center. In San Francisco and our meeting will include participants who are here in the room and participants who are participating online. \nOur first order of business is to call the role. Board members\, can you please unmute yourselves to respond and they mute yourselves following that? \nAshley\, can you call the role? \nChair McCann. Present. Vice chair string present board member Anderson. Present. \nBoard member Pellegrini. Present. Board member leader. \nHere. Present. \nAnd board member Chow will be with us at 5 30. The staff BCC staff attending tonight or myself\, Ashley\, You’rey Jewett\, Skylar Olson\, Julie Garen\, Trouty Senna\, and Katherine Pan. \nOkay\, thank you\, Ashley. We have a quorum present\, so we duly constituted to conduct business. \nI want to stop by sharing some instructions on how we can best participate in this meeting so that it runs as smoothly as possible. \nFor everyone online and in the meeting room\, please make sure that you have your microphones or phones muted to avoid background noise. \nFor board members if you have a webcam please make sure that it’s on so everyone can see you and for members of the public if you would like to speak during the public comment period you will need to do so in one of 3 ways. \nIf you’re here with us in person\, speaker cards are available at the door and you will be asked to come up to the podium one at a time and to state your name and affiliation prior to providing your comments during the meeting. \nAfter all\, individuals who are present make their comments\, we shall call on those participants who are attending the meeting remotely. \nIf you are attending on the Zoom Platform\, please raise your virtual hand in Zoom by clicking the hand at the bottom of your screen. \nThe hand should turn blue when it’s raised. Please note that we will only hear your voices and that your video will not be enabled. \nIf you are joining our meeting via phone\, you must press star 9 on your keypad to raise or lower your hand to make a comment. \nAnd 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. \nPlease 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. \nWe will not tolerate hate speech. Threats made directly or indirectly and or abusive language. \nWe will mute anyone who fails to follow those guidelines or who exceeds the established time limits without permission. \nIf you are attending the meeting on the Zoom Platform\, we recommend using the Gallery View option in view in view settings in order to see all the panelists. \nAudio for in-person panelists is recorded through the rooms audio system and is not synced in to the individual panelist videos. \nIf you would like to add your contact information to the interested parties list to be notified of future meetings concerning these projects\, please call or email Ashley Tomlin who is right there\, Ashley. \nAnd Ashley’s contact information is on screen or is found on the BCdc’s website. \nFinally\, every now and then you will hear me refer to the meeting host\, Yuri. And your use\, what about BCDC staff and is acting as a host for the meeting behind the scenes to ensure that the technology moves the meeting forward smoothly and consistently. \nPlease be patient with us if it’s needed. So we’ll move to item 2 now\, which is approval of the meeting summaries for number\, November sixth\, 2\,023 in December eleventh\, 2023. \nAnd board members we’ve all been furnished the draft summaries for those 2 meetings I’m just going to remind you\, we might just approve these individually. \nSo the November sixth BCDC meeting. We had the following people present. Bob was here\, Bob Balio\, Kristen Hall\, Tom Leader\, Gary Strang and Stefan were were here. \nAnd we were. Reviewing the 1499 bash project that was the first pre-application review. \nAre there any comments? From anyone? I do not have any comments. Any other comments from anyone? \nI have actually have a couple of comments. It’s just clarifying language\, page 8. \nUnder item 4\, emergency vehicle access and terminus of the public trail. Some point 2. \nI just the wording in the paragraph is not particularly clear and it may have been my expression\, but I would like to just clarify it. \nSo Ashley\, I’ve rewritten the paragraph and I’ll can give it to you afterwards but I’m proposing it be changed to say Jacinda McCann observes that the terminus of the trail is a dead end and that is it is unlikely that people will walk to the end is currently proposed. \nPositioning public art in the end could potentially encourage people. Improvements to the hammerhead configuration could also assist in making this section of the trail more appealing. \nIt would also help if staff could clarify if there’s any potential for the trail to continue beyond the site in the future. \nSo it’s just cleaning up that paragraph so you can refer to that. \nAnd I wanted to clarify on page 9 and Kristen isn’t with us tonight\, but under sub point 2\, the second paragraph below the top of the page. \nIt’s a Kristen Hall was talking at this point. She says it’s beautiful space and will be a nice respite. \nAnd then the second sentence says excited about the possible road diet. And I think that needs to be changed to something else. \nAnd I could not remember what that would be\, but maybe someone could go back and just cross check that and clarify what that is. \nAnd then . The \nI think that was it. Yeah\, that was it. So with those 2 changes\, is everyone okay with the? \nWith the adjustments to the minutes\, for these meeting notes for the November 6 meeting. \nI’ll make a motion to approve. Second. Bye. Okay\, the next meetings were meeting summary was the December eleventh summary. \nAnd people present there was myself\, Bob Batalio\, Kristen Hall\, Gary Strang\, and Steph. \nAnd we were reviewing. It was just last month\, so. It was the first review of the\, \nWindrover project\, which\, excuse me\, it was technically the second review. Even though it felt like the first review. \nCorrect. And at the end it says we moving to the third review\, which I will just reconfirm is correct. \nRight. And\, \nYeah. There was just a minor improvement in. Language. I can pass these through to you. \nThey’re not substantial\, just a couple of minor clarifications but with Just the bottom\, sentence\, on page 6 site entrances\, sub point one\, final centers\, it would be helpful to have more context shown for the concept plan and a clearer illustration of the connections\, being made on site and off site. \nAnd the final sentence there starts struggling to determine to just change that to it is difficult to determine at this stage whether \nAnd there’s a repeat of a sentence on page 8\, some point 3. Just send him a CAD suggested incorporating playful elements\, if we could just strike that sentence\, which is a repeat of a sentence in the previous paragraph. \nSo we don’t need\, it will be a very desirable place for families. So with those changes\, any other changes that anyone has? \nOkay. Motion to approve. The commotion to approve. \nHi. \nOkay\, all in favor? I. Okay\, thank you. Good. \nLet’s move to item 3\, staff update. \nThank you\, Chair McCann. Congratulations to Tom and Leo on the soon to open public access at 3\,500 Marina in Brisbane. \nThe project last came to the board in September\, 2\,018 and includes approximately 1\,100 linear feet of bay trail and shoreline spaces and then approximately a hundred 1\,000 square foot public access area on the podium level. \nThe project will also be constructing an approximately 700 linear foot pay trail around the neighboring parcel that will complete the Bay Trail loop around the Sierra Point Peninsula. \nI wanted to update the board on a few changes in laws and policies related to member participation. I will send out a summary of these changes. \nFirst\, BCDC has an updated policy regarding the role DRB members may play as consultants to permit applicants. \nBoard members are no longer allowed to represent permit applicants before the commission or a BCDC advisory board. \nBoard members who have been recused for assisting permit applicants are not allowed to speak in front of the board while being paid by the applicant. \nAnd this is to present as well as for answering questions. Recused board members may attend meetings in person or remotely as a member of the public. \nA board member may speak as a member of the public as long as they are not being compensated by the applicant. \nDo board members have any questions? \nI don’t have any questions on that. I don’t think we have any questions. Tom\, any questions? \nWell\, I remember there was confusion on this project you’re looking at whether I can represent the the applicant or not. \nAnd I decided I better not because I wasn’t sure nobody seemed sure but now it’s it’s clear. \nThat on this project I would not be able to present. Speak in front of BCDC or a commission or anything like that. \nYou are correct. Actually\, just to be very clear because Tom\, I recall that. Does it apply to any member of the firm that the African has or just the individual. \nIt is just the individual. So\, for instance\, with 1301 shoreway\, the project going second tonight. \nAn ECRB member had spoken and answered questions during the last DRB meeting related to the levy or the shoreline protection. \nB he would not be able to answer questions in front of the design review board\, but a member of Moffat and Nicole could. \nI see. Okay\, thank you. Alright. Second for law and policies update as of January one and through 2\,025 board members may attend and participate in meetings remotely staff are required to notice remote attendance at least 24 h in advance of the meeting via email and on the website notice. \nAnd we do not need to include the remote location. I believe our preference will remain to be in person or to have in person attendance\, but we do now have flexibility for your participation. \nAre there any questions? \nVery clear. \nFinally\, the DRB meeting dates have been set for 2024 and are posted on the BCC website. \nThe February meetings canceled and our next meeting is planned for March eleventh and will be the second review of the proposed very building and plaza renovations. \nAnd that concludes the BCDC staff update. I’ll pause if there’s any other questions from the board. \nWell\, thanks\, Ashley. And\, again\, congratulations\, Tom\, on seeing your project. \nCompleted and contributing to the continuation of the Bay Trail. It’s a very important project. \nSo well done. I don’t have any other questions. It’s good to get the policy updates out clearly. \nSo thank you for that. Any other questions from the board? \nHearing none\, I think we’ll move on. Okay\, so. \nWe will also just move now to public comment for items. Not on tonight’s agenda. So we’ll start with those members of the public in our headquarters building here today. \nIf anyone has a comment on on something that is not on tonight’s agenda form a line near the podium to make a public comment. \nAnd if you’re attending online\, it would like to make a public comment. Raise your hand to speak as previously notified. \nIs there anyone who wants to make a public comment? \nOkay. \nThere’s no hands raised online. Okay\, thank you very much. So no public comment for items not on tonight’s agenda. \nSo we’ll move to item 5\, which is the first review of the Depave Park project in Alameda\, Alameda County. \nAnd I’ll just remind you of the project order that we follow for these reviews. So we start with the BCDC staff introduction. \nWe then move to the project proponent presentation. We then have both clarifying questions\, which are between the proponent and the board. \nIt’s not a time for discussion but question and answer then we move to public comment and then we have full discussion and summary which is the dialogue between the board and then following that the project proponent can make a brief response as desired. \nSo we’ll follow that. Permit and so with that the BCDC permit analyst Scholar Olson will introduce the project. \nSo thanks\, Ga. Go ahead. \nThank you\, Chair Macken. I’m just gonna share my screen here. \nAlright\, good evening to the design review board members\, the project team\, my members of the public. My name is Skylar Olsen and I’m a senior environmental scientist at BCC. \nI’m happy to introduce the project for tonight’s review\, the DPA Park project in Alameda proposed by the City of Alameda. \nThis product has received Measure AA funding from the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority and is a bay restoration regulatory integration team or Brit project. \nTonight will be the board’s first pre application design review of the project. I’ll start with a brief introduction to the project before the applicants present the project in greater detail. \nBefore we discuss the project\, we’d like to begin by acknowledging that the project side is located on. \nArtificially filled land. It was historically shallow water habitat within the traditional indigenous homelands at the outline people. \nWe offer gratitude to the indigenous peoples who are the original storage of the down to phone natural resources of the Bay Area. \nThis slide shows the location and vicinity of the proposed project site. The approximately 21 acre . \nPay Park project side is located in along San Francisco Bay at the western end of Alameda. It’s on\, it’s on property owned by the city of Alameda\, within the central. \nArea southern and central area of the larger former Naval Air Station\, Alameda site\, commonly referred to now as Alameda Point. \nIt’s bounded to the east by sea playing Lagoon to the south by San Francisco Bay. \nTo the west by wetlands owned by the US Department of Veterans Affairs and to the north and east by sea plain lagoon promenade a public area. \nRunning along the north side of. See Plain Lagoon. \nAs shown in this image from BCdc’s community. Vulnerability\, mapping tool. The project sites. \nIs located within an area with high social vulnerability based on a range of vulnerability indicators. This area also has a high contamination vulnerability based on Call them viral screen. \nWhat does a statewide pollution vulnerability assessment? The project proponents will talk more about how local communities have been engaged in their project design. \nAnd how the design has evolved. Accordingly. \nThis slide shows the project site as it relates to other BCDC required public access areas. \nAlong the seaplane Lagoon shoreline. The city and its presentation will go into greater detail. \nAbout the Limited Point precise plan. And what is planned for the greater. See playing the goon area. \nCurrently the project site shown on the left of the screen is open to the public\, but it’s not improved for public access. \nAnd the purple lines in the map show approximate locations of existing BCDC required. Public access. \nSo the first permit shown here. . 1998 that o 3 6 required public access to London northern side of sea play in the goon in association with the Alameda Antiques and Collectables Fair. \nBut this public access is no longer in effect as the fair is no longer operating at the site. However\, this area It’s still open to the public\, but mostly unimproved for public access\, except the portion on the right\, which I’ll talk about next. \nSo permit number\, 2017 dot o one issue to the city of Alameda and that’s me to point partners. \nRequires an approximately 2.5 acre. Al Lima Point Waterfront Park. And associated amenities. \nAt the northeast corner of Sea Plain\, Lagoon. I’m\, 2018 dot o 2 5 also issue to the city\, requires an approximately 2 acre public access area on the eastern shoreline of sea playing lagoon in connection with the seaplane\, the groom ferry terminal. \nFinally\, permits\, and\, 1\,900\, and 96\, dot\, o\, 2\, 6\, issue to Nelson’s marine requires an approximately 8 700 square foot area at the southeast corner. \nOf the lagoon in connection with authorized construction of various marine. Facilities. \nI’ll now show you the sea level rise vulnerability for the site based on BCdc’s\, Bay Area flood explorer. \nIt’s important to know that this represents the vulnerability of the existing site without the changes that will be associated with the proposed project. \nThe product team will later show figures demonstrating the sea level rise\, resilience of the site if the proposed project were implemented\, as well as potential future adaptation measures. \nSo this image shows the funding that would occur with a total water level. That is 2 feet above the current mean higher high water. \nSuch a water level could under\, could occur under a range of scenarios such as No sea level rise plus a 10 year storm surge. \nOr one feet of one for sea level rise plus a king tide or 2 feet of sea level rise. \nI mean higher high water. 2 fee of sea level rise is roughly equivalent to the 2050 projection. \nUnder high emissions\, medium to high risk aversion scenario. Which has a 0 point 5% chance of occurring. \nAs you can see\, there would be some inundation at the western area of the site. \nThis\, in\, shows a flooding that would occur with a total water level that is 7 feet. \nAbove the current mean higher high water. That could occur with about 54 into sea level rise plus a 10 year storm surge or 6 feet silver rise plus a king tide. \nOr 7 feet of sea level rise. At mean\, high high water and 7 feet of sea level rise is roughly equivalent to the 2\,100. \nProjection. Under the same scenario. And as you can see\, the site would be completely inundated with this amount of sea level rise. \nThis slide shows an image from the San Francisco estuary. Institute San Francisco Bay Shoreline Adaptation Atlas. \nWhich identifies and describes the suite a potential sea level rise that upation options. For the base store line. \nThe Atlas also identifies which adaptation options may be feasible. How long specific area that the shoreline based on the shoreline conditions at each location? \nUnfortunately\, the map is very difficult to read at the scale and does not appear to identify conditions suitable for any of the listed adaptation options to any meaningful. \nExtent. However\, that does not mean the site is not\, is not suitable for such features. \nI’ve known as they were discussed\, the pilot team is proposing an eagrass restoration area at the west side. \nOf the lagoon. Whereas this Atlas indicate suitability for ill grass at the eastern side of the Lagoon. \nHowever\, again\, this does not necessarily mean the Western side is not suitable. The\, will work with the product team to ensure any ill grass restoration work would be designed and cited appropriately for the site conditions. \nAnd finally\, I would like to make one correction to the staff report that was sent out on December 20 s. \nSo on page 3\, the staff report references and existing. US Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinion from a separate project. \nThat relates to the nearby California least turned nesting site and that’s an endangered species the opinion limits\, trees and structures within areas of the\, the proposed the pay park. \nTo reduce perching opportunities for predator species of the California lease turn. So on the staff report\, I indicated that certain structures proposed for the site\, including their restroom and barbecue cellus would be acceptable. \nTo US Fashion Wildlife Service if they were equipped with anti-purchin devices. However\, this was a misunderstanding and certain portions of the design may in fact be and consistent with a biological opinion and require modification. \nThis map shows a slightly outdated version of the site plan. As it overlaps with 3 zones that are defined in the biological opinion. \nYou can disregard the question mark and the red dot line here. So within zone one\, which is on the right. \nThe biological opinion prohibits construction of new buildings lightpost vegetation or other structures Greater than 4 feet in height. \nThe restroom and as proposed would be in zone one. And would therefore be inconsistent with a biological opinion as currently designed. \nLighting for the adjacent parking lot may also require modification. \nBut I\, you know\, the project team will discuss this more and we’ve already talked about this and we’re confident that. \nYou know\, that will be able to coordinate. To through the pre application process to ensure that the project is designed to be compatible with the You guys fish and wildlife service requirements. \nOther requirements applied to zones 5 and 6. And I think the design is likely consistent with these requirements. \nBut we need to verify this. But we’ll continue coordinating through the\, process on this. \nThis slide shows the 7 objectives for public access and the commissions. Public access design guidelines. \nWhich the board should consider closely in its review. I’m sure you’ve seen this many times\, although of course we have a new member today. \nSo the guidelines focus on publicness and usability\, the public access\, visual access and visual quality. \nConnections and continuity along the shoreline. I’ve taken advantage of the base setting. And. \nAnd compatibility with wildlife. Additionally\, while not currently included in the 7 objectives\, It is important for the board to focus on sea level rise\, resilience\, environmental justice\, and social equity. \nAnd it’s review. \nFinally this slide includes a condensed version of the questions for the board as included in the staff report. \nAs well as one question they added to address that. Us fish and wildlife service requirements. \nSo in addition to the considerations on the previous slide\, we’d also specifically appreciate the board’s input on. \nThe design of the beach and that’s resilience of sea level rise. The advocacy of the terraced beach steps to provide public access to the water when the beach is in data. \nThe adaptation approach for the southern portion of the site. And add a quick advocacy or the adaptation plan in general. \nPotential events that should trigger future adaptation actions. Such as T level rise or funding events. Needs for additional weather protection at the site while avoiding wildlife conflicts. \nRecommendations to adjust the limits of the biological opinion described earlier and of course Any other comments that the board may have on the design? \nThank you very much and that includes my staff introduction. \nThank you\, Scott. Are there any questions from the board? Any clarifying questions on Skyler’s presentation? \nTom\, anything? \nOkay\, I think we will move on. That was a very helpful scalar. Thank you very much for that presentation. \nSo we will now move to the project presentation. And. \nAnd I think we\, I’m not sure who will be making that presentation\, but we will. Hear the introductions shortly. \nGood evening\, everyone. My name is Justin Long. I’m the director of Recreation and Parks for the City of Alameda. \nI’m joined here with Assistant City Manager\, Amy Boldridge\, as well as Kevin Conger with CMG Landscape Architects to present our project. \nWe are very excited here to present DPave Park as an ecological park that will adapt to Dee Pave Park as an ecological park as an ecological\, park that will adapt to see rise here in a relatively\, dense urban area\, in a relatively\, dense urban area\, and per also provide\, the community and\, \nSo this project has been in development for a very long time going all the way back to the precise plan when the site was identified for a very long time\, going all the way back to the precise plan when the site was identified as potential park space. \nAnd then\, became\, a little bit further alive in\, 2\,020 when we started the DPA Park vision plan. \nAnd then again\, when we were granted the measure AA funding. So it kicked off a really busy year this year starting February where we had our project kick off\, community events. \nNot to mention we’ve also worked with Brit. We’ve had 3 or 2 rounds of community engagement meetings. \nWe’re about to have the third. We presented the designs to the Park and Rec Commission and then to City Council in November. \nAnd here we are today. Presenting to you\, to get your feedback on this wonderful project we have for you. \nAgain\, to build on Skylar’s presentation\, the Oval Circle identifies the location of C plane lagoon here as part of the old naval air station as well as Elmo Point. \nThis area really has become a very active space for the residents in Alameda as housing has been added. \nThere’s many businesses out here. You’ll often find people out there fishing\, biking\, walking their dogs currently\, even though it is undeveloped in its current space as a park\, but it’s very active and very important part of the Alameda Park system as well as just Alameda as a whole for the Alameda park system as well as just Alameda as a whole for the city. \nHere’s some historical figures that sort of show what it looked like and before the fill happened in the military naval station was built\, you can sort of see in the different pictures and on the bottom right behind the words there you can see seaplane lagoon and it’s Clory when it was open. \nHere we are with a image from today where if you look at the bottom of the picture\, we have the new seaplane lagoon ferry terminal that services between San Francisco and Alameda to your right\, you see a park development there’s seaplane lagoon promenade phase one which is the current park that has been built that will also help with the sea level rise for the rest of the Alameda \npoint. Area just above that is the plain lagoon promenade for the future next 2 phases we’re about to enter into phase 2 phases. \nWe’re about to enter into phase 2 of that. And then in the distance in the center is the location of Depave Park with behind that the Veterans of Fair Wetlands. \nYou can see at the top the least turned nesting site was out there between the runways as well in the background at the top right hand corner is where the future veterans VA Hospital in Columbarium will be located. \nThis is in that\, C plane lagoon promenade phase 2 is probably where we’re going to\, we’re proposing to have the kayak launches and those components for people to get access to water there as there was historical ramps down there that brought the airplanes down into the water. \nWe’re going to try to use those accommodate those and bring them into have people bring themselves into the lagoon that way as well. \nAnd then San Francisco\, they’re in the background with the views of the bay. \nSo here again is the outside of our project site. It’s approximately 21.2 5 acres. \nYou can see that there are currently 2 big buildings that are located on the site\, building 29 and building 25. \nWe went to city council in November of this year and city council made a very forward thinking decision and they voted to remove both buildings from the property and so that to expand the wetlands and have more of a basically create more ecological space here on the property. \nAs you can also see in the lower part\, what the VA wetlands currently and sort of the proximity of how they’ll join our project. \nAnd sort of the proximity of how they’ll join our project. We’re not looking for them to be combined at this point\, but at\, in the Grand Sense\, they will be one space in the overall. \nThe other thing is we’ve been coordinating with the VA as well during this project. \nSo we recently just had another meeting with them to try to coordinate property line and edges and what that’ll look like. \nNext slide. So these are sort of today’s current images. The C plane lagoon is lined by a rip wrap wall and then our project site is combined mainly of large concrete paving and asphalt. \nAnd again\, joined by the 2 buildings on the side and then it has a jetty out into seaplane lagoon there. \nLike I say\, currently these spaces are used for a variety of uses. There’s also some really kind of interesting old remnants that are still in that concrete back from its original uses with the remnants that are still in that concrete back from its original uses with the air station\, from its original uses with the air station\, airplane ties\, rails\, different components like that air station\, airplane ties\, rails\, different components like that\, things that we’d like to incorporate into the \noverall design moving forward. \nSo this was the price. Precise plan back in 2\,014 identifying the different areas and uses that would happen on Alameda Point. \nDeepave Park is outlined there in the dark green or the purple around the dark lean green. And then you see the\, see\, the see plane promenade right there on the north end of Seaplane Lagoon\, as well as sort of the natural or the nature preserve area that is controlled by the VA and then slightly to the north of that is the VA Hospital Colombarium and then a regional park to \nthe northwest. So these are all side of the kind of different components that were decided back then about what would be done on Lima Point. \nSo here’s an image of Seaplane Lagoon phase one. So this part currently is open to the public. \nIt is showing a tiered level park up from the lagoon that acts as the virtual first phase of the levy that will continue to protect the rest of Alameda Point as it gets built out and in the distance at the very end right before the San Francisco skyline back there is D. \nPave Park and again DPA will serve as that node of the levy system that will be protecting all of the. \nThis slide here shows the pedestrian circulation and bike circulation and where our project site is here. \nSo it’s serves as a very big connection for the Be Trail and so Deepave Park will serve as a node both for the Bay Trail but also for the seasonal Bay Trail that will continue out around all of Alameda Point seasonally. \nAnd so it’s a very important project in that sense that it’s connecting the people to the bay\, but as well as making sure that there’s sort of the seasonal trail so you can get out all your own. \nSo again\, here’s the slide that is from East Bay Park District that shows the outline of the seasonals\, betrayal that will go all the way around the existing point there and at the bottom right hand corner is D Pave Park. \nAnd so where those lines intersect shows where the Bay Trail will come\, but also as DPA Park is the node for the jumping off point where you will be able to do the seasonal trail all around. \nSo again\, we’ve. Had a great time with this project involving the community. We certainly\, we’ve already had 5 in-person community meetings. \nWe’ve had online surveys. We had a great involvement from one of our local high schools who were over 150 responses to our survey. \nWe’ve been working with the Limited Point Collaborative\, which is community that is out here on Limited Point Base\, which is community that is out here on Limited Point Base\, which is an that is out here on Limited Point Base\, which is an underserved community\, which is an underserved community and they’ve been involved in it from day one. \nAnd they’ve been involved in it from day one. We’ve had a great experience with day one. \nWe’ve had a great experience with having the kids and the families out there asking their opinion\, we’ve had a great experience with\, having the kids and the families out there asking their opinion\, seeing how the kids and the families out there asking their\, having the kids and the families out there asking their opinions\, seeing how things that they like out here\, and really getting a So here’s it sort of some \nof the meetings that we held on site. We did intercepts. We hosted meetings. We had tours. \nAnd like I said\, we’ve done the first 2 rounds of our community engagement and we’re about to start our third here on the twentieth where we’ll actually have one meeting out with the Elm to point collaborative community as well but also one for the general public as well in person. \nSo overall\, we’ve the community is very excited about this project. We are delighted to be having this here in Alameda. \nWe think they’ll be a great example of showing how sea level rise can happen and happen in a way to bring the community forward as well as also working on developing a stewardship program to help maintain that with that community as well. \nWe’ve been working with LM to point collaborative to do that. As a sort of an employment. \nProgram in order to get experience and job development. \nHave we seen the support for\, you know\, having Fishermen. They people don’t want to have dogs off leash out there. \nThere’s all sorts of great information that we’ve collected incorporated into our designs. You know\, there’s just been a great support for the marsh\, natural play areas\, fishing\, bicycling\, spaces for outdoor education. \nYou know\, there’s just been a huge tremendous involvement in people asking for a tremendous amount of access to the water\, tidal pools\, really about bringing people out and also creating a great environment for wildlife. \nAnd with that\, I will hand it off to Kevin Conger. Alright\, thank you. \nGood evening. Hi Leo. It’s certainly a pleasure to be here and talking about this project. \nMy new favorite project. One of the one of the biggest outcomes of the community process that Justin was talking about was a very in informed and passionate community that argue for this once in a lifetime opportunity to make a park that was all about nature. \nAnd to compel the council to remove the big building 25 that you saw on that last slide and I think you’re probably going to hear. \nA little bit of support for that decision from the group that’s behind me. Which button am I pushing that one? \nOkay. Transforming this 20 acres of pavement into a place that creates nature and public access to nature is pretty straightforward. \nActually\, in our approach. There’s mostly asphalt out there\, but also these strips of concrete. \nIt’s really thick concrete. It’s about 12 inches deep. And as some of those pictures shown\, there’s some really interesting steel rails and remnants in the concrete from the military industrial past. \nAnd so the strategy is to save the bits and pieces of concrete. That are useful. And to use those for the future. \nPublic space\, promenade\, circulation\, pathways\, etc\, and to remove all the rest of it. \nCrush it\, use it for the fill area. Under the elevated levy portions of the Discovery Play in the picnic area. \nThere’s a huge benefit to repurposing all this existing concrete because it greatly reduces the carbon footprint of this project during construction. \nAnd in fact\, this project will be climate positive we estimate in 4 years it will start to offset its own carbon footprint and be part of the climate solution. \nSo reuse\, recycle as much as possible. And it also leads us with some really interesting forms. \nAnd then basically Take it big hole\, lower the areas to encourage the tides to come in so we create some intertidal habitat areas. \nWe’re gonna create some fill areas that have that are elevated a little higher for some upland habitat creation. Take a \nRest of the film and put it over on into the elevated levy area. So we have a balanced cut fill is what the strategy is and then basically invite nature in. \nThe. The forms that are generated around the new paving\, which is the orange area\, which is all that DG area\, those are. \nThat way because we’re trying to harvest strips of concrete from the. The pieces that we’re moving\, we’re gonna use that for the. \nRestraining edges for all the edges of the DT paving and everything. So again\, we’re trying to reuse pretty much as much as possible. \nSo this is a paving diagram\, everything basically to the left. Is all existing paving and again the forms there\, you know\, these sock up machines are these big giant heavy things that pretty much make straight lines. \nYou don’t get to do curves or anything\, so it’s a really kind of just pragmatic approach to. \nGenerating form and then everything to the right. Basically the right third is going to be new paving DG and that’s all upon the elevated area and then the parking area is also going to be on existing paving. \nLooking to some of the furnishings and I’ll start at the right hand side\, which is north. \nThere’s about 75 parking spaces on existing paving over there. The restroom is on that north side. \nWe\, as was mentioned by Skylar\, we got a bit of discussion of whether that restroom can be there with the anti perching element on it or whether we need to move it a little bit. \nEast out of that zone. So we’ll work with Brit to do that. And then from there\, that’s down a little lower. \nSo then from there you go. South and you go up onto the elevated levy. There’s a big picnic trellis there in a picnic area\, group barbecue area\, same issue there with the bird predator things we may need to move that a bit east and then the discovery play area. \nThere’s a terrorist that steps down to the beach. The terrace made out of concrete slabs that we’re going to cut and harvest. \nMove those over from the existing paving. So that’s all repurposed. Moving south\, there’s a overlook area\, interpretative overlook area\, and then down the promenade that goes all the way out to the end and then the further south is the what we call the learning lab\, but there’s some of the big or more interesting remnant pieces of concrete with the steel rails. \nThat will be places for groups to gather school groups to go out there and gather. Social spaces\, etc\, all the way at the far\, far\, far south then as a fishing trail along the back edge of that rip wrap. \nThat’s where the fish fisher people like to go because it’s out on the bay side\, not in the Lagoon side. \nSo here’s a simple circulation diagram. So\, 24 foot. More average prominent minimum. \n24 foot minimum promenade\, multi-use path all the way up to the end\, and then these smaller pedestrian pathways that are again are mostly all predominantly using existing paving except for those areas that are on the. \nNorth where we’re elevating the land. And we will have\, bike circulation out here and also vehicle circulation for service vehicles. \nEventually\, that spur that heads up to the top screen to the west will connect and go north and be part of the levy. \nProtection that goes all the way around behind the hanger buildings in future phases. \nSo some material and character all pretty straightforward\, natural materials. \nHere’s some scale comparisons because it’s a little hard to wrap your head around how big this park is. \nIt’s about 2 thirds to. Size of Similar width actually about 2 thirds the length It’s a little bit shorter than the length of the Christy field. \nTitle Marsh\, out the same width\, actually interestingly. The beach piece down here is overlaid here on top of Crane Cove. \nQuite a bit smaller than Crane Cove\, so it’s a little pocket beach. The learning lab. \nPiece is about the size of the area down by the warming hut at Chrissy fields. \nIt’s a little bit bigger\, maybe\, you know\, maybe twice the size of that\, but. \nKind of similar to that and maybe a little bit. Better scale present will be this side down on the east end of Christy field where a butts up against Marina Green. \nIt’s about the same size as that space down there. So we’re really confident that it’s scaled appropriately. \nThe grading. The whole site is basically at about. 10 and a half. So we’re. \nLowering the edge in the center area\, where the gravel beach is proposed\, which is Right here. \nAbout. 6 feet at the rip wrap edge. And lower the seawall down a little bit and lower the rip wrap to create a gravel beach and then basically excavating out the areas to create intertidal zones and raising up the Discovery Play Picnic area up to about 15\, which is the height of the levy that’s part of the master infrastructure plan that goes around and \nprotects. All of the\, Alameda point. So. Here down at the north end\, we’re basically elevating a little bit down at the Picnic terrace and where that interpretative overlook is and then as we move further south. \nYou can see here where we’re cutting into the seawall\, which is shown in red there. \nI’m going to drop the top of the seawall down. But not remove it all the way because we still need that lower part of the rip wrap sea wall to interface with the seaplane lagoon. \nAnd same with the inner title\, the Rocky Inner Title Habitat area at the Far Far South End. \nSo that allows us to create an inner title area that’s illustrated in that top diagram where the dark blues mean high high water and lighter gray is the king tide so all of that zone will be intertidal and what’s exciting is that with CLRIs coming up\, our wetland areas get bigger. \nAnd we get increasing intertidal zone\, which is the goal of this project. So you see that on the bottom one with about 2 feet of sea level rise all the public access places are still high and dry at that point. \nBut when we get to\, 3 and a half feet of sea level rise\, you can see that the main promenade starts to get inundated at king tides and it will be at about that point where the city will need to make some decisions about when to do the adaptation for the public access. \nTo maintain public access out here. And the thought that we have is that they’ll just leave that concrete was a big 12 inch map foundation and just build a elevated promenade on top of that. \nAnd I know in the staff report there was some comments about are we thinking about providing enough public access at the southern part where the learning lab is and as to say that this is just very notional. \nI mean at the time when that adaptation gets designed. The city will make a decision about whether they want to add more elevated deck space out there or different types of\, you know\, public access amenities out there\, which I think would be great. \nAnd then ultimately\, when we get to 7 feet of sea level rise as with the rest of the Alameda point the levy itself needs to be adapted and elevated up. \nBut that will be far enough out where that program that discovery play area and the picnic and stuff up there were\, you know\, 80 years from now. \nRenovated anyway. \nSo what all that does is allows us to create a bunch of habitat\, primarily salt marsh in this lower inner tidal area\, upland coastal scrub in the areas at above that will transition to salt marsh over time\, gravel beach habitat right along the shoreline\, eel grass pilot project at that southern end and a rocky intertidal habitat zone on the very\, very far south end. \nAnd you can see how this becomes more or less contiguous with the with the VA. Weapons on on the other side. \nSo it’s really all about\, and I won’t point out we have HC Harvey and ESA advisors advising us on the ecological. \nComponents of this but it’s really all about this interface between the tide waters and the land obviously to create these different type of habitat zones. \nWe are doing it for These stakeholders\, these are all the species that are currently out. At Alameda Point and including the\, Alameda Song Sparrow there in the middle of the screen and some of the subtitle species that are on the bottom of the screen there\, but we also have. \nThese VIP stakeholders\, the California Least Turn in the Great Blue Hare and there’s a There’s a her and site right in the middle of the Project site\, which you’ll see in that blue dot here on that lower part of the slide. \nAnd this slide also shows. The least turned nesting site and all of that hatched area is part of the. \nConservation area because of the lease turns and so oh\, and I just wanted to point out that\, \nDown on the on the southern end of the VA property There’s 2 black kind of bubbles that are outlined and there’s improvement\, habitat improvements that are planned down there which include doing some re vegetation around the existing wetlands\, but also creating a new planned wetland you see on the left hand of this screen to expand the inner title zones over on that VA. \nA property and HC Harvey has been doing the work on those 2 projects as well. And so just to look at that in this air photo\, you can see the those VA wetlands\, you see that the heron. \nHooker rookery right there in the middle of the side the least turn loafing area over to the left there is some habitat value currently at DPA Park with the bottom edge of the intertidal rocky shoreline and also the mudflats out there. \nBut if you just kind of diagram all that stuff that’s existing and we also put in here the expanded marsh and then overlay the proposed DPA park wetlands and upland vegetation. \nYou can see that how the whole thing kind of becomes one bigger complex. All sort of working together. So the subtitle area will be look like this. \nThis native. Vegetation\, the upland coastal upland areas. Looks like this. All things that we’re familiar with. \nSome of the plant species that HD Harvey is recommending things that are familiar pickleweed and cord grass and the glass ward and eel grass and see. \nThere’s transition planting and should come up a little higher and then the upland. Plant materials. \nSo take you on a quick tour now from north to south. Zooming in a little bit on the plan. \nSo there’s that the barbecue trellis area\, they’re right in the middle\, there’s the beach area with the terrace\, the nature play area\, there’s another large group picnic area that’s to the west and then these 3 nodes of like smaller picnic spaces and then the overlook that will have these interpretive panels. \nWhich show another view again to see it there. And then a rendering from the overlook. We’re looking at incorporating the interpretive story into the railing that goes all around it. \nMoving to the middle\, there’ll be a bridge. Where we remove some of the existing paving\, create a bridge where the Martian let is. \nView from that and then down in the what we call the learning lab and all these kind of big Blob things that you see on top of the payment call these seating slabs. \nThat’s where we’re proposing to take some of the big plants that we’re going to kind of harvest out of the existing paving and repurpose them. \nFor\, seating elements and sculptural elements. And then also you see the\, space there at the end. \nSo. A view of the learning lab. With the steel rails in it\, the intertidal area. \nAnd\, and then lastly\, a view from one of the higher upland overlooks looking back. \nSo that’s where we are. We’re hoping to get to council here in a month or so for approval of this final master plan. \nWe’re hoping to get to council here in a month or so for approval of this final master plan. \nWe’re hoping to get to 30% design. This spring and with that assist the city and going after more grant money with\, AJA and others and really looking forward to hearing. \nYour thoughts and comments about how to make this better and also hopefully hearing your endorsement. For us moving this project forward. \nThank you. Okay\, thank you both. Justin and Kevin. Excellent presentation. \nAnd I\, it’s a. It is a very exciting and very significant project. So I’m thrilled that you are all here with your team and associated folks from the community as well because it’s a significant evening for us to have this project with us. \nSo we’ll move to clarifying questions\, from. The project presentation. We’ll just perhaps move along the line here. \nGary\, do you have any questions? \nSure. Yeah. Thank you. That was a wonderful presentation. \nI’m just curious context wise because it’s an opportunity for us to all learn something about the bay edge and context. \nJust curious\, who are the? Users today and what do you anticipate? You know\, in the future given the status of\, a\, to point\, you know\, what projects have been completed recently and what do you see in the pipeline? \nAnd and then maybe just one other thing those very large hangers that Kevin referred to for a second and they’re shown as being\, I think\, being flooded in the recently near future is their plans for those buildings. \nThank you\, Gary\, for your questions. The current users\, out here at all\, to point\, like I said\, the community\, even though it is sort of undeveloped\, is actively using this. \nThere are with the reason projects built out in what we call site a with a housing out there there’s a tremendous amount of people living here now. \nThere’s restaurants amount of people living here now. There’s restaurants\, there’s breweries. \nIf you\, now with a new ferry terminal connection to this area\, it’s become incredibly active. \nSo it also with the first phase of C plane lagoon promenade. We’re also working with radium who has regular performances out there currently. \nI’ll\, to point collaborative is located\, within walking distance of this site. \nThey’re sort of our\, it’s a very low income area and an underserved community. \nWe are also in the process of starting construction on our reshape project. Which is going to help both take care of our older housing units that are out there that are serving the underserved but also expand that and also provide different services out there like the\, a library branch is going to be out there\, but also they’re building as part of that project\, this barn employment center training center part of that that’s going to \nbe built out as part of that. And then as the rest of the master plan for the base build out\, there’s going to be just a lot more residents and businesses out there using this park and getting access to this property. \nSo encouraging people to get out their sea nature\, be connected to it\, and then addressing your concern about the sea level rise. \nSo part of the master plan infrastructure plan that continues out and around at the edge of D Pave Park where you saw the elevated part with the picnic and terrace all that promenade going out to Deepave Park and then continuing out north and around the entire Alameda point will be a raised levy system in order to protect those old hanger buildings that you see there. \nAnd many of those are not vacant currently today. There we have active uses in them\, different businesses\, and we’re actually looking about expanding those. \nSo that’s who we’ll be using in the future. Okay\, thank you. Stefan\, any questions? \nYeah\, thank you for the presentation. I really appreciate it. I have one question sort of about. \nI guess the stewardship and management. Of the space and sort of how that actually might relate to. \nThe management of the other public spaces around in this in this vicinity. Are there special needs here that you’re hoping to accommodate as this sort of built out? \nOkay. Thank you. Yeah\, so\, you know\, as part of this process\, we’re also working on a stewardship group with\, you know\, as part of this process\, we’re also working on a stewardship group with Albie to Point Collaborative\, really trying to get at a stewardship group with Albany to Point Collaborative\, I’ll be to point collaborative\, really trying to get at environmental justice and \ngetting\, really trying to get at environmental justice and getting\, a workforce trained to help do this. \nWe understand that this is not going to be a workforce trained to help do this. We understand that this is not going to be the normal park maintenance\, you know\, system out here. \nWe understand that this is not going to be the normal park maintenance\, we understand that this is not going to be the normal park maintenance\, you know\, system out here. \nSo there’s going to be the normal park maintenance\, you know\, system out here. So there’s going to be a need for specifically trained individuals and sort of developing a need for specifically trained individuals and sort of developing a work program and trying to do that to reach out to the community and that unders \nOkay\, thank you\, Cody. Clarifying questions. Yeah\, per se\, I think it’s extraordinary. \nPlace to build a park. Working at this scale in the bays. Rare\, especially in an adaptive retreat that I think could serve as is an example regionally and you know around the world. \nI was curious about the the longer term. Resilience for 2\,100 protection and you alluded towards. \nYou know at such time the city would decide whether or not or how to go about providing access out to the to the end of the point that would be outside of the area protected by the levy\, I understand. \nBut\, yeah\, I’m just curious if strategies or any additional thoughts have been developed that weren’t included in the presentation. \nOr if that’s something that you intend to address as we get closer to that scenario. I believe as we continue project development as we look at that\, we’ll definitely need to do\, further studies of how that levy\, how the whole levy system will interact\, will be looking at the adaptive ways in the future\, whether or not the height out continuing around the park\, but also that access continuing out to \nthe waterway as to what height\, what we need to build it at. I think that we have the preliminary ideas around it\, but I think we need to do\, we’ll be doing more as we continue to develop this project. \nAnd as we get to that\, 2\,100\, you know\, between now and then\, you know\, there’s be so much to anticipate that I think\, you know\, working on positive strategies and really trying to think that through will be part of the rest of this project as we continue to move forward. \nThank you. Leo\, any questions? Sure. Thank you. \nAnd like others\, I wanna thank you for the presentation. I think it’s always wonderful to see a very thorough presentation about a project. \nThat’s as important as this. And really gonna contribute a significant amount of area back to public access. \nSo thank you. I had really maybe 2 questions. Or 2 areas of questions. One is about hydrology and second is about access. \nSo on the hydrology side\, I know you\, Kevin and others have done this kind of work extensively. \nI would like to understand that the hydrology of these inlets and the way the targets work that those areas will continue to be flesh and fleshed out and remain healthy and how that your thoughts behind that. \nAnd then secondly about access. We can see from the plans that there’s certain amount of seating along that length. \nWould be helpful to understand what is the sort of interval. Is it comfortable for people to walk all the way out? \nThey might need places to perch and to sit as well as are there specific types of seating\, you know\, this is a former air base. \nSo presumably it’s pretty windy and are there opportunities for some seating not all but some that might have a little bit of wind or purchase for people who wanna come here for bird watching. \nCause it sounds like that’s a real opportunity. So any fine-tuning about that kind of access would be appreciated. \nOkay\, great. Hi\, hydrology. We\, ESA is on our team doing the hydraulic\, hydrological analysis. \nSo they are feeling pretty comfortable with the title prism coming in out of here and there have been analyzing the amount of scour and everything and make sure that it’s all going to work feeling good. \nMoffat and Nichols also on our team. We do have a little bit of wave erosion threat in here because the ferry coming in and out generates these little waves that just kind of lap out the shoreline. \nSo\, but we think we have a strategy that everybody’s really comfortable with in the short term\, but also a sea level rise comes up so we don’t have. \nAn erosion problem later. So a long story short is we’re on that. We’re and at you know\, at the 30% design level or 20% design level or 20% design level or 20% design level that we’re at right now. \nWe think we’re in good shape with the hydrology. And at the 30% design level or 20% design level that we’re at right now\, we think we’re in good shape with the hydrol On the seating. \nIt’s only\, you know\, it’s only about 1\,700 feet. Long from one edge of this to the other you saw when I showed those scale comparisons. \nSo it’s about a 7 min walk. And I think we have\, I don’t remember\, 27. \nSeating plants or something like there’s a lot of seating out here and they’re both these big concrete plants\, but there’s also a whole bunch of benches everywhere benches with backs and armrests and more convectional seating. \nSo I think Leo that there’s going to be a plenty of seating in terms of like when you need to sit and take a rest and stuff like that. \nWe also have been pretty Okay\, careful to get seating oriented toward the different views and to have some of it behind. \nThe the mounded upland scrub areas. So by the time you get a little bit of topography and vegetation\, the benches down low enough to where you’re going to be tucked in out of the wind. \nWe are constrained somewhat by not being able to have tall elements. That encourage predator birds to perch on them and then. \nAnd then that creates some conflicts with the least turn site. So. And we’re trying to frankly kind of keep\, I’m trying to keep everything low also out here and to not have too many design elements. \nTo that that in my mind potentially start to change what this park is about like if we can make it just essentially about Nature. \nAnd being on an old runway. You know\, that’s like that’s enough\, I think. \nThat’s a really compelling place to be. I’m in an old runway in nature and without adding too many bells and whistles to it. \nThanks. That helps. And I think that that overarching principle is really spot on. So thank you. \nOkay\, thank you\, Leo. Tom\, any clarifying questions? \nYeah\, Kevin\, I guess\, I mean\, great project\, obviously. I think you just answered maybe my question\, which was\, you know\, there was\, I noticed there was a board question about shelter for people. \nOut here and I guess that means wind but also sun. And There being no trees here. I guess the reason there’s no trees is because that provides a Burch not damages the. \nHabitat but I just is there. Anything that could or should be done for somebody’s got a Very fair skinned little baby out there all the way at the end. \nThat kind of thing. I don’t know if that’s needed or appropriate with the discussion has been and the other question is how close is nearest bathroom? \nThe bathroom is near the parking. So it’s 1\,700 feet from the far south end. You know\, it’s at the it’s at the entrance end. \nBut again. \nOkay. So\, 7\, 7 min walk. \nRight\, so 7. So I think it’s\, it’s not too far. And You know\, again\, when we thought about shade and treat your correct on trees and the perching. \nA predator perching so that that was that. And when we went out to places like\, Heron’s head and\, you know\, when you walk along the marsh at Chrissy field\, again\, which I showed in the scale comparisons\, it just seems like. \nIt’s not that. It’s\, it’s\, I think that shades not neat\, really needed. \nI think it’ll be it’ll be good. \nOkay. \nOkay\, thanks\, Tom. I just have 3 questions. The first one I just want to clarify. What the ground conditions are expected to be like when you. \nRemove the concrete and start\, repurposing it\, recycling it. Do you expect to\, find contamination or what What’s likely? \nThere’ll probably be some we’re doing up there’s been some testing that’s done out there and some remediation that’s been done out there and some remediation that’s been done already by the Navy. \nWe are underway with more further testing right now just to make sure that we have a good understanding of what is going to be in there. \nSo if we have to do any further remediation that we can capture that in our cost estimates\, in our grant funding requests. \nSo if things are found that are in conflict with what it is that’s being proposed\, they’ll be remediated or removed. \nRight. I mean\, the question behind that really is\, This is conceptual and\, you know\, moving into\, design right now\, but\, you know. \nWhether they could be flexibility to actually avoid some of these areas once you\, you know\, in the design. \nYes\, and we\, and we have done that based on what we think might be there. We have\, you know\, the\, and the bigger conflicts with the contaminations\, potential contaminations are not so much human. It’s the interaction with the bay. \nSo have it’s the related to the Brit. So we’re trying to like work around that if we can\, but we don’t. \nExactly know what’s where. Okay. Like a second question. Is dealing with the beach and\, appreciated the presentation and scale comparison. \nCan you talk a little bit more about what the intended uses are on the beach is that it tended to be a place you swim from or you know what’s being the feedback so far from the community and then the question of resilience of beach related to fairy waves and so on and you know what what the how far you’ve gotten studies. \nAs far as any type of erosion\, so there’s a little beach now that’s there. \nThere’s a little sandy beach that more sand gets deposited right there and so we’re basically just working with that grade. \nAnd laying it back a little bit deeper and you know we’re gonna have to import some sand to bring it in there so we’re trying to stay with what’s there so that we don’t create any new erosion problems. \nAnd so\, Thanks we’re in good shape there in terms of that approach. I know there was a question from staff about the long term. \nAdaptability of the beach. And\, what to do about that and I\, think\, that our assumption is what when the water comes up another 3 feet it won’t be a beach there or if it is just gonna be at the lowest tides\, you know\, it’s gonna be underwater like a lot of the other beaches in the world. \nThe intended use is just a small recreational. Pocket you know I think people will go down there and sit on the beach and I think people probably will go swimming out there. \nAs Justin mentioned\, the primary kayak launch and small craft launch is further down in that second phase of the promenade. \nSo we imagine that that’s the place where most of the kind of launching activity is gonna occur. \nBut I think it’s gonna be a popular recreational amenity to just run around on the sand a little bit like the tiny beach at Clipper Cove is. \nRight. I looked just so\, question. I just wanted to clarify. The on the plan that’s on the screen right now the yellow color on the main walkway is decomposed granted. Is that correct? \nThat follow is about 25% of the length and then it moves to concrete. So my question is really to do with accessibility and safety. \nWheelchairs etc. you know baby strollers are you comfortable that the I mean\, well\, I went\, but just I just wanted to clarify that. \nSo that is. Decomposed. Correct. Stabilized crush stone. Right. \nAnd then the following question to that is on the vision plan. I saw that there at least in the package we received that there was originally some looping of the trail secondary paths and it was a just wanted to hear a bit more on your thinking. \nAbout you know\, a 1\,700 long linear path versus loops and so on. We took the loops out when we all toured Heron’s head with our ecology team and we observed that the place that had the most habitat was the place that was furthest away from people. \nPeople and dogs and so forth. And so we thought\, well\, if we want to have habitat on the west edge of our wetlands and we do loop out there it’s going to be counterproductive. \nAnd so I’m better to be a little further away from the birds\, but seabirds than to be over there and have no birds. \nOkay\, thank you. Okay\, I think that concludes our clarifying questions. We’ll move to public comment now and Any members of the public attending the meeting in person? \nPlease notify the board secretary if you would like to make a comment. And as we said before\, if you’re attending online and would like to make a public comment\, you can raise your virtual hand to speak and please do that. \nAt this time. And if you’re calling in. You can also call in to make a comment you will be called in the order that your hand was raised and you will have a 3 min Period to speak. \nUri will note when you have 1 min remaining. Please state your name and affiliation for the record at the beginning of your comment. \nAnd as mentioned at the beginning of the meeting\, if you would like to add your contact information to the interested parties list to be notified of future meetings concerning this project. \nPlease call or email Ashley Tomlin. So\, you will hand to you now. Thank you. \nOkay. \nAnd you will have 3 min to speak. \nHello\, my name is Jeff Maker. I live within walking distance of where DPA Park is going to be. \nI’m here also as a member of the Golden Gate Bird Alliance. I’m a co chair of the East Bay Conservation Committee and I’m also on the Youth Advisory Committee for Education in the East Bay. \nI’m a lifelong birder. I love the idea of this park. It’s such a great idea. \nI can’t wait to see more birds out there. I love the idea of this park. It’s such a great idea. I can’t wait to see more birds out there. \nI go out there frequently the bird and see a lot of other burgers out there. One of my concerns is about\, access for fishermen. \nWherever fishermen go. And of course it’s not all the fishermen. I have nothing against personally\, but they often leave tankled fishing line. \nAnd that is a big hazard for birds. I would much prefer that fishermen are not allowed out on the jetty on the far end. \nAlso I walk out\, Pass Ensignel Beach on the jetty out there and there’s often a lot of trash left out there by Mostly fishermen because those are the people I see out there. \nAnd that attracts rats. And rats will wreak havoc with the birds if they’re roosting out there. \nAnd especially if there are nesting birds out there\, rats will. Eat eggs\, chicks. \nAdult birds\, etc. So. I would caution against allowing fishing out on the far end of the thing. \nThere are fishermen out there\, but they’re not very many. There are many other places where they can go. \nOut over by the Hornet by Ensignel Beach. etc. So. \nMy recommendation. Would be to not have fishermen there. I think it’d be better for the birds\, which is one of the major purposes of the park is to have a nature center. \nAnd I think it would interfere with the birds. So that’s my recommendation. Thank you. \nMarjorie Powell\, you will have 3 min to speak. \nThank you. My name is Marjorie Powell. I am an Alameda resident. \nI very frequently go birding out on this. Section of concrete and around the other. Section of seaplane lagoon. \nI have personally seen more than 100 species of birds out in that area. It is an area. Currently with only concrete\, but with the. \nLand in the VA wetlands behind and the water within seaplane lagoon. It is very well used by birds. \nI anticipate that once there is marshland there\, there will be more birds nesting there. Once you have birds nesting\, you have a whole range of issues that need to be addressed. \nOne of those is dogs. I think it’s vitally important that dogs not be allowed within this park. \nIf there is any interest in encouraging birds\, particularly nesting birds\, the dogs will. Eliminate a lot of that because they scared the birds off the nest even when the dogs are on leashes. \nNow I’m not opposed to dogs but there are numbers of places within Let me the point. As well as the entire Alameda Island where dogs are very welcome. \nI think just shouldn’t be one of them. I’d like to echo the fishing issue. I almost every time I leave the D to pay park area I have fishing line that I’ve picked up from the ground in my back pocket to go find one of the places I can dump it to be recycled. \nFishing line and fish hooks are anathema to birds. There are all kinds of problems with birds. \nGetting tangled in fishing line or getting caught with fishing nets. So that’s a real concern. \nBut I also think that there is a concern about trash. And any time you have people\, particularly people out having picnics or using the parks in other ways\, you get trash. \nAnd if you’ve tried to take trash out of marshlands\, it’s very difficult. \nAll you have to do is look at any other wetland park\, I think it’s important to have good trash bins and to make sure that there are. \nThat the trash doesn’t move into the wetland areas. But I’m excited to see all these developments and looking forward to the sea level rise\, changing the patterns of the water there. \nThank you. Thank you. \nKaren Miller\, will you approach the podium? \nGood evening. My name is Karen Miller and I am a long time Alameda resident. I am also a member of the Golden Gate Bird Alliance. \nAnd I’m also a member of the very active paddle boarding. Neighborhood in Alameda. \nSo in regards to the park itself. I am very excited about this and\, I just wanted to bring up one thing about making sure that the access for people with disabilities is really carefully looked at. \nHope that the pass and the access will be there for people. Who have need to use a wheelchair. \nI also\, I live right next to Crab Cove and I know that some of the East Bay regional parks have specialized wheelchairs that people can reserve and use that have special wheels that make it easier for them to use them on the pass. \nAnd also people who don’t have wheelchairs of their own but have disabilities that make it difficult for them to get around in parks. \nCan use those so they can also get out there and really enjoy. The park and I think given that the VA is gonna be so close\, I think it would be really healing for a lot of the people who are patients there to come out and to the park and we’d want to make sure that those patients also were able to fully use the park even given whatever disabilities they might have. \nAnd then also. With people who are in wheelchairs or where there’s benches and seating and stuff to make sure that any fences that are put in don’t have slats like right at your eye level when you’re sitting down by LC Romer\, bird sanctuary on shoreline\, the dock that goes out there. \nIf you’re sitting in a wheelchair\, you can’t see through the slots there on that dock. \nAnd that’s just one example of something that would be an easy fix. On behalf of the paddle boarding and kayaking community\, I’m so excited about having a new landing spot. \nThere’s probably maybe a half dozen of really specific public landing spots for the small craft in kayaks in Alameda. \nSo this will be. Very widely used by those communities and we’re very\, very excited about it. \nSo\, I think it’s a wonderful park and\, I’m really happy that we’re all here working on it. \nThank you. Thank you. \nRichard Banger and then Cheryl Nelson and Bry you’ll be next. \nThank you. My name is Richard Banger. I’m a resident of Alameda and I’ve in a long time advocate for this park going from. \nConceptual plan to master plan. And I’m thrilled that. The City Council recently approved the maximum plan by bringing to remove building 25 And I would say this should serve as an example for other cities around the bay. \nBecause it’s not just a building\, it’s a building that’s worth a lot of revenue. \nAnd someday it will be\, it would be worth a lot of money to sell. They’ve given that up. \nAnd for the environment\, for the future. And I think that is a remarkable. Achievement. \nThe\, the issue that I’d like to talk about tonight. \nIs the passage in the staff report. That refers to fencing and dogs. Says finally low cable and mesh fencing would border the central promenade. \nThe property line with the adjacent BA wetland. To prevent dogs and people from disturbing habitat areas. \nI would argue that best way to keep dogs from disturbing habitat areas is to not allow them in there in the first place. \nAnd I think. You need look no further than. Coyote Regional Park. In the South Bay where Yes\, it’s coyote hills and there’s a lot of hills\, but there’s also a lot of marsh area. \nAnd the rules specifically state no dogs. In the marsh area. So\, and also. The walkway that goes through that marsh area. \nIt doesn’t have any fencing on it. It’s just like a boardwalk. I mean\, yeah\, somebody could fall off into the water\, but. \nDoesn’t seem to be a problem. So\, and if you would have fencing. Well\, it wouldn’t just be the promenade. \nI mean\, where would you stop? I mean\, you’d have to have fencing so next to the tide pools. \nAnd then how do people go down there if they brought their dog? They could tie the dog up. So\, I mean\, it’s just not practical. \nFrom any angle to allow dogs in this park\, it’s a marshland. It’s a marshland and your your guidelines state\, well I’ve lost it on the screen but it states that you the policies The last bullet point stated that policy should not negatively affect wildlife. \nAnd management policies. And I would urge you to stipulate when the permit is issued that it’s state\, no dogs allowed. \nThat I think is necessary for the benefit of the wildlife there. So thank you very much. Thank you. \nOkay. Hi\, I’m Cheryl Nelson inbri and I was the supervising naturalist at Crab Cove for 26 years. \nAnd retired about 4 years ago. I’m now involved with the Golden Gate Audubon. \nAnd formerly Audubon\, now the Bird Alliance. And I’m also the co-chair of the Friends of the Alameda Wildlife Reserve. \nSo we just really applaud the city of Alameda for. Planning this park for taking it through the visioning process and we’re just really excited that this is going to be a wetland park that will welcome wildlife and can help to replace the more than 80% of wetlands that have been lost around the bay. \nAnd because of this being a wildlife park it just doesn’t make sense to have dogs roaming freely through it. \nAnd currently a lot of wildlife uses this park I’ve been watching nesting osprey. \nThat are in the park on the jetties that are one of them will be within this new park plan. \nAnd the osprey have been nesting there for about 10 years so they kind of alternated between the 2 jetties. \nAnd so we can already see\, you know\, the impact that additional fishing would have on that kind of bird life. \nAnd then also having the dogs roaming there\, you know\, that would reduce the number of bird species that could nest there. \nSo I just really encourage you to think about some of the details of this plan like that. And also\, if there were no dogs\, you wouldn’t have to have the fencing that went to the ground. \nYou could just have a boundary line for people to know that they shouldn’t go across. So thank you so much for the work that you’re doing for nature and for creating new habitat for wildlife as well as for people to enjoy. \nAnd thanks for letting me say my peace. Thank you. \nIrene Dieter\, please. \nHello board members. I am a resident of Alameda. I am one of the many residents of Alameda who have been really excited about this project. \nWe have been working on it for years. And I cannot find anyone in the city who is not looking forward to it. \nSo\, I want to just say that I hope that you do not underestimate. How important? \nHow significant\, how historic. How monumental this project is. And each of you get to be a part of this history making. \nThere are not many places. Where we have been able to adapt. To sea level rise while people get to enjoy the change. \nAnd I’m sure that you don’t have many projects that you were looking at that it’s being undeveloped versus developed. \nBut it’s being in a different context. And it is just so exciting. And I think that this project\, there’ll be many coastal communities around the country that will look at it. \nAnd for an example. Let alone around the world. To look at it and your names will be on this to make it the best it can be. \nAnd to move it forward. And I just think that this will be a project that so many different agencies and stakeholders will be involved with with getting funding for this. \nSo the more excitement and the more support that we have for this project\, the more the money will follow to make it a reality. \nSo I\, want to thank you for being a part of this historic event. Thank you. Thank you. \nChair\, we have 2 public comments online. The first person is Andy Mavoli. Apologize. \nHopefully I pronounce your name correctly. I am allowing you to speak and you have 3 min. \nGood evening. My name is Andy Mavoli and I’m speaking on behalf of San Francisco Baykeeper. \nThank you for the opportunity to comment on this innovative Depave Park project. Baykeeper is a California nonprofit organization and submits these comments on behalf of its approximately 5\,000 members and supporters who live and or recreate in and around San Francisco Bay area. \nBaykeeper’s mission is to defend San Francisco Bay from the biggest threats and to hold pleuters and government agencies accountable to create healthier communities and help wildlife thrive. \nBeeekeeper has participated in the stakeholder group since the visioning plan for this progressive ecological park. \nAs one of the scientific leads\, we met with city staff and consultants to help describe the benefits of this park for the people of Lameda and Alameda’s wildlife\, including how it will help protect this community against climate change impacts. \nAs you know\, nearly 85% of San Francisco Bay’s historical wetlands have been destroyed by development. \nSo we are encouraged to see Alameda begin to rewild its shoreline and restore the many benefits wetlands can provide. \nAll right. Alan Mida should be applauded for designing and implementing this visionary park. \nWe hope that other cities will follow Alameda’s lead and rewild their shorelines\, creating buffers for sea level rise\, enhancing biodiversity\, increasing community resiliency to climate change and creating more shoreline access. \nWhen built Deepave Park can become the model for other cities to follow. Using nature-based solutions rather than hardening their shorelines to address climate change. \nWe encourage this design review board to support Deepave Park in its mission and design. Projects like this will truly support communities and nature as our climate crisis unfolds. \nThank you so much. \nThank you. \nOkay\, the next speaker is Come if you could date your first and last name and affiliation. You have 3 min. \nYes\, we can. \nCan you hear me? Am I on? Thank you. My first name is Kami. \nLast name is Richards. I’m also an elevator resident. I feel a little bit lonely because I’m not going to speak wildly in favor of this. \nMy question is\, has anybody done research on how many? Least turns were losing to predator birds now. \nI mean\, there are buildings that have been there for 50 or 60 years. The least turn community seems to be doing okay. \nAnd here we are\, it sounds like we’re afraid to put up a 6 foot wind break. In the future. \nSo I\, it sounds like you’ve got a huge science team working on this. And I don’t know that we need to be horrified of. \nPlanting the tree or putting up a windbreak when you if you go and look at the buildings that are have been there since the Navy was there and the least turns have been there just as long. \nThat’s\, that’s my\, conceptually\, I like the idea of a park. \nI don’t think that it needs to be. Literally like walking on a runway. \nI think we could do better Thank you. \nThank you. And there are no more public comments. \nOkay\, well thank you for that and thank you to everyone who contributed comments tonight. I can see there’s a great deal of long-term. \nCommitment and passion about this project as one of the speakers mentioned that is really needed to bring it to reality. \nOkay\, we will now move to board discussion. And advice. And so we have all the board members present here. \nTom online. So Tom will make sure you contribute. The staff have asked us to consider 4 particular questions but as always I think we you know at this stage in the development of the the design I think you know bigger picture comments are also welcome from in our discussion. \nBut the full question is just to remind you\, the first question deals with the beach. And just you know is it appropriately designed to be usable and accessible. \nWe heard some details on that\, you know\, details about\, well\, is it\, Will it be expected to erode\, require regular nourishment\, so maintenance questions. \nDo the terrorist beach steps provide an equivalent water access experience when the beach is inundated due to sea level rise? \nSo we we heard the proponents talk about that. But. We should have some discussion on that\, question. \nThe second question deals with the adaptation approach that has been presented and the adequacy in terms of addressing program and use areas at the southern portion of the site\, which as you recall in the advocacy in terms of addressing program and use areas at the southern portion of the site\, which as you recall\, in the long term that that disappears. \nSo\, you know\, are there programs that have not been included in the long term adaptation plan that should be included or prioritized. \nSo it’s really a question about adaptation and program. And then question 3\, events and event frequency. \nWell\, actually I just want to read this as written. What events and event frequency would the board recommend as triggers? \nEG flooding events or observe sea level rise amounts for initiating sea level rise actions\, adaptation actions such as the elevated board walk. \nSo this is speaking to our. Our question that we deal with every time we look at a project. And then the final question\, do the public access uses of the southern portion of the site necessitate weather protection? \nIf so\, does the board have recommendations on how this could be provided while avoiding conflict with the adjacent habitat area. \nSo so these are the 4 questions that\, you know\, if you want to speak specifically to one of those that would be helpful to staff. \nAnd But if you also want to speak to any bigger. Points related to access. All the design. \nPlease go hit. So. Gary\, do you want to lead off? \nSure\, I can do that. Thank you. Okay\, well. Maybe just start with. \nThe beach comment You know\, I do\, I think that\, you know\, it’s great to have the beach. \nIf you’re bringing in sand\, then yeah\, that implies that there’s some maintenance involved. \nI think it’s worth Considering what is the beach become if the maintenance is not there to keep it replenished. \nAnd I think that’d be a great study to do and just. You said there’s some sand there. Does it just go away? \nDoes it just get flooded? But I don’t know\, I think we’re entering into an era where\, you know\, maintenance is getting really difficult and every city is seems to be overwhelmed with the maintenance they they already have. \nSo I love the beach\, but I’m not. I don’t know the idea of having to truck in sand on a regular basis doesn’t seem\, you know\, maybe that appealing or. \nI don’t know how realistic that is. Gary\, can we just jump maybe to Cody? \nCause what was your reaction to the materials we’ve got on the beach? Do you need to see more detail or? \nWhat’s your what’s your reaction given your? Other beaches along the southern\, edge of Alameda that seem to self-maintain relatively successfully. \nThat this area is unique and that it’s so bound by hardscape. That I’m not sure where the source of sand\, where the sand is going\, where it’s coming from\, but I do know that along Crab Cove\, you see the beach change over time and as as with some exceptions\, maintain itself. \nRight. Okay\, that’s helpful. Thank you. So\, you know\, beyond that. \nDetail. I mean\, I think the adaptation plan is exemplary. I love the way the project. \nIs reusing materials on site and embraces the change as the adaptation and the fact that it can improve or become more of a habitat while also adapting. \nIs brilliant and I think it’s realistic and it’s pragmatic. And the idea that the you know\, the concrete walkway can be becomes a foundation for a future pathway that can easily be raised. \nI mean\, to me that just is so beautifully logical. That I\, I think I have a lot of confidence in what’s been. \nPresented and you know\, as far as the comments by the speakers\, I mean\, thank you for your comments. \nI\, there’s almost nothing I heard that I don’t agree with a hundred percent I mean I think that urban areas are overrun with with with dogs and you know if the fishing is a problem I think I don’t know what is our ability to comment or mandate\, you know\, no dogs or no fishing or whatever\, but I think it should be considered and I think you know it kind of in a way is that. \nCross purposes with the main mission of the of the parks. So I I really agree with that and and I think that there can be some some open spaces public open spaces in the Bay Area that don’t have dogs. \nI think that’s okay. I think it’s \nGary\, can I chime in? Others please weigh in too. I think one of the beautiful aspects of the design. \nWith the 1\,700 foot long walkway out to where the Guys are currently parking their cars and fishing. \nI think there may be some self selection. I mean\, I do support having some. Clear guidance and\, well\, not even guidance mandate if that’s if that’s\, if that can be done. \nEffectively and I think it probably can but I’m really hopeful that the people who currently fish there and I support people being able to fish and as people made the comments you know I think they agree if people want to fish there should be places that they can fish from but this is not one of those places and I think the design is going to really help. \nAccomplish that and the fishermen can go somewhere else where they can. Pack their car and fish. So I\, and\, I think\, you know\, the question about dogs\, obviously that needs some real\, guidance on that point\, but. \nBut I like the fact that the design is assisting in some of these objectives. Yeah\, that’s a great point. \nSo I do\, I do think it’s an exemplary project. I think that it will serve as an example. \nYou know\, we see a lot of communities where\, you know\, we’re reviewing sites. Communities that are doubling down on marginal sites for long-term development that will ensure expensive mitigation for as long as you know we can see into the future. \nAnd the fact that this project is seeing it differently I think is a amazing inspiration for the area. So I’ll leave it at that. \nThank you. Oh\, Stefan. Yeah\, I went just\, again\, thank you for a great presentation. \nAnd this is maybe the second or third. Project that we’ve seen that is sort of thinking about. \nThe shoreline as an opportunity to sort of subtract and revert a portion back to nature. And I think that’s just really\, again\, exemplary. \nThis is clearly sort of the largest scaled. Proposal that we’ve seen. I want to see something about public access. \nAnd I also want to say something else\, but just to try to sort of put a Put a bow on this discussion that we’re having. \nI think that the party of public access is really strong and I really command that. And\, the idea that you would maintain sort of equitable public access for the entire length of the park. \nI really appreciate that. This idea of creating a public space that can nurture. In an increase in habitat. \nFrom what we see there today. It seems really difficult to make that decision today about Should this. Should this park be? \nPrimarily for birds or primarily for people or primarily\, for fishermen\, fisher people\, however you want to say it. \nIn my mind what seems more important is that there’s sort of a management structure and a stewardship structure that can actually adapt. \nThe use of the park over time. In the same way that the users of the space today didn’t have access to it 50 years ago. \nBecause it wasn’t public at all. And so I would sort of wanna be careful with the like. \nMaybe predetermining the balance. Between public access. And wildlife compatibility today. But I think it’s really important that that’s monitored. \nIn the same way that DGNRA and other stewards around the bay have been actively making these decisions to respond to. \nIncreases in habitat populations or challenges\, the certain habitat populations and sort of how that actually mixes with dogs and the success of places. \nThere’s certainly value to. \nBringing public access and bringing people to a space where they can actually see the functioning of the bay. \nWhen we understand how limited those are. And just the value of that for a population that needs to learn and understand. \nWhat’s happening to the Bay. I think it’s hard to. I think it’s hard for us to lose sight of that. \nThe other thing I think that I’m struggling with is I shouldn’t say struggling because I think this is sort of a challenge is this idea that The site is being reinterpreted. \nFrom a runway. Environment to something different that we’re seeing today. And so I’m curious about sort of the historic orientation to that. \nAnd this idea that you can actually now be in the space that used to be the sort of\, it’s totally fabricated. \nIt’s this military structure and you’re sort of Taking pieces of that away and creating this nature\, but How do we interpret that? \nHow do we learn about it? Are there? Is that exclusive to the learning center? Is there other places that that can be interpreted. \nIs there sort of. Like. You know\, this kind of interpretation where somebody’s telling you how to view the site\, is there other stuff about like at how you interpret the ground plane and where you just know where you learn and sort of understand. \nI can look at the concrete and I understand what that used to be. Versus look at the Deacon Post granted and I understand that that’s actually what’s been changed. \nThat whole sort of like morphological interpretation\, I think there’s a huge value. To that because \nWe don’t\, we don’t necessarily realize people not realize that this portion of the bay was just bay. \nAnd so now you’re creating like a second nature which. You can tell people about the history of what people made and then decided to subtract. \nThat’s also sort of makes it very unique and valuable\, but that historic layer and who manages that\, who tells about it\, who has that expertise I think is. \nReally important and to Gary’s point this starts to get beyond like what cities do. So I think it’s just really important to continue to kind of foster the right stewardship for these kinds of places. \nI’m gonna stop talking there\, but that’s what’s on my mind. Yeah\, can I can I just say really quickly? \nI mean one of the things I really love is is that it preserves that one piece of concrete which really maintains the historic\, you know\, military edge\, you know\, that crisp industrial edge. \nWell\, wilding the site so you’re kind of having it both ways. I mean there’s a pretty strong you know pedestrian runway now that that\, you know\, keeps that edge intact for. \nA very long time. \nOkay. Cody\, comments. \nYeah\, I\, it makes me think of a couple of adjacencies. One\, I know the site really well. \nI taught myself to write a motorcycle on this pavement that you’ll be removing. \nI’m still a big fan of removing the thing but it’s it’s a heavily used site there have not all the activities that have happened there have been things that are building community. \nThere’s been a fair amount of \nRequirements for law enforcement\, right? Maintenance and law enforcement. I thought it was going to be a sideshow preserve for some time and I applaud the city for not making it a Seijo preserve. \nI think it’s a genuinely exciting site in a in an area that. It has a lot of direct community benefits in an area that where the community is growing. \nI’m the civil engineer\, so I have to ask simple engineering questions. It’s difficult for even those of us in the design community to really understand what sea level rise resilience looks like and what it will look like after we’re gone. \nBut the sections that we draw. You know they’re they’re based on the best available data we have. \nAnd that will change over time and the implementations will adapt as we get better data. But I\, when I see these plans and I look at how the\, the park would integrate into these future levies. \nYou know\, it’s the future levies that always I think make us scratch our hands is what is what is that ultimately really look and feel like? \nSo it’s not necessarily a comment on the design of this part\, which I think is really. Really thoughtful and already captivating. \nBut it’s more a thought of how does this\, how does the adaptation of this community over time. \nThe adjacencies to this park and this park. What does it really start to look and feel like? \nBecause it’s. I just don’t think any of us really get it. And whether you’re in East Palo Alto. \nOr you’re out of the\, to point. What does it look like when we build these levies up to 16 and a half? \nAnd\, I don’t necessarily have a comment on how the park is laid out to best. \nMake that up\, that adaptation is\, thoughtful as possible. But\, yeah\, it’s sort of the first thing that comes to mind is I see this\, levy shooting out to the west and shooting out to the east. \nTrying to wrap my brain around\, you know\, what does that really look and feel like over time? So. \nI’ll stop my comments there. Otherwise I’m a I’m a big proponent. \nI’ve spent more time on the specific site than I care to admit. I haven’t fished from there. \nI haven’t burned rubber in my car\, but I can when I first saw the plans I was very excited about what this place can be. \nSo Cudi\, I have a follow-up question. You know\, we were asking question 3. \nYou know\, what would be a trigger for initiating sea level rise adaptation measures and I’m just curious\, are you starting to really Analyze that at this stage. \nWell\, I think we all rely on the best available data. Right? And when we project out\, to 2050 and beyond the accuracy the precision of that data diminishes. \nRight\, so I think that the. We have to have some faith in how the design community will continue to. \nTo respond to to the available data. And we’re not it’s not gonna be an isolated case where we see it that will be a point. \nWe’re gonna see it everywhere. So I think it’s probably really difficult to assign prescriptive measures for any any given site\, but I do think that I mean\, guess there’s a lot of faith in the future communities of leaders and designers. \nTo be as thoughtful or more thoughtful than we’re able to be now about how to respond to the evidence. \nContinue to collect and and review data and then respond in time because you’re not gonna you’re not gonna be able to build this elevated platform. \nWhen it’s underwater\, you know\, half the year. Yeah\, I mean\, I’ve got to believe that the The tree is going to be centered around valuation of risk\, you know\, people. \nCould\, you know\, could injure themselves or be killed\, you know\, fall in water\, you know\, and then sort of frequency of inundation and I don’t know how much work is being done at this point. \nBut I’m sure cities around the Bay are thinking about that even though it is still some years off. \nCan I just mention maybe a really good precedent for that would be the\, Sausalito Mill Valley path\, which accommodates thousands of bikers I think on weekends and it floods you know regularly I mean you didn’t use staff to check the tides before you went for bicycle ride\, but now that’s getting more common. \nSo at some point\, you know\, it’s going to get inconvenient and\, and I think it’s self regulating. \nThat’s a great point\, Gary. Thank you. I’d like to begin by thanking the members of the public that have joined us this evening. \nI think it’s always a really important part for us to hear one’s voice. As residents\, neighbors\, users. \nI think it’s really important. And one of the things I think that really struck me was \nIt really made me wonder about the term or the usage of the word park. Because I think it’s a bit of a loaded word and I think that we think about these things in certain ways. \nBecause I think a lot of the conversation has been about and I think it’s very important one is How do we strike this balance? \nBetween creating a place that’s good for people and a place that’s really puts nature out first. \nAnd I think\, you know\, when most people think of parks\, they think of about being supporting people’s people like human activity first. \nAnd I think with this project. I think part of what we love so much about it is that it is trying to allow people access to witness natural processes at work and it’s really about nature first and I think that’s really important and and I think we need to think about it as being nature first and I that’s where I think we really appreciate about it. \nSo I agree if there’s ways to. Manage the human activities to try and allow nature to be. \nReally protected and to succeed on its own. I think that’s really important if we can. \nAnd find a way forward. On the question of adaptation. I think it’s\, I think there’s another thing about parks\, which again\, maybe I don’t know if it’s nineteenth or eighteenth century thinking but there’s a sense of the the permanence of these things that the desire for them to be something that is accessible to us and to future generations all time. \nAnd I think really we’re in a world today and particularly in a place like this where sea level rise happens that adaptability is this notion of adaptability or resilience. \nI think it’s really about the changeability that nature is constantly in flux and particularly these days and perhaps the flux is something that’s human-induced but The fact that the park could retreat could. \nBe adjusted by future generations\, I think is actually appropriate. It’s the way we should be thinking about the edges. \nOf where we build where it meets nature. We should really allow for that line to be a soft one. \nYou know\, nature doesn’t very rarely works in hard lines. It’s always gradual transitions from one thing to the other. \nAnd I think that’s what this park is trying to do\, even the beach\, I think. How’s that opportunity to be something that It’s there probably because there’s some currents or some sands that are allowing that to be deposited into. \nExtend that a bit\, but I don’t what I’m not hearing and I don’t think we should be is. \nOh\, it’s gonna be permanent. Something that’s going to be protected forever and ever. It’s if it gets in the data eventually then that’s what nature wanted. \nRight? So I think that kind of soft approach is really what this project calls for and the way we should be thinking about these kinds of spaces these days. \nSo. And then\, so when it comes to this question of event frequency and triggers\, I think it’s really. \nWe’re gonna have to see what. I’m hoping that future generate we’ve learned enough to know that. \nWe really need to take our cues in these kinds of places from what nature is telling us and to listen and not try to. \nPut the human stamp on it. So\, I think we have to put a little bit of faith in our future leaders to to be sensitive and to recognize that. \nGood. Thank you. Tom\, comments. On these questions. \nYeah. \nBut everybody said everything already. Okay\, I would just touch for a minute. On the assumptions that are built into both. \nHe’s big levees that Cody was talking about. And the. Continual assumption about what a park program is supposed to be. \nAnd that we treat every park. With the same list of of concerns and demands on And\, I don’t think it should be that way. \nI think this one here in terms of. How it reaches apart? Should be very\, it’s a very raw and almost severe idea here\, which is all we’re doing is removing and chopping up concrete. \nIt has a coolness\, but that you don’t wanna lose by softening too much. First I was worried\, but I think that It needs to just be dim\, demonstrating the the rawness of ripping up concrete and stacking in a few places and then declare a really clear purpose that it’s going to be\, I think in this case\, Why not test it for the birds for the for the least turn? \nIt’s easily adaptable to something else that doesn’t work\, but it’s going to have a clear purpose. \nYou don’t know why it’s there\, I think. I would navigate for very\, very heavy on. \nYou know\, making all that work. They were the dogs\, get rid of the fishing. Give it the best chance it can and then if it’s not so great. \nIn the future\, you don’t know\, you can. Change it. Also I thought\, Stefan raised an interesting point\, you know\, about interpretation. \nWho’s going to tell this story? I don’t know. Who’s got money or or timer? \nExperts use to do that. The could be some something done like that. There could be something that BCDC concerned itself with\, you know. \nBcds was started. By people that were saving the bay and then Ron Blatman\, you\, and\, our friend Ron Blatman. \nHmm. \nHe\, he\, he did that series saving the bay. And it was about about. \nNot fill it. And this is about something different\, like saving the bay too. Ought to tell the story. \nThere ought to be somebody that’s doing this that’s kind of in charge that this is like the documentarian of the this and this is a great example of one chapter in a in a thing like that and I think it could be the charge of BCDs to think about. \nWho’s telling this story and how? It’s critically important to advancing the us. That’s it. \nThanks\, Tom. Okay\, I just want to make a couple of comments myself. And I don’t want to repeat what other people have said because it’s been said very elegantly. \nI do wanna comment just pick up on question for the question of public access and You know\, I’m really persuaded by what we heard that the\, you know\, It is about nature. \nConstructed elements should be secondary. I don’t think that we need to be too concerned about\, you know. \nStructures for weather protection. I don’t think this is that kind of park. I think it’s it’s something else and there are Fabulous\, really great. \nAreas of public space that are being built. Just me here where there’s protection and lots of opportunities for people who want shade and so on. \nSo. You know\, this is\, this is about something else. So I don’t have a concern that\, you know\, I think the design is going in the right direction\, with that approach. \nAnd I also\, I mean\, just\, I was just thinking about how often we are. Reviewing typically reviewing Bay Trail and we talk about safety of\, you know\, commuter cycling or cycling versus pedestrians. \nAnd maintenance and operations. And again\, I think in this park\, if this is something that is not so relevant here\, not relevant actually. \nSo there is a a generously proportioned space that goes 1\,700 feet. Out along beer to the water. \nAnd people will. So-organized and people will It’s their have their children with their bicycles\, they can be on the bicycles\, if they’re walking they can be walking. \nAnd I think that is perfectly. Fine in\, I don’t think we need to have\, you know\, strips of planting to delineate. \nThe bicycles and so on. And\, because to the point about stewardship. \nI see. Time. This park will evolve\, these spaces will evolve. So I’m not really concerned about the issues that we are often quite concerned about for for different reasons. \nThere is one thing that I want to emphasize that\, someone spoke about\, at some lengths. \nI\, do think that the the distance is fairly significant for people who have accessibility concerns I think just being very confident that people can get across a long stretch of decomposed granite and that that decompose granite will be maintained data quickly and be stable and so on is important. \nIt sounds like a real detail at this stage\, but I think you know\, the big moves of\, surfacing\, being established at this point in the design. \nSo. I would just encourage you to think about that. And Yeah\, I\, the points are being made about the beach. \nI was just looking at these questions for anything else. We should be\, commenting on\, but I think everything has been said very clearly. \nSo look\, I think that concludes. The board discussion. Do you want me to highlight critical points or are you fine\, Ashley\, with what’s been said? \nGreat. One thing I know. Yes. Yeah\, I just the interpretation thing that Stefan and Tom\, we’re talking about. \nAfter working with the Torium for 15 years. I mean\, I think I’m a proponent of. \nTo some extent of non didactic learning like self-discovery and I was thinking about how the marina green You know\, at a low tide you can see\, you know\, the landfill\, you know\, call on Corinthian capitals and keystones\, you know\, all the rubble from the earthquake. \nWhich is kind of which shows itself at low tide and there’s something about No visiting there\, you know\, 10 times or 20 times and then all of a sudden you discover this and start asking the question like\, well\, how did that\, you know\, how did those old building parts get down there and then you\, you know\, it tells a whole story about the marina. \nSo anyway\, I rather than signage\, I don’t I’m not sure that that’s what you were referring to\, but but I think there’s kind of a beauty in letting it be what it’s going to be. \nAnd there’s plenty of runway out there for people to. You know\, just to build on that too on the question of stewardship. \nI mean\, it’s so inspiring to see so many of you from the community here tonight speaking about stewardship really and so I think we already have the beginning of\, you know\, and perhaps the core. \nYou know\, what will become an important part of long term stewardship of the park\, which is really strong community advocacy and involvement and dialogue. \nContinued dialogue with the city really close dialogue to address. Questions and potentially management issues\, which as Stefan pointed out\, you know\, might not be here today. \nBut in 20 years time there may be a raft of different issues that are being dealt with. So I think that\, you know\, whether there’s some formalization of that as this design and this process continues. \nYou know for you all to think about but i’m really pleased to see this level of commitment from the community. \nIt both very well for project. Okay\, so look with that\, I think we’ll wrap up the. \nThe board discussion. And at this point. We can move to a project proponent response Would the team like to respond or comment on what’s been? \nDiscuss tonight. I just wanna say thank you very much. This went. Exactly as we had hoped. \nA great insight and ideas. Welcome the board to the DPA. Project team. Thank you to the community for you guys showing up. \nYou guys are always great. So we have a lot of work to do and you know as I said We’ll be trying to wrap up 30% design in this spring and then we’ll have a lot of activity around. \nFundraising to try and get money to actually. Make it happen And from the city’s perspective\, I just want to thank you all for your time and your thoughtful comments. \nWe’ve been excited to bring this project forward. And we’re going to be continuing to be just as excited to have this project built. \nSo thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Thank you for making the trip over from Alameda to here too. \nIt is so much better to be able to see people and talk about. The issues face to face. \nSo. Thank you. \nYeah. Yeah\, there is a question. Do we want to see this project again? \nI don’t\, you know\, I know we often need a second review\, but given what we have. \nYou know\, given the presentation\, the comments that we’ve made back \nI don’t think we need to see it again. Unless it would be helpful to you to come and have a another conversation at some point during the process. \nSo Do others agree with me on this or? Yep. \nI would have confidence in this team to do it. \nAccording to what’s what we’ve seen \nOkay\, so yeah\, so we don’t need to see this project again\, but we would certainly like to keep. \nTrack of it. And stay in touch with you on it. Yeah. \nIs that okay with you? Good. And we’ll the staff will follow through on all of the points we’ve made tonight. \nThank you. Okay. Look\, we’ll take a 5 min break to set up and we’ll try and keep it to 5 min so that we can get started with the second review. \nThank you. Access. \nOkay. \nOkay. Yeah. Yes. Okay. \nOkay. Nice to meet you in person. Thanks for your support. We differ to local jurisdictions. \nThat is all you. Sounds good. Okay. We’re gonna. \nYeah. Okay. Okay. Yeah. \nIt’s great. \nWe’re going to continue with the second part of the meeting now. Welcome. And this is the second review of the 13\, point\, 0\, one\, shoreway life sciences development project. \nAnd. We are all familiar with the order but I’ll just run through it very quickly. \nWe’ll have BCDC staff do an introduction overview\, you will then present. We’ll have clarifying questions\, public comment\, board discussion and summary and then a brief response. \nWe appreciate you coming back and for the additional work that you’ve done. And we’re looking forward to hearing. \nThe issues that we raised last time addressed so with that We’ll\, hand over to our permanent analyst who is Shruti for this project. \nSo Shr\, please go ahead. \nThank you. Chair McCann and good evening board members. My name is Shruti Sinha. \nI am a permanent analyst at BCDC. The second project for review tonight is a life sciences redevelopment project in Vermont proposed by 4 coronals. \n4 coroner’s properties. Please note that the staff report that was mailed out\, ously indicated that this will be the project’s first DRB review. \nIn fact\, the project was first reviewed by the DRB in August\, the twentieth. 23 and tonight will be the project’s second review. \nBefore we discuss the project\, we would like to acknowledge that the majority of the land in this area was once water and historic tidal flats. \nLocated near Lampson. The unseated ancestral homeland of the Rahmatush Oloni. \nWe offer gratitude to the indigenous peoples who are the original stewards of the Bountiful Natural Resources of the Bay Area. \n1301 shoreway is a 6.9 one acre site at 1301 showway road in the city of Vermont\, San Mateo County. \nJust outside of the Redwood Chores waterfront community. \nThe satellite map on the right shows the project site outlined in yellow. The project site is bounded by some lane to the northwest. \nShorway Road to the Southwest. A PG and E substation to the south. And Vermont Creek to the east. \nThe site shares the Vermont Creek shoreline with 10 Twin Dolphin and 200 Twin Dolphin. \nBoth reviewed by the DRB. \nIn 2022. Sure way road is adjacent to and runs parallel with Highway One. \nThe existing permit for the project site was originally issued in 1\,982 in association with the construction of a 48\,000 square foot building which is now a medical office building. \nThe permit was amended once for construction of a private sports court. The overall public access requirements of the permit include. \nAppropriate landscaping. A 10 foot wide pedestrian path. No fewer than 3 benches. No fewer than 2 public access signs. \nAnd an 8 foot wide connector path on the north side of the tennis court. \nThis is a Google Street View capture of the site from Shawway Road from the 101 freeway. \nThe project site is shown at the center with a hotel campus to the northwest and a PG and E substation to the southeast. \nThis Google Street View capture of the site. \nIs from Sem Lane\, which terminates here. To the right you can see the parking lot of 1\,301 of the 1301 shoreway campus to the left is the existing Vermont creek trailhead marked by a public shore sign. \nThis is a photo of Vermont Creek from a staff site visit in 2\,022. It was taken from Shawway Road\, north of the 1301 shoreway site. \nIn this photo\, 13 or one shore away would be to the right of the frame as indicated. The creek is at the center\, flanked by marsh vegetation. \nAnd the building on the left is 10 twin dolphin\, also known as the former Oracle campus\, a project previously reviewed by the DRB as mentioned. \nThis slide provides some regional context for parks and public access areas in the vicinity. \nThe project side is outlined in yellow. Public access paths are shown in purple lines while the bay trail is shown in a thick blue line. \nArea shaded in dark green represent BCDC priority use areas for wildlife purposes. And areas shaded in light green represent public parks. \nAdjacent project sites\, 10 Twin Dolphin and 200 Twin Dolphin. \nCan be seen to the north and south of the project site. \nWith respect to the social setting of the project location\, the area is largely dominated by office buildings. Then BCdc’s community vulnerability mapping tool shows the project area as having moderate social vulnerability. \nAnd lower contamination vulnerability. \nIn this area\, the social vulnerability indicators in the seventieth percentile are for people with no vehicle. \nPeople with a disability. People of color. People with limited English proficiency and people with very low income. \nNote that there are some areas to the West that are identified as having high and highest social vulnerability. \nVulnerability indicators in the seventieth percentile for this higher vulnerability area includes children under 5. \nPeople over 65 and alone. People with no high school degree. People with limited English proficiency. \nAnd people\, people who are not US citizens and people with very low income. \nMoving on to sea level rise. BC DC’s Flood Explorer Map shows what 24 inches of sea level rise would look like if the site remained unchanged. \nThe site is outlined in yellow for the medium to high risk aversion scenario. 24 inches of sea level rise is equivalent to the mean higher high water level. \nWhich would not cause any flooding on the site. \nHere’s a zoomed out picture of the map\, the same map showing. Flooding in surrounding areas at 24 inches of sea level rise. \nThis map shows with 66 inches of sea level rise would look like at the site. If the site remained unchanged. \nHere again\, the project side is outlined in yellow. For the medium to high risk conversion scenario\, 66 inches of sea level rise is equivalent to the 100 year storm at mid century. \nAnd mean higher high water. In the year 2090. As you can see\, 66 inches of sea level rise would cause overtopping at the project site. \nThis is a summary of the Bay Pine policies and guidelines that apply to this project. The proposal should provide public access that is clearly visible. \nUsable\, visually accessible. Complementary to the visual quality of the bay\, shoreline and surroundings. \nConnective and takes advantage of the base setting. \nIn addition\, Steph\, we’ve also included some questions by staff that we would like the board to consider. \nSpecifically\, we would like the board to consider the legibility and public feel of the proposed public access. \nAny additional ideas for public access improvement. The legibility of connections to and through the site for pedestrians and cyclists. \nThe adequacy of the revised signage plan. \nOur apologies. We seem to have. Been disconnected from the presentation. I was trying to share it again. \nNo\, but that was our very last slide. And I only had one other thing to add was that the\, we would like the board to consider the advocacy of the revised signage\, plan and possible triggers for flood adaptation measures at the site. \nAt this point\, does the board have any clarifying questions? \nNone for me. Does anyone else have clarifying questions? \nNo. In that case\, I will turn the floor over to Renee Behan of SWA to present the project. \nThank you\, Streaty. \nThank you. Distinguished board members\, BCDC staff and members of the public. It’s my honor to present 1301 shoreway. \nI’m presenting today on behalf of\, our client\, 4 Corner property who owns it and also representing the larger consultant team joined by Craig Bachelor from DGA Architecture. \nBKF\, Raquel Fontas\, and Moffat Nichols who are on the zoom and available if need be. \nThis is our second presentation and I’d like to maybe start by thanking\, BCDC staff\, Shruti\, and Ashley for all of their assistance. \nAlso very much appreciate the first round of comments from our August meeting. For those who weren’t here\, I’ll try to make sure you have all of the same information through this presentation. \nI thought we had a fairly positive feedback and review. I think the question was a level of detail\, you know\, more detail about the architecture\, more detail about the architecture\, more detail about the architecture\, more detail about the and specificity about the program\, clarification about flood risk. \nRelationship to courtyard and of course the potential accessibility of the private sports court for the users of the DCDC path. \nI’ll try to address all of those issues through the presentation today. \nAnd also\, Try to not be too\, repetitive of the presentation BCTC just gave. \nYou know\, our site located off 101 sits on this important kind of apex between not just Vermont but the city of San Carlos and Redwood City itself. \nVermont Creek itself outlined in blue kind of goes across all 3 entities\, Vermont\, San Carlos\, and Redwood City. \nThe park\, the site itself is adjacent to 200 twin dolphin and 10 twin dolphin. \nAnd I will say that we lean heavily on those approved submittals to make sure that this was designed as a single. \nEcology in terms of plant life materiality\, accessibility\, and we do plan to continue to work with those other groups to develop more of a regional signage and wayfinding system. \nTo the dash purple\, you can see\, the BCDC lot\, I’m sorry\, the Bay Trail itself. \nWhich we do not connect to directly\, but\, are adjacent to. \nOur city\, one of the unique things about our BCDC development is that actually our property owners do not actually own. \nThe parcel that is currently designed that is owned by SBCA. Which has fully endorsed through letters and communication with BCDC\, the plan that we’re submitting. \nAs Truthy mentioned\, to the south is the PG and E transformer. \nSite to the north is Sem Lane and Vermont’s corporate yard beyond that shoreway road and 100\, and one to the south. \nThe maybe a little clarification of what Truthy presented\, the original plan accessible area in purple originally submitted in 1\,981 in 1985 that plan was amended to include a private tennis court that you see in the upper. \nRight hand detailed blowup. Our site has an existing trail and as I mentioned\, it does not connect directly to the larger bay trail. \nIt’s a little bit of a one off. You enter the trail\, the trail head is at the end of Sam Lane. \nAnd then it comes out just west of 1010 twin dolphin drive. The bubbles show that if you cross the street crossing\, twin dolphin drive\, you can\, connect to\, to the larger bay trail. \nAs Truthy mentioned\, our site is just under 7 acres. The\, you can see that BCDC jurisdiction line. \nThere are 3 seating nodes\, which I’ll demonstrate in a minute here. An existing creek trail. \nAccess\, icular access is off of both shoreway and Sem Lane currently. \nViews pulled back first from the 101 the creek itself is not detectable from this area. \nIt’s it’s about 600 feet off of shoreway drive. There’s no visible connection and it’s it’s a little bit of a walk without much signage upfront. \nWay. Again\, there’s no indication that there’s actually a trail down there from a shore way. \nAnd so you can see the images looking down. Looking at the existing building and then looking at the parcel adjacent to the PG and E. \nSubstation. \nFrom the site itself currently in a bit of disrepair the trail head in the upper right hand corner one of the seating and trash nodes\, one of 3\, they’re all pretty much. \nIn the same condition and then the slightly improved node adjacent to the private tennis courts down in the lower right. \nJust a little bit more. The trail has\, although it’s actually in pretty firm\, pretty good shape\, it’s accessible. \nYou could\, you could easily roll a\, a bike or a wheelchair\, through it. \nBut again\, I think the biggest issue is just identity and kind of getting people to understand that this is a public place and you’re welcome to join. \nFlood map in the larger area. I think last meeting we clarified that that FEMA levy is on the other side of the creek in the Redwood City side. \nOur site is in a zone X\, which is a minimal flood hazard. Currently the site is more or less at 10 with the existing a trail sitting between elevation 10 and 11 5. \nOur proposal is to bring the minimal height. Up at the trail to 12.5. And then to have some variation. \nSo it would basically vary between 12 5 and elevation 15. And I think this is one of the one of the questions that you guys had last time in terms of. \nHow the grading\, the burning\, the accessibility kind of ties new to old. Buildings will be elevated to elevation 12 per the city of Vermont regulation. \nI’m consistent with FEMA and again our minimal elevation would be 12 5 with the burning. \nGoing up as high as 15 and then meandering between 1413 and down to the 12 5. Little more detail of the contouring. \nThe path itself will remain relatively flat other than the connection to some lane. Where you basically slope the walkway down to meet grade. \nSome data on what’s being proposed existing\, ing proposed obviously the site remains 6.9 acres publicly accessible DCDC space is going from 57.6 to 83.6. \nLandscape area is increasing from 51\,000 to 56\,000. DG path and program nodes increasing from 6\,500 to 9\,100. \nMulti-use sports court. Which we are making publicly accessible is an additional 4\,700 feet. \nThe auxiliary sports court kind of the workout area adjacent to it is an additional 5\,008 8 5\,800 feet. \nBike spaces we’re adding 10 public parking spaces we’re dating 3 sidewalk\, new sidewalk. \nAlong some lane\, which will demonstrate is an additional 7\,700 square feet of accessible space. The bench seating going from 8 to 19. \nGoing from 2 to 4 signs and adding 2 fitness nodes. We’ll get into the details on that as we go through the presentation. \nSo again\, from a grading perspective\, existing grade on site\, 10 more or less at 10. And at the berm more or less 11. \nGoing to a minimum\, 12 5 at the berm and the buildings go up to 12. \nThese are the key to the sections are up in the\, in the upper right hand corner. So this is through the first building. \nSecond\, the wrong way. Second section is through the courtyard. And again\, the courtyard going up to 14. \nThe berm is going up to 14. Along the BCDC easement and up to 1415 in areas of the courtyard as well. \nAnd then adjacent to the parking structure\, again\, 12. And then going up as high as 15 when we go adjacent to the PG and E. \nTransformer station. \nOn the question\, so this satisfies\, Bcdc’s\, 2\,000\, and 50 requirement on the question of 2\,100 you know is there advocate room to go up an additional 6 feet. \nYes\, there is taking a 3 to one slope up from the existing top of bank. We can easily hit elevation 18. \nAnd accessibility from the parking lot is not an issue. That we would also be willing to work\, you know\, 2050 and beyond with adjacent property owners. \nIf there was another approach to developed in\, in time. \nThe signage program\, we’re adding for signage starting again at the beginning of some lane with just kind of a identity sign that there’s a public shore in this area. \nThe first node at the end of science some is more of an educational wayfinding regional wayfinding hoping to orient people to where they are and how to get to the larger trail system. \nFocusing on birds. Naturalized birds in the area in the third node and then focusing on plant and plant life in the fourth. \nNote for the signage. So again\, existing. Existing intersection on SEM and shoreway\, no sign\, no walkway. \nNo. Kind of clues whatsoever. That there’s a path. And then the\, the proposed. \n6 foot walkway from shoreway all the way back. Public signage and you can see the new building starting to come into the landscape here. \nAbout halfway down the block is the courtyard between the 2 buildings. You see the parking structure in the background. \nSo there’s basically a space where the 2 lobbies face each other and there’s an amenity space for. \nThe building users. And\, you continue your access for the BCDC easement. Second signage at the end of some lane is kind of an active note. It’s where you park. \nIt’s where you deal with your bike in terms of repairs or parking and that sort of thing. \nIt’s also where you orient yourself. So that’s sorry. This includes a Parker Station\, the first of 3 stations along the court. \nSo we’ll get into the detail in this in a second\, but just to snippet of what you’ll find at the end of some lane as you approach on your bike or park your car. \nOr take the new walkway down to the area. The second node as we said\, this is a more passive node. \nThere’ll be informational signage about burning bird life along the material here. Just a snippet of the kind of larger regional landscape will be included. \nIn that\, in the development. The third node has orientation back into the architectural courtyard. \nThe private courtyard\, but also designed as a passive node preceding. Additional signage and information. \nStorytelling about plant life along the Bay Area. And then finally\, the sports court area. \nAs I mentioned\, we are going to open the court to the to the public in addition to being developed as a\, to the public\, in addition to being developed as a multi-use court\, to the public\, in addition to being developed as a multi-use court. \nThere’s a manetized se \nSo\, a little bit more detail now on each node. The first node will include a bicycle repair station\, a fitness node\, again educational way finding signage. \n10 bike parking spaces and 3 vehicle spaces as well as a new entry to the to the path itself. Fully accessible. \nSo existing condition at the end of Sem and the trail head. And the proposed condition. New buildings off to the right. \nThe next node\, is where there’s visual connectivity. To the existing courtyard. \nAgain\, the idea here is to continue with the decomposed granite trail. Develop a unique signage program for the plant life of the area\, provide seating\, I’m trying to use natural material\, wood\, and other materials that kind of support the sense of a natural space. \nExisting node and sitting area looking back to the parking area and the proposed node. And although\, you know\, the courtyard itself is going to remain private\, It’s a singular ecology. \nIt’s the same plant material\, same plant life carried from the creek through and into the project itself. \nAnd then\, finally the sports court itself\, I think\, on your recommendation\, which was a good one\, to give a little bit of scale and variety\, we combined 2 nodes with the existing sports court in this case. \nSo the space is very flexible. It can be used\, you know\, basketball\, paddle ball. \nIt has the exercise nodes and it also has ample seating around the perimeter. \nSo the proposed sports court. Fencing on the PG and E. And outer property line but open both to the to the trail. \nTo the trail to the north and to the west. \nAgain\, the parkour area\, it’s one of 4\, 4 along the trail. \nExisting plant leaf\, plant life\, trees anyway\, that our verse report has\, deemed\, the existing plant to be either in poor or very poor condition. \nThere’s no trees that we deem\, are necessary to\, salvage out there. So we’re adding a substantial. \nNew and improved. Plant palette and by improved\, I mean plants that are more appropriate for the environment. \nA lot of plants\, a lot of trees adjacent to the PG and E station and the parking garage and then with greater transparency obviously as you get to the courtyards itself. \nAgain\, same plant material on the trail and in the courtyard so that there’s both visual and ecological connectivity between the spaces. \nPlant pellet. It’s and again this is similar to the plant palette at 210 twin dolphin drive. \nAnd then the ground cover pellet itself. \nSo in summary\, That’s our presentation. Hopefully\, we were successful in giving you a better sense of what’s being proposed. \nBoth from a physical and emotional perspective of how the project feels. \nYeah. Okay\, thank you very much. That was very helpful. I was not at the original\, first presentation\, but from reading meeting notes\, I think you’ve put a lot of effort into communicating more detail\, which was a significant part of the comments previously. \nSo with that\, are there any questions from the board clarifying questions from the proponent? \nTo the proponent. \nAny questions? Yeah. Yeah\, thank you for the presentation. Thank you for coming back. \nOne question I had and I don’t remember if it was answer. Thank you for coming back. One question I had and I don’t remember if it was answered in the first meeting was you What is the anticipated maintenance of the area going forward. \nSo that it doesn’t fall into the kind of similar state of disrepair. \nYeah. Shorthy\, can you help me answer that? Is there a maintenance agreement? In place. \nThe final permit will include a maintenance condition. But. The. \nThe\, the applicants who will become the permitting. Can can determine how that will. \nHow that will take place. That agreement can be an internal agreement\, but they as co-permitees\, they will both be held to that maintenance condition. \nI think just speaking practically\, it’s absolutely in their best interest to make sure that it is maintained and doesn’t fall into disrepair. \nOkay\, thanks. Yeah. I think that’s my only question right now. \nTom\, any questions? \nNone for me. That’s pretty clear to me. \nOkay\, I just had one question about the multi purpose court. I don’t know how things work in Vermont\, but in San Francisco\, city of San Francisco\, Parks and Rick have a booking site\, you know\, where you can book courts and so you know that that courts available. \nIs there a similar system in the city of Vermont? We’re currently in discussion with the city and with Vermont in terms of how best to do that. \nThey they actually we presented this updated presentation last week and they were They asked the same question and they also are worried about\, well\, is it too open now? \nYou know\, are you going to get graffiti and that sort of thing? And I\, I don’t think so. \nI’ve worked in the area for decades and this is not a high crime or a graffiti kind of type of neighborhood. \nI think part of it is balancing the programs that are provided. For the communities that live in the area\, the communities that Shruti was mentioning. \nWell\, at the same time making sure that the courts are getting ample use. In other words\, we talked about paddle ball\, but we’re a little bit worried about that paddle ball will kind of overrun all the other programs that could happen here. Right. \nAnd\, yeah\, I mean. Some of these activities come and go as well. So. You know\, got to think long term\, but yeah\, the other side of that is that\, nothing would be better than seeing this. \nTrail overrun with people because it’s it’s a bit isolated and I think That’s the key is balancing something that’s gonna draw a lot of use\, but not have a single user group dominate how it’s used. \nI’m glad to hear the city is focusing on that as well because that will be the key to. \nPeople knowing about it and coming there. So\, yep. Yeah. Okay\, I think that concludes the questions. \nQuestions\, clarifying questions. We’ll move to public comment. Is there any public comment? \nThe board will have received a forwarded letter from the Steve\, in support of this project. But that was the only public comment that we were seen. \nAnd we did receive that letter and very Good to hear that we\, you know\, did not have that. \nInformation last time around. So we’re very pleased to hear the city is supporting the project. \nOkay\, we will move on from public comment. To broad discussion and advice. As we always do\, we have some questions to consider. \nThe question one is about\, you know\, public nature of the spaces and is the new is the more developed. \nScheme\, allowing for that. Are there any other improvements? Could enhance the public access experience? \nAnd the third question really is\, related to the scale\, the size of the buildings and\, you know\, is there a are they legible connections and\, you know\, how does that work. \nAnd then the fourth question is about the revised signage plan\, the adequacy of that. And the fifth one is Just\, again\, raising this question of flooding and adequacy of\, well\, the types of events and frequency that could trigger adaptive actions. \nSo that’s the way that question is framed. So. Look\, I’m gonna defer to the people who were here at the last meeting to provide comments and i think that was leo you were here and stefan and gary and Tom\, were you with your time too? \nI was here. \nYeah. Tom\, why don’t you just lead off with your reaction? \nWell\, you\, I. Maybe I don’t remember everything\, but I recall. I had 3\, 3 things\, only 3 things. \nOne was that the signage at the\, at the same way. Clearly directed people to the bay trail. \nThat that was probably handled. To just about safe crosswalk traffic table type crosswalk from the courtyard over to the trail. \nAnd 3\, I was concerned about the non public nature of basketball\, of the\, yeah\, tennis court. \nSo \nThose are my concerns. I would go ahead and say I think they’ve all been dressed. But. \nOkay. Good talk. Yeah\, well. \nAnything else you want to comment on or we’ll just go around the table here and get people’s \nI think I feel like it’s pretty simple they did what we asked him. \nYeah. Okay\, any other comments from the group Leo? \nNo\, I think\, you know\, I think Tom’s right. They did more\, more or less what we asked. \nI think the is still\, there was a general question that I don’t know that for me has been clearly answered\, which is Is everything been done to really make this section feel as public as possible? \nAnd I think perhaps part of that is smaller elements related to parking\, you know\, for example\, the parking spaces that are for the public. \nAre inside what probably will feel like. Our private parking lot because you know this whole area is about parking lots better on the other side of a curb cut. \nSo I don’t know if there’s anything that could be done to Further emphasize that you know maybe there needs to be an extra sign by the street or something to encourage folks to come in or the curb cut is pushed back in some way so that the it’s the parking is really seen as being part of the public realm and not private room. \nDid I? I thought I heard that there were 2 spaces at the end of Yeah\, I mean\, we don’t wanna put them in the street because then you’re blocking the the trail itself. \nCertainly we could put signage there. We could move up planting island and isolate those 3 and you know\, I think additional signage would would clarify that it’s BCDC. \nYeah\, I think\, the\, again\, it’s maybe small. Details that will help provide the cues for the public that it’s It’s okay to come in. \nThis is this is areas that you can be in. I said it doesn’t It could simply be the spaces are there\, but they’re lowered. \nStreet level and the curb cut is pushed inboard. But I think\, you know\, that’s something that you could work through what the details are. \nYes\, I hadn’t realized that you have to. Drive through the. The driveway into the parking field for the for the project. \nRight. \nYeah\, it would be more. \nIntuitive if you could just drive down. Same line and access those. Right. \nThere\, Craig reminds me\, there is parallel parking on some lane. If that’s a preferred designated area for YouCDC. \nParking. \nI guess we’d have to work with the city on that then. Yeah. No\, I think it’s\, I think it’s the spaces are fine. \nI think it’s just again about providing signage and clarity for the public. \nThanks\, you. Yeah. Stefan\, anything? No\, I think we talked about this a little bit before I think. \nYou know\, opening up this area. To public access. Thinking about what’s there today is a huge benefit. \nAnd like and I don’t want to sort of lose side of that and I would agree with Tom that the specific comments that we articulated before. \nAre being addressed very nicely. \nI think the \nI don’t think this merits Any discussion on our part\, but I do want to say that this question about timing of adaptation\, which is a concurrent theme tonight for these 2 projects and Not something that I think staff has specifically. \nAsked us in that way before. And it feels tough to address that here given. The Progress and improvements that we’ve made since the previous submittal. \nWhich again\, I don’t want to sort of lose sight of that. But I do think that. \nThis is sort of a future challenge. From staff that we need to think about how to best respond. \nYeah. Yes\, I don’t think that’s something we need to. Correct. Yeah\, incorporate into this review specifically\, but this is a new question that we’re receiving and I think it comes with it needs a lot of. \nThought and probably separate dialogue between staff and ourselves to really explore what that what you would like us to. Focus on when considering that question. \nOkay. Thank you for bringing that up. Gary. Yes\, yes\, I\, I agree the\, having the court be public is a huge improvement. So\, you know\, appreciate that. \nI think it’s really a game changer and the amount of detail and materiality that you’ve provided I think answers a lot of questions so I feel very good about that. \nCouple observations. The It looks like the level 15\, you know\, BERM is\, back at the courtyard\, I believe\, right? \nIt’s not on the\, You know\, it’s not the Bay Trail. It’s really the. \nLike the day trail remains at about 12. And the 15 protects the courtyard\, which I think is a good idea. \nSo I just thought There’s an interesting device observation that you know the private space is protected more than the public space but I think that that kind of you know makes sense but I just wanted to point that out you know I don’t know if the berm well I think\, I think we’re always a little skeptical about the Bs anyway because you know\, you just have one parcel and you can’t hold back the \nbay just on your parcel. So. You know\, that’s running comment\, you know\, that without the cooperation of your neighbors\, like you said\, I mean\, it really is not a solution. \nAnd so\, you know\, that’s why I always think about\, okay\, what if the neighbors don’t? \nPlay along\, you know. But that\, that is a comment\, about every project that we review. \nJust to clarify\, the the BERM goes to 15. At the PG and E station. So behind the ball court\, and then it fluctuates\, to 14 between 12\, 5 and 14 along the trail. \nOkay\, it’s minimum\, 12 5 and then 2\, 14\, wherever we could easily get it that higher. \nOkay\, great. And just one other comment. It was about the parking\, you know\, because in plan you see a pretty strong presence of parking lining the bay trail in the renders you don’t really see what is that impact. \nI think it’s okay to show the cars and to really\, you know\, figure out how to incorporate them into the design. \nI guess in some places where the there’s a node. Which is. Write up against parking\, you know\, the planting strip gets\, you know\, a little constricted there. \nSo. I don’t\, I think it’s just a comment to stop and you to just think about the screening that would need to occur there in order to keep those nodes\, you know\, really. \nActive and protected. So those are my comments. Thanks. Thank you. \nYeah\, look\, I think everything is being said. I just want to raise one comment\, which this is not something you can address at this time\, but. \nIn the projects that we’ve been reviewing in this part of the Bay\, the the number of parking spaces structured parking spaces that are required\, you know\, are if I added them all up over the projects we’ve reviewed within a probably 2 to 3\, radius of this site. \nIt’s a huge number and And I think there’s a almost a philosophical question in my mind\, which is\, you know\, just as we are being asked by staff to consider. \nAt what point do we adapt? And at what point are we able to\, you know\, confidently say that we need to. \nIncrease protection. Along the along the water’s edge by raising the elevation. I just feel like at some point we should be saying at what point Do we stop building? \nStructured parking. I think this is at the size that we’re currently doing it. I just can’t imagine that in 25 or 50 years time people will be driving to these buildings the way they are anticipated or the way the city anticipates. \nSo I mean I think the garage is 10 stories or 8 stories? 9\, 9. And it’s just a lot of parking and and a lot of cost to build it. \nSo I just would love. People who have to pay for developing. Projects like this. Somehow push this with these cities. \nTo really push them on this question because it seems It seems. You know\, like we are building in redundancy down the track\, which is unfortunate. \nSo this is not anything to be answered tonight\, but I just. It dismayed me to see all of this. \nI think you could say that the that providing less parking would provide one avenue to long-term adaptability. \nBecause the site could more easily be adapted for slide control purposes. I mean\, you could. \nLook at it to that lens that it allows more public space on the site that could be moved around. \nRight. Cody\, please. Wait. I wasn’t here the first time\, but I know this area. \nAnd I know that across the slew are\, FEMA accredited levees that are in a state of seclusion\, which is like. \nPurgatory for levees. Which\, which means that without raising them\, they’re no longer going to provide adequate flood protection. \nSo in the scenarios you have here. These berms would at some point need to be accredited levies and those are very specific design requirements if they’re providing flood protection through the FREEMA program\, they would. \nCould potentially be accredited levies which have very specific design requirements that would to have geometries associated with them\, write a certain\, driveable surface on top. \nAnd the only comment I have is if that were at some case and you know maybe 2\,100 is allows for other adaptations but if that geometry was going to affect your program. \nIn your design. It might be worth just doing that overlay. \nThank you. Okay\, I think that concludes the feedback. I just want to reiterate the\, appreciation for\, I mean\, big picture. \nThe transformation from what is there today to what you are proposing and with this added level of detail that we see is is you know really appreciated and And I think you’re doing a great service to the community by making this. \nImportant part of the public realm here. Actually available to people in a much more clear way than it was before. \nSo we really appreciate that and appreciate you coming back into the additional effort you’ve put into addressing the questions that were raised last time. \nIs there any\, comment that you’d like to make? \nNo\, I appreciate all the feedback. I mean\, I think the first ground made us feel confident that we were on the right track and Appreciate the feedback and note that\, you know\, this is a client that cares about the site and the ecology. \nThey’re small local developer firm and I think that it’s good to hear the positive feedback. \nThank you very much. Good. Great. Okay\, we’ll look that concludes the. \nThe review. I\, we\, we don’t need to see this project again. \nSo with that\, we will adjourn the meeting and I would like someone to propose a motion to adjourn. \nMove to adjourn. \nYeah. \nHello? Sorry\, I think Leah’s hand beat you\, Tom. Yes. Okay\, Tom\, second. \nSecond. \nAye. \nGreat. All those in favor. Bye. Okay\, we have a \nThere are no objections\, I am sure. So here in none\, the meeting is adjourned. \nSo thank you very much. Good night and staff. Thank you very much for all your continued hard work on both projects tonight. \nReally appreciate it. Thank you. \nOkay \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/january-8-2024-design-review-board-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Design Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240111T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240111T120000
DTSTAMP:20260525T222126
CREATED:20240130T040950Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250320T191038Z
UID:10000125-1704965400-1704974400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:January 11\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Enforcement meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance withSB 143 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \n9:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. \nPhysical Location \nMetro CenterBoard Room \n375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, CA 94105415-352-3600 \nLive Webcast \nJoin the meeting via Zoomhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/82124816434?pwd=LrQsC3appV0cSHTnxie2UYKxTaJTe7.1 \nSee information on public participation \n\n\nTeleconference numbers(816) 423-4282Conference code374334 \n\nMeeting ID821 2481 6434 \nPasscode642155 \n\n\nIf you call in by telephone: \n\nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourself\nPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak\n \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic CommentThe Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda.\nApproval of Draft Minutes from the November 9\, 2023\, and December 14\, 2023 Enforcement Committee meeting.\nEnforcement ReportStaff will update the committee on the current status of the enforcement program’s activities(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefings by the Richardson Bay Regional Agency (RBRA) and the City of Sausalito.The City of Sausalito’s and RBRA’s staffs will brief the Committee on each of the agencies’ progress implementing the settlement agreements executed in 2020 and 2021\, respectively\, to regulate illicit activities and conduct compensatory restoration projects in Richardson’s Bay.(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation // Staff Presentation\nHearing and Vote on a Recommended Enforcement Decision to Resolve Enforcement Case ER2000.004.00.The Committee will consider whether to support a recommended enforcement decision to enter into a settlement agreement to resolve a violation at 3025 Marina Drive\, City and County of Alameda.(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nHearing and Vote on a Recommended Enforcement Decision to Resolve Enforcement Case ER2021.044.00.The Committee will consider whether to support a recommended enforcement decision to enter into a settlement agreement to resolve a violation at 5 Blanding Lane\, Belvedere\, Marin County.(Rachel Cohen) [415/352-3661; rachel.cohen@bcdc.ca.gov].Presentation\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Meeting Minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				\nAudio Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2024/01/01-11-EC-audio-recording-1.mp3 \nTranscript \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and this meeting of the Bcdc. Enforcement Committee is here by call to order. My name is Marie Gilmore\, and I am chair of this committee \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for Commissioners\, including those attending at Beale Street. Please ensure that your video camera cameras are always on\, and please mute yourselves when you are not speaking. Our first order of business to day is to call the roll. Matthew\, please call the Roll Commissioners. Please unmute yourselves while he does this\, to respond\, and then mute yourselves \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: after responding. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning\, Commissioner Bielyn. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen\, here Commissioner Vasquez. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: here \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we have a quorum present\, and are duly constituted to conduct business\, and that brings us to item 3 on our agenda public comment period. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: in accordance with our usual practice\, and as indicated on the agenda. We will now have general public comment on items that are not on the agenda. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I believe\, Margie\, we have not received any general comments prior to the meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: We did share. We received one\, and it will be posted on our website. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for members of the public attending online. If you would like to speak either during the general public comment period or during the public comment period for an item on the agenda. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Please raise your hand in the zoom application by clicking on the participants. Icon at the bottom of your screen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and look in the box where your name is listed under attendees. Find a small palm icon on the left. If you click on that palm\, icon\, it will raise your hand. or if you are joining this meeting by phone\, you must Dial Star 9 to raise your hand\, then Dial star 6 on your keypad to unmute your phone. When the host asks you in order to make a comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The meeting hosts will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order that they were raised. After you are called upon you will be unmuted\, so that you can share your comments. Please announce yourself by first and last name for the record before making your comment \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for members of the public attending in person. Please queue up at the Speaker’s podium and wait to be called upon to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commenters are limited to 3Â min to speak. Please keep your comments respectful and focused. We are here to listen to any individual who requests to speak. but each speaker has the responsibility to act in a civil and courteous manner as determined by the chair. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We will not tolerate hate\, speech\, direct threats\, indirect threats\, or abusive language. We will mute anyone who fails to follow those guidelines. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Margie\, do we have any commenters? \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour\, for online? We do not have\, as well as in person. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commissioner Vasquez. Is there anybody? Are there any members of the public that which to make general comments at your location? \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: No\, there are not. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. The next item on our agenda. Approval of the draft minutes for I believe\, is at the last 2 meetings. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Staff. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: thank you. So committee members\, I would appreciate a motion and second\, to approve these meet meeting minutes. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Second\, second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: we have a motion from Commissioner Vasquez\, and a second from Commissioner Bill in Matthew. Would you please call the role \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Bielin? \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Aye. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Hi\, Commissioner Vasquez. \nBoardroom SX80: chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. thank you. The minutes are approved. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The next item on our agenda is the Enforcement report and the Enforcement policy manager\, Matthew Trujillo will now provide the enforcement. Matthew. \nBoardroom SX80: thank you good morning\, chair committee members and greetings\, while members of the public in attendance welcome\, and also welcome to \nBoardroom SX80: Michael in who is acting general counsel here to day while Greg is on vacation. \nBoardroom SX80: First is a case update. Since our last meeting on November ninth\, 2023. In the past 2 months we’ve opened 5 new cases. We resolved 7 cases\, and as of today\, there are 71 unresolved cases in the queue. \nwhich is a net change of negative 2. Since my last report. \nBoardroom SX80: Second\, I want to note for this committee that we have issued extensions of time to both the city of Sausalito and to the Rbra\, to remove 2 vessels from Richardson’s Bay. \nThese extensions of time were granted on a finding of good cause by the executive director\, and they were both reviewed and approved by General by the general counsel prior to distributing \nBoardroom SX80: the city’s extension\, was granted through March 30\, first 2024\, and Rbra’s extension was granted through February 20\, seventh\, 2024\, \nBoardroom SX80: and that concludes my report. I’ll be glad to entertain any. Follow up questions about the status of the Enforcement program from the committee. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Matthew. Do any members of the committee have questions for Matthew for comments? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, seeing none? Are there any members of the public who have comments or questions on the Enforcement report. \nBoardroom SX80: There’s none. Joe Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you very much. Well\, that moves us on to item number 6\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: which is briefings by the Richardson Bay Regional Agency\, or Rvra\, and the city of Sausalito. On the anchor out abatement and eel grass restoration efforts in Richardson’s Bay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: by both the Rb. Ra. And the city of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this time will the representatives or Rvra please identify themselves for the record. \nBrad Gross: Good good morning\, chair\, Giomore. This is Brad\, Gross\, executive director for Rvra with me today I have our harbor\, Master Jim Malcolm and our eel grass representative Rebecca Schwartz Lessberg from coastal polis policy solutions. I’d I’d like to begin with a quick apology. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: You’re jumping the gun just a tag. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I would also like to have the representatives for the city of Sausalito identify themselves for the record. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Hello! I’m Katie via the city of sustainability manager. \nBoardroom SX80: Clear. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Good morning\, Brandon Phipps\, community and Economic Development director with city of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Joan\, you’re muted \nJoan Cox: Joan Cox\, vice Mayor of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you both city of Sausalito and our Bra representatives for being here. Welcome? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And can I caution anybody? If you’re not \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: being speaking directly\, could you please mute yourself\, cause I’m hearing some whispers or feedback. I’m not quite sure where it’s coming from\, but if you can mute mute yourself if you’re not speaking\, it would be greatly appreciated \nJoan Cox: if I might\, as we also have Robert Mooney with us\, who is our field brass consultant. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Great. Thank you very much. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Sorry to interrupt. I think we also should have a \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Brian Mather from the police department. I’m not sure if he was promoted\, or if he is online. But \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: I was told that he was coming \nand \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: let me confer with him. I’m not seeing him on the attendee list. Sorry about that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so at this point I’m going to invite Adrian Kline to give her introduction to this this presentation\, Adrian. \nBoardroom SX80: Let’s see. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning. \nBoardroom SX80: everybody. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: so I have a quick little Powerpoint\, the purpose of which is really just to highlight in blue text\, the settlement agreement terms which \nBoardroom SX80: the RBRA. And then the city will expand upon so next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this\, these 21 points. Mark the the categories in the Rba Settlement agreement\, and the 4 in blue\, I believe\, will be the focus of the Rba’s presentation today. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this is direct text from the agreement regarding eelgrass\, habitat restoration. And I’ll just give you a chance to read \nBoardroom SX80: those 3 points. \nBoardroom SX80: therefore. \nBoardroom SX80: and the next slide is a continuation of this \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: section. \nBoardroom SX80: Go ahead\, please. I oops! I think we skipped one. \nBoardroom SX80: Go back one\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Oh\, I’m sorry. My my mistake. \nBoardroom SX80: yes\, forward! \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. So regarding management of vessels on the anchorage after 2019\, the agreement required that they be removed by the middle of October of last year\, and the Rbi requested and received a one year long extension\, to meet this requirement\, which was \nBoardroom SX80: greatly influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: For vessels on the air anchorage prior to 2019 the floating homes were also to have been removed. The rba has been working hard to achieve this goal. For one\, they requested\, and received a 60 day extension\, and you’ll be hearing the status of that today. That was through December fifteenth\, and \nBoardroom SX80: in early December they received\, they requested\, a hundred 40 day extension\, and that\, as was just noted by Matthew\, was granted through February twenty-seventh. First\, a different single houseboat. So they are very discrete requests to rectify discrete. So negotiations. \nBoardroom SX80: or allow time for discrete negotiations. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: and these will be the presenters who you have all met\, so I’ll cede the floor to Brad Gross. Thank you. \nBrad Gross: Thank you very much\, Adrian\, and and my apologies. Chair Gilmore\, for jumping the gun I had just signed in. I was having problems with my connection\, and I was about to say that I apologize for no camera. But I’m going to leave it off \nBrad Gross: just to protect this connection that that we have and that I’m able to present to this board. So\, Adrian\, will you be presenting? Put it posting our Powerpoint. \nBrad Gross: I was counting on you to do that\, Brad. Is that okay? Great? Thank you. \nBrad Gross: If I \nBoardroom SX80: we’re happy to do that. Just let us know that day or 2 before next time. Thank you. \nBrad Gross: Not a problem. If \nBrad Gross: let me share my screen. Sorry for that. Everybody. My apologies. \nBrad Gross: Okay\, good morning\, everybody. \nBrad Gross: Chair Gail Moore\, Commissioners and members of BC. BC. Staff. As I said earlier\, I am Brad Gross\, and I have already. Introduced Jim Malcolm\, our harbor master\, and Rebecca Short Usberg will be presenting in conjunction with me today \nBrad Gross: before I begin. \nBrad Gross: I’d like to say that this presentation is dated by one month\, as we were originally scheduled as everybody knows\, to present on the December fourteenth\, and I will update any items verbally. If there have been any changes \nBrad Gross: as we have presented in the past\, we couldn’t do what we do here without our many partners. You see their logos displayed on this slide one of the changes. I did realize when looking at this slide\, that we fail to include coastal policy solutions\, and Merkel and associates who are ha obviously have been working with us for for many\, many years and helping us with our upcoming eographs program. \nBrad Gross: I’m just going to go through some of these milestones that Adrian had identified. And you’ve all seen in the past. \nBrad Gross: first of all\, \nBrad Gross: The petition for necessary Federal action has been completed and is on and going the removal of unoccupied. Most of these and the bright blue\, have already been done the ones with later due dates you see\, and that kind of I don’t know what to describe that color\, that other blue color \nBrad Gross: but the removal of unoccupied marine debris is done\, and ongoing as vessels may become marine debris\, we had we give them our immediate attention. We finalize the Environmental Protection and Management plan in 2021. No new vessels in the Eel Grass Protection zone is ongoing. There’ll be more discussion about that as we move on. The installation of moorings is on hold \nBrad Gross: the initiation of the Eel Grass restoration studies was done in 2022. The removal of the post 2019 vessels. As Adrian pointed out\, they received an extension\, and to October fifteenth of 2024\, and there’s some good progress that we’ll be talking about later on. What’s happening with those? The removal of the floating off floating homes off of all the point by October fifteenth. \nBrad Gross: 2023\, 2 were removed by the deadline\, and one \nBrad Gross: was actually the one that was provided. These initial 60 day extension was moved on a December eleventh to illegal floating home birth that leaves us one floating home\, and that vessel has been through a citation process and a nuisance abatement process for removal. And Rbra has requested\, and was recently granted one last \nBrad Gross: one last extension to allow the owner to repair and relocate his vessel. That extension now goes through February 20 twenty-seventh\, so our next presentation will have some more information on the the results of the extension\, and where that vessel there lies\, we anticipate it being out of the anchorage by the end of February. \nBrad Gross: moving on complete admin actions update ordinances has all been done\, and as we’ll show later in the presentation\, we do have their Coast Guard response\, which I’ve mentioned in the past\, and we have a new supporting order received from Judge Oric on December first\, which I will talk about further in the presentation \nBrad Gross: beginning of the implementation of the 10 Year Adaptive Management Plan. That plan was due. This again. This slide is a month old. It was planned\, was to be submitted on December fifteenth\, and it was submitted on time and on schedule. \nBrad Gross: Next item\, no vessels in the Epz. By October of 2024 we are working on a signage program and rubber. Master Malcolm will talk about the notifications that we’ve given to the vessels and our plans moving forward\, the removal of all occupied non safe and seaworthy vessels\, and now has an extension to october of 24 \nBrad Gross: and all these vessels in this category have been provided with the 12 month advance notice\, and again more of that by harbor. Master Malcolm. \nBrad Gross: Applying for a morning permit \nBrad Gross: the rest of these items have a due date by October of 2026\, so they will be reported on in future presentations\, but removal of all occupied safety\, worthy vessels\, removal of all vessels and occupants\, and only transient seaworthy vessels in the anchor zone\, all due dates of October of 2026. \nBrad Gross: I’m gonna just go through and report on \nBrad Gross: activities during this reporting period. I’m not going to go on the \nBrad Gross: Pass reporting period. But this is the vessel buyback program. During this reporting period 5 vessels have been purchased and properly disposed of. One floating home was purchased and disposed of during this reporting period\, bringing 8 total vessels\, purchasedly and properly disposed of since the reinstatement of the program\, in April of 2023\, \nBrad Gross: right around $40\,000 has been distributed since the reinstatement of the program\, and then just over $81\,000 has been distributed\, and 21 vessels have been properly disposed of since the program exception in 2022. \nBrad Gross: This is the letter I was talking about from the coastguard where it talks about Cfr. Section 33 dash point 1 10.1 2 6 alpha\, where the Coast Guard has delegated authority for the operational management to Richards of a regional agency. \nBrad Gross: This is a an important slide that I would like to present. On an order received by George Ork on December first\, 2023\, Judge Orrick provided an order to dismiss without leave to amend a claim against Rbra with language that supports Rbra’s position and codes regarding Rvra\, I’m sorry regarding Richardson Bay. \nBrad Gross: Specifically\, when Cfr. 33.1 10.1 2 6\, Alpha was identified\, the judge appined the following. the plaintiff argues or implies that Rbra’s anchorage ordinance is preempted by Federal law. He goes on to say that I agree that no regulation or Federal authority identified by the plaintiff\, preempts the authority of Rbra to control anchorages in Richardson Bay. Instead\, the Federal regulation he identified established Richardson Bay as a special anchorage and directs mariners to comply with Rbra’s permit scheme. \nBrad Gross: and although this opinion is still subject to appeal\, it mentions more than once regarding anchoring and living aboard on Richardson Bay that the United States Constitution does not confer a blanket right to anchor in Richardson Bay. Boaters do not have a constitutional right to unregulated long term anchorage in public navigable waters. \nHe goes on to talk about this particular plaintiff\, who was planning to live on his vessel. \nBrad Gross: where he says he admits that he intended to live on his boat in Richardson Bay\, which is not allowed under Arbra code\, and means that he would be denied a permit. \nBrad Gross: He goes on to say\, living aboard a houseboat or vessel anchored in Moore or moored in Richardson Bay is prohibited. \nIf \nBrad Gross: I’m gonna leave you with that\, well\, I’ll be back after Eographs update from Rebecca Schwartz\, Lessburg\, and the anchorage update by our harbour master. So I’ll turn this over to Rebecca. Now\, thank you. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Good morning\, everyone. Thank you\, Brad. Hello! I believe I’m know you all. But for those who I haven’t met\, my name is Rebecca Schwartz\, Lesburg. I’m the president of Coastal policy solutions. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and I’ve been working with Rvra to advance their ill re their efforts to protect and restore Eel grass in Richard Simbay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So I’ll be sharing 2 main components today. The first is an update about the grant our Bra received from the Us. Environmental Protection agency to restore eelgrass\, and the second is\, I’ll be sharing results from our 2023 monitoring update that describes the Eelgrass monitoring efforts over the past year \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: so\, as you may remember\, Rbra was awarded 2.8 million dollars from the EPA’s San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and that award funds\, the development of the Restoration and Adaptive Management plan that Brad mentioned\, that was submitted to BC. DC. On December fifteenth. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: It also funds the restoration of 15 acres of eel grass by 2027\, and the related ongoing adaptive management\, monitoring and partner engagement outreach associated with that Restoration effort \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: to implement this grant\, RBRA. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Awarded consultant services to Co. Still policy solutions and Merkel and associates for project management\, stakeholder engagement policy support\, and for the actual on the ground\, eel grass restoration. All of this is being done in collaboration with San Francisco State University’s Estuary and Ocean Science Center. Specifically\, Dr. Kathy Boyer and her lab \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and Audubon\, California. The sub awards for those project partners are in process \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So a little bit about the Restoration and adaptive management plan\, which we call the ramp. As Brad mentioned\, it was submitted on the fifteenth\, and this is a technical document that describes a 10 Year Adaptive Management Plan for restoration of 75 acres of eelgrass and Richardson Bay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now those 75 acres are anticipated to be restored through a combination of active restoration. So actually planting eel grass. non planting\, restoration actions\, things like removal of marine debris that’s on the bay bottom. \nand also \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: anticipated natural recovery of the eelgrass bed. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: This plan is consistent with the San Francisco Bay Plan\, the Richardson Bay special area plan and the California Ill. Grass mitigation policy. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: It does consider the beneficial reuse of dredge sediment. If backfill of mooring scars is required\, although that is not recommended as a first line action in this area. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and then genetic accounts for both passive and active restoration\, and it builds on the results of the ongoing restoration studies that have been going on in the anchor scars over the past couple of years. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The ramp itself\, as a document may be periodically updated as we receive results from those restoration studies\, other monitoring results or other adaptive management actions that become prudent \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, I’d like to switch gears and talk about the 2023 monitoring update this update was given to the Rba. Board of Directors and the public. In the during the fall. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and it’s a comprehensive report on all of the various \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: monitoring actions that have taken place over the past year to really get a sense of what is going. The dynamics of the ill grass bed and its health. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: There’s a variety of monitoring activities that we’ve taken. The first is that I’ll describe is the side scan sonar survey. \nThe survey was completed by Merkel and associates \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: during the summer of 2022. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And this really looks at the in the health of the bed overall. So not just in the area where boats are anchoring and not just in the sanctuary or restoration areas\, but really the the overall bed. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And there’s a few things that we can take away from these results. The first is that we have the same general pattern of eel grass covering Richardson Bay as previous years. So we see the core of the bed. In the central bay \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: it is present\, but less dense in the shallows. and there’s some evidence of wasting disease. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and it as expected. It is absent from the deeper parts of the bay. basically anywhere deeper than about 5 feet mean lower low water\, and that’s consistent with what we know about the light limits of eel grass in the San Francisco Bay Area. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, if we look at the overall acreage. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: we’re see and and how dense it is\, we can see a couple of things. The first is that we have just over 950 acres of eel grass\, and that’s \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: a good increase from the previous \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: size cancel in our survey that was completed\, which I’ll talk about in a moment. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: but ignoring for a second the total acreage. What I wanted to talk about is the cover class. So that gives us a sense of how dense the eelgrass bed is\, and that’s a proxy for eelgrass health \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: in the image. On the left hand side of the screen you see Richardson Bay. The green area is all the area that’s covered in eel grass\, and essentially the darker the green\, the more dense the eel grass is. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So\, even though we have 950 acres or so of eel grass. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Less than half of that eel grass \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: is in the 40 to 100% cover class. So less than half of it is in that really dense \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: cover class and over a quarter is in the less than 5% cover class. \nSo it’s important to look at\, not just the total acreage\, but also how dense and healthy the Yalegrass bed is \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So again\, I mentioned that binary change. If we look at 2019 versus 2022\, we see that 13% increase in the total acreage which is within normal bed variability next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: But if we take a closer look at that change again on the left hand side\, both the the green and red and tan areas\, that’s all eel grass cover. But essentially\, what we’re seeing is that there are some areas of the eel grass bed that have expanded. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And there’s some areas that have declined \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the areas that are in tan\, orange and getting into that red color. Those are areas where we’ve actually seen a decrease in the old grass cover \nthe portions of their green and getting into the darker greens. That’s where we see expansion. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: What we can see here is a general decline in that nor in that northern reach\, as we’re getting up into the Audubon sanctuary\, and that’s likely due to thermal stress. The water up there is more shallow\, it gets warmer\, and it pushes the eel grass beyond its thermal limits. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: That red area in the core of the bed is where? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Oh\, no\, not yet. Is where we’re seeing evidence of eelgrass wasting disease next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So as we look at our results through time\, we have these sides canceled on our surveys 6 times since 2\,003. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The biggest change that we saw historically\, was the 2\,009 to 2\,013\, and overall absolute cover is generally increasing\, but variable over the past 20 years. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now 20 years may feel like a long time to have data. And it’s a great data set to be working with. But it’s actually not very long in the context of an eel grass bed that can persuade me persist over hundreds or thousands of years. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, the reason I was really digging into the cover class and the areas where we have changes increase or \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: expansion or contraction of the eel grass is that it gets to what we call the 100% cover equivalency. Basically\, what that means is that looking at the total acreage of eel grass that we have. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: if all of it\, if we collapsed it down so that all of it was at a hundred per cent. Covered. What acreage would we have then? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, if we look\, and and that is a better indicator of the bed health\, because that can tell us things about eel grass\, bed assumed productivity\, biomass\, and other metrics\, things like carbon storage. \nSo that is the dashed black line in the graph on the left-hand side. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And again we have that same variable but generally increasing patterns since 2\,003. But where is the total acreage from 2019 to 2022 increased. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The 100% cover equivalency decreased. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Basically\, what is telling us is that we’re getting mixed messages and mixed signals from the eelgrass bed\, about how it’s how the how it’s doing from a health and productivity perspective \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the the second way that we’ve monitored. The bed is through aerial photography and Gis analysis. This has been done by Audubon\, California\, and has been repeated several times over the past several years \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: as opposed to the side scanned sonar which takes\, gets a comprehensive map of all of the eelgrass in Richard Simbay. The aerial photography is really designed as a damage assessment. So we just photograph the area where eel grass and anchoring co-occur so that we can get a better understanding \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: of how much eel grass is damaged by anchor scour\, and how much recovery we see within those scars \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: as a reminder. Anchor scour is the damage that we see to the eel grass from Anchor’s Change\, another ground tackle \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and these methods were \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: verified\, and by a peer reviewed journal that was published\, peer reviewed journal article that was published in 2019. And so we’ve been repeating the methods for several years since \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: This is this may be a familiar image to many of you. This is an example of the aerial photography that we receive. From these the aerial views that we receive from this photography. Now\, hopefully. Then\, if you go to the next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Yes\, that’s what I wanted to happen. What we’re doing is \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: looking specifically in roughly\, the area that is circled in blue here\, because that’s the area where we have both eel grass and anchoring. And so if when we zoom in to here\, we’re then able to say \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: how much of the eelgrass has been damaged from acre scour\, and you can see examples of what we call crop circles in this image\, depending on the clarity that you have on your screen. Basically the darker areas within this blue circle \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: or blue polygon. Those darker areas are eel grass and the circles that you see of lighter area within there. Those are the anchor scars or the crop circles that we’re talking about. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Next slide \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: we can. On the left is a more close up view of what we’re able to see in that photography. And the anchor scars that we’re able to document \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: on the right hand. Oh\, not yet on the right hand side \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: we’re looking at anchor scour. So basically\, if we add up the acreage of those of all those circles\, how much damage do we have? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: We have results from 2017\, 2021\, and 2022. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Our methods provide both a low and high estimate for total anchor scour \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: back in 2017\, which is the first time this method was done\, we saw between 50 and 85 acres\, or 8\, sorry 50 and 84 acres \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: in 2021. That high estimate was even higher. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And then in 22\, we’re really seeing a plateau of the damage. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: which is great news over all. We’re not seeing \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: robust recovery yet overall in the bed\, but we have it\, but we have seen \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: a plateau in the damage\, which is great news. We’ve at least stemmed the tide of ongoing anchor scour. Next slide a couple of notes about these damage assessments. In 2022 there was an area of unknown damage to the bed\, and it’s suspected that was a harmful algal bloom. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and that limited some of the interpretations we could make of the data next slide in 2023. The assessment actually wasn’t possible \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: because there was what’s called a macro algal mat\, basically\, a large \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: film of algae over the eel grass bed that was obscuring it from view. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And now these photographs cannot be taken at any time of the year\, so we couldn’t just wait for that to go away\, because the photographs have to be taken during the summer\, when the eel grass is at its maximum extent. It is a perennial plant. It grows and dies back each year\, so we need to take it during the summer. \nand it has to be taken at an extreme low tide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: so unfortunately\, that Macro Algolat happened during those windows of when we could have taken the photograph\, so we were not able to do the survey in 2023\, \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: some additional findings that I wanted to share. So what we have. In these photographs here. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: on the left hand side we have some examples of where we’ve seen recovery within anchor scars. So on top are the images from 2021\, and on the bottom are the images from 2022. The green circles on the left are the same in each photograph\, and you can see we can see robust regrowth of eel grass within specific eelgrass scars \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: on the right hand side. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: It’s the same years of images\, but these are examples of scars where we have not yet seen recovery. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So this is again\, both good news\, but also mixed news. The good news is that \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: again\, we’re demonstrating that as vessels are removed from the eograss protection zone we can expect for the eelgrass to recover. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: But if you’ll notice\, on the left hand side\, where we do see recovery\, those circles in 2021. They don’t have boats in them. We don’t know exactly what year those vessels were removed\, so from 2021 to 2022 \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: seems on our end as one year of recovery. But those scars actually could have been recovering for several years\, whereas on the right hand side\, where we don’t see the recovery in 2021. The boats are still there in 2022. They’re not there. So what this suggests is that it takes more than one year for the anchor scars to recover. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: which is good data for us to have\, because we don’t. Actually. there’s there’s not a lot of documented cases that can tell us how long we should expect it to take for these scars to restore themselves next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The last area of monitoring that we’ve been doing is our water bird monitoring\, and really the goal for this was to see where in Richardson Bay large groups of birds are doing what are codes called rafting\, which is when large groups of birds together rest on the base surface\, and they can rest in groups of up to 10\,000 birds. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The reason we’re looking at. This is because we wanted to know as we change the pattern of where boats are anchoring in Richardson Bay. Are we also seeing a change in the pattern of where birds are using the bay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: What we’ve seen here. So on the left hand side\, these are all of the drone. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: These are the I’m sorry. On the left hand side. It’s the results from the 6 drone surveys that we did during the 2022\, 2023 monitoring year. \nSo each of those image 6 images represents one survey. The red dots are where we see the rafts of birds. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now we\, similar to previous years. We continue to see rats primarily along the northern and eastern shorelines. So so far we have not seen any change in how birds are using the bay \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Okay\, that was a lot of data\, a lot of graphs\, a lot of information\, some major takeaways from that information. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So the good news is that the damage to eel grass from anchor scour appears to have plateaued. and we continue to see evidence of eel grass recovery \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the less good \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the overall health of the bed is questionable because we’re seeing an increase in that very sparse cover class. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: These are likely due to things like thermal stress\, wasting disease\, algal competition all things that are expected to increase with climate change. So the biggest takeaway from this is that\, given these known stressors that are going to continue to \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: stressed the eel grass in Richardson Bay. protecting and restoring the bed is more crucial now than ever. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: I believe I now hand it over to Jim\, but I will also be here at the end to answer any questions. \nRBRA: Morning. Thank you very much\, Rebecca. My name is Jim Malcolm\, the Harbor master for Richardson Bay Regional Agency going to talk this morning about our vessel census and status of vessels out on the anchorage to open our vessel census. We are currently our vessel. Census continues to drop. \nRBRA: We are as of December. We are sitting at 43 vessels. There has actually been. There has been a change to this\, but it went down by one and went back up by one. So we still sit at 43 vessels for January next slide\, please. \nRBRA: I’ll now go through the milestones individually\, and kind of discuss our trending for each milestone. Our first one is the post 2019 vessels as Director Gross had mentioned. In August we had\, we were at 14 of those post\, 2\,019 vessels. We currently in December. We are at 7\, and probably by the end of the week we’ll be sitting at 6. Post 2\,000 vessels \nRBRA: for our floating homes again\, as Director Gross have mentioned. In A. We were 2 in August\, and now we are down to our one remaining floating home. \nRBRA: our vessels in the Ap. In the eel grass protection zone 53. And we’re present last July 42 in August. And now we are down to 35 \nRBRA: and this is efforts through both vessel removals and efforts to \nRBRA: move vessels out of the eel grass protection zone into the actual anchoring zone. This will \nRBRA: be this number will continue to drop as we move forward on our signage project. And yeah\, actually mark out where the anchorage is\, and we continue on our efforts towards relocating\, reap both relocating vessels into the actual anchorage out of the eel grass protection zone\, and remove vessels from the anchorage and remove vessels from the Bay completely. \nRBRA: Our our October fifteenth\, of 2\,026 deadline for all occupied safe and seaworthy vessels removed. There were 10 last June or 10 in June of 2022\, 7 in August of 2023\, and that number remains steady at 7. \nRBRA: Total vessels on the water. We were 57 last last July 48\, and August\, and as I mentioned\, 43\, \nRBRA: and then\, in addition to that\, we have our th vessels that are present legally present under a 30 day permit. We have that numbers actually change since December. We now have 6 \nRBRA: 30 day permits. However\, 3 of those have overstayed their permit\, and are in various mechanisms of enforcement to have those vessels depart \nRBRA: next slide\, please. \nRBRA: 6. As I mentioned\, the this is the part of our efforts to work with the vessels that are over staying there. 30 day permits 6 citations were issued as of last December\, that numbers actually increased to 7 \nRBRA: 7 citations issued 3 initial. \nRBRA: 2Â s and one third. Actually\, that has increased by another. Third note\, third citation for a vessel. All of the citations that have been issued so far are for the Rba code section for entering in excess of 72Â h. \nRBRA: 2 nuisance abatements\, 2 nuisance abatement processes have been commenced one is on our one remaining floating home\, which we’ve put a stay on while the \nRBRA: responsible party for that floating home as their extension to remove the vessel\, and another nuisance abate. Note. Nuisance\, abatement. Notice will be going to a hearing next week. \nRBRA: All vessels are due to vacate the anchorage. By October fifteenth\, 2024\, with the exception of the 7 safe and seaworthy vessels all vessels that were due to vacate were issued a 12 month advance notice last October. \nRBRA: The a copy of the notices on the slide here. \nRBRA: Our plan is to prepare another notice for January\, and then\, as we progress into the summer\, the the number of notices \nRBRA: will increase in frequency \nRBRA: as vessels\, and then hopefully\, all vessels will also\, the number of vessels on the anchorage will decrease as we increase our both enforcement efforts and notice \nRBRA: and education efforts towards where vessels can legally anchor\, and which vessels are to be removed. \nRBRA: Finally\, for enforcement\, our planning is underway as director. Gross message mentioned for our signage and posting for the anchorage. 5 signs are to be to place on existing piles. \nRBRA: We have already identified the owners of those piles and have been in touch with them. and installation of one new pile and 3 floating buoys will be put in place to mark the actual bounds of the legal anchorage. \nRBRA: Plans are also underway to create the permit and submit to Bcd staff \nRBRA: permits are not yet submitted. The effective date for the permits will be this October and then all vessels in the Egrass protection zone as I mentioned\, did receive a 12 month notice to vacate\, and they’ll be receiving another mo another notice \nRBRA: this month. \nRBRA: Next slide\, please. \nRBRA: and that concludes my portion. And now I’m gonna turn it back over to Director Gross\, however\, similar to Rebecca. I will be remaining for the end of the presentation for any questions. \nBrad Gross: Thank you\, Jim. And thank you again\, Commissioners. \nBrad Gross: I’m gonna talk about our housing program now\, and how this all ties in with the vessels in the anchorage and the eel grass improvements that we’re planning\, as I’ve stated in the past our housing program is comprised by 4 components funding temporary housing support \nBrad Gross: case management and marina participations. And I’ve talked about all this in the past and just gonna go through it really quick our funding. 3 million dollars was received in March of 2023\, with thanks to Senator Mcguire for his support. The program began seeking applications in May of 2023\, and to date there’s been over a hundred $80\,000 expended into the program. \nBrad Gross: moving on Rbra rent housing authority contract was approved. We discussed their prefunding of $30\,000 last time we met with another $86\,000 provided to health and human services. \nBrad Gross: The contract between Health and Human Services and Episcopal community services for case management was approved in August of 2023 and Ecs. Has established a well received landside meeting dates in Sausalito. \nBrad Gross: and recently began there on the water outreach effort. I think the last time we talked. We were still looking for that full time case worker\, and that full time case worker with Ecs did begin employment very successfully\, I might say\, in October of 2023. \nBrad Gross: Regarding the Marina’s activities during this reporting period one marina is now committed\, and one marina has withdrawn participation. We are still seeking marinas\, not just in the Sausalito area\, but surrounding areas that are interested in assisting our bra and our programs to relocate the qualified vessels to Marinas. \nBrad Gross: This\, at a previous meeting this committee approved an extension for the post 2019 vessels that I mentioned earlier and harbor Master Malcolm mentioned\, and as part of that approval of that extension we \nBrad Gross: committed to providing this slide\, and this is a spreadsheet of tracking their progress. As you can see. \nBrad Gross: all but 3 vessels are either gone or engaged in some forward fashion in the program. So I wanna thank the committee. The Commission again for the extension\, because it’s proved to be very successful. We are working to get the last 3 folks engaged\, and the a few of these. I I’m not privy to the names of the people who have received vouchers\, but a few of these people I do know on this slide have vouchers and are actively seeking housing right now. \nBrad Gross: the temporary housing voucher program. There are 4 persons that are now housed. This again. This slide is a month dated there are 10 persons that are participating. I know that number is now 11\, which includes the 4 persons that are housed. 5 persons are in the queue to participate \nBrad Gross: with 2 persons that have a voucher and one pending as of last month. But as of today\, there are actually 6 people with vouchers that are actively seeking \nBrad Gross: housing. \nBrad Gross: What that important to us is that those 6 people relate to 6 more vessels being off the anchorage by the time. These soon after these folks get their housing\, and 4 vessels have been purchased via the vessel buyback program. Once those 6 people with vouchers are housed\, we anticipate getting those vessels which would bring us up into double digits vessels turned in via the vessel. Buy back program. \nBrad Gross: Now\, this is a new slide. You haven’t seen this one before but this slide\, and I’d like to explain it quickly. The the top 2 lines represent the vessels and the floating homes in the anchorage. \nBrad Gross: The bottom 7 lines represent our different supported programs like floating homes turned in persons\, house persons and process and remaining floating homes\, vessels turned in\, total vessels of loading homes turned in\, and persons with with vouchers. \nBrad Gross: and\, as you can see\, all the lines representing the ve. The vessels along the top are trending down. \nBrad Gross: and program related. Lines of vessels and floating home surged in persons with the vouchers. And most importantly\, persons housed are all trending up \nBrad Gross: and over the next few months we will see these lines eventually intercept and ultimately completely switch sides\, top to bottom\, which would be representing more successes in our programs. This is a very exciting trend that we’re seeing. And at our next presentation\, I think\, this. This slide will be very telling. \nBrad Gross: with that I want to \nBrad Gross: close\, and I’ll acknowledge this committee and BC. DC. Staff for their flexibility to work with us and our Bra\, and to explore \nBrad Gross: creative and common sense solutions to achieve our common goals. I’m convinced that this type of innovative and collaborative work will prove successful in the end. Thank you very much for your time and letting us present our latest achievements. If there are any questions \nBrad Gross: myself. Our master\, Malcolm and Rebecca Short Lustburg would be glad to answer them. Thank you very much. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much for that very comprehensive \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: presentation \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I think I’m gonna ask the committee if you will hold all your questions. Until we hear the city of Sausalito. I know that was a lot of information. But I know you guys probably took great notes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So Adrian\, do you have an introduction for the city of Sausalita. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair Gilmore. Again. It is brief and follows the identical format. \nBoardroom SX80: So maybe\, Brad\, if you unshare your screen\, please and \nBoardroom SX80: If I could kindly ask Mtc. To share Adrian. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair. Goma\, we have. Barbara Salzman would like to speak. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: Well\, I just had. \nBoardroom SX80: You’re muted chair. \nBoardroom SX80: chair. Gilmore\, you’re muted. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I’m sorry. Is Miss Salzman part of the presentation? Or is this public comment. \nBoardroom SX80: public comment\, public comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, we’re gonna hold public comment until later. We’re gonna go through the city of Sausalito’s presentation\, and then we’ll take questions and comments from committee members\, and then we will take public comments. So that’s kind of the way I see the scope \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: alright. So Miss Klein\, would you please give your introduction to the city of Sausalito’s presentation\, please? \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, I’d be happy to thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning again\, Adrian Klein. \nBoardroom SX80: So next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Again. These are the 10 sections of the city of Sausalito settlement agreement between BCDC. \nBoardroom SX80: And I believe the focus of their presentation today will be on vessel removal and eel grass\, habitat mitigation and damage next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Most relevant is that \nBoardroom SX80: the city requested and received an extension mentioned earlier today by Matthew \nBoardroom SX80: to remove a the largest of the anchor outs known as the Fedora \nBoardroom SX80: from December 30\, first to March thirty-first. For reasons similar to those described by the Rba this will promote voluntary resolution. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: This \nBoardroom SX80: image outlines the settlement agreement\, provisions relating to illgress\, habitat mitigation\, and damage avoidance. \nBoardroom SX80: I’ll give you a chance to just glance through that. \nBoardroom SX80: And if that’s enough time next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: And this is a summary of the actions by the city and BC. DC. On this eel Grass Restoration plan. Most relevant is that in the summer and the fall we received an excellent draft eelgrass Restoration plan\, provided some comments on 2 occasions and also received input from third party experts. \nBoardroom SX80: We’re continuing as we do with the Rba to meet monthly we are. \nBoardroom SX80: The city is preparing to submit its I believe\, final eel grass restoration plan. Soon. We’re in agreement on the majority of the components of that plan \nBoardroom SX80: with some discussion around the total acreage that will be \nBoardroom SX80: planted\, and whether the agreement \nBoardroom SX80: goal of one to 2 mitigation to one acre impact is a requirement. and I believe the city may address that\, but we just wanted to \nBoardroom SX80: share that \nBoardroom SX80: question. That’s on the table with you. Thank you very much. I’ll turn this over. I would expect first to councilmember Joan Cox\, who will then go ahead\, I believe\, and introduce her staff. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: and we could unshare the VCDC. Presentation to allow the city to share its presentation. Thank you very much. \nJoan Cox: Thank you so much. Adrienne\, and good morning\, Chair Gilmore and members \nJoan Cox: of the Enforcement Committee. This is our triannual update to the Enforcement Committee. My name is Joan Cox\, and I’m the vice mayor for \nJoan Cox: Sausalita. \nJoan Cox: Here’s an outline of the topics that we will cover today. We’ll start off with our waterfront management update \nJoan Cox: provided by sassy police \nJoan Cox: the department Brian Mathers. Then we will have a report on our regional cooperation in housing presented by our community and economic development. Director Brandon. \nJoan Cox: Then our resiliency and sustainability manager Katie throw Garcia will provide an update on the eel grass habitat mitigation and damage avoidance plan and I’ll include some comments there and then we will close and \nJoan Cox: be available for questions. So with that I’ll turn it over to \nJoan Cox: Brian matters. \nBrian Mather: Good morning\, everybody. Thanks for having me. \nBrian Mather: So I’ll go over a brief review of our waterfront management. So currently we have 5 total vessels in our anchorage. Right now\, what? That’s actually a reduction from the last meeting or triannual update\, I believe. We had. \nBrian Mather: We had 5 legacy and and one extra. So there were 6. So next slide\, please. \nBrian Mather: if we have a slide next slide. \nBrian Mather: anyway. So what we have is for legacy anchor routes. We actually ended up one of our legacy members ended up \nBrian Mather: getting ill. And so we’ve removed that person from the water\, and we’re working on housing for that person currently. The \nso the main issue or the main focus right now is the vendor\, as you see\, and that’s why we asked for the extension \nBrian Mather: and it was granted. So we appreciate that. So we’ve been in communication with the owner. We’ve been trying to work with the owner. There’s been some delays in the cooperation with the owner. And so we’ve been actively and currently are still actively working on the enforcement piece of that\, and are hoping to have that done within the next \nBrian Mather: month or so. But you know\, with whether finances staffing for marine assets and everything else\, it it’s a pretty complicated venture\, because it’s a very large boat. \nBrian Mather: So we’re we’re doing 2 things trying to get cooperation still from the owner and also working on the enforcement end of it\, if if that needs to take place. \nBrian Mather: So that’s the the end of our update. As far as our waterfront management. We haven’t had any. We had 2 vessels come in in the last month we were able to get them to move on within the 72Â h period\, in accordance with our State ordinance. \nBrian Mather: So that’s where we stand at this moment. If there’s any questions after\, I’ll be standing by for any questions. \nJoan Cox: thank you. And with that we’ll turn to Brandon Phipps\, our community Development Director. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Good morning\, Chair\, Gilmore\, Dcdc. Members and members of the public as Vice Mayor Cox mentioned. My name is Brandon Phipps\, Community and Economic Development Director. With so solido. Glad to be addressing you today to provide a brief update in connection with Section 3\, a per agreement related to regional cooperation and the development of resources\, and taking\, if necessary\, actions to support housing opportunities for anchor outs and Richardson Bay. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Regarding ad use. The city recently updated its adu ordinance to comply with State adu law. More specifically\, this item was approved with recommendations by the planning Commission in July was adopted by City Council in October. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: The Community Development Department continues to track new housing policy at the State level and may be required to make additional updates to our ordinance this year in order to continue to be compliant\, and we certainly intend to do that as required. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Additionally\, I’ll just briefly speak to this. On January 5 of this year the city of Sausalito released a public comment draft environmental impact report for the implementation of our housing element programs. And this document has been prepared to address \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project\, that being our housing element\, but particularly as related to the rezoning and selected opportunity sites at higher densities\, and this is all required under the California Environmental Quality Act. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: So the draft Eir will be circulated for a 45 day review period\, during which comments on the draft Eir may be submitted to the city\, and I hope this goes without saying. But the city welcomes any comments from the Bcd. On the public comment Draft Eir\, which is posted to our website. And I am happy to \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: provide any personal contact information or follow up with individual BC. DC members. If there are any questions\, that will do it for my update this morning. Thank you all for your time today\, and I will now pass the mic to our illgress. Consultant Robert Moody\, who will discuss excuse me\, I will pass the mic to Katie. Back. Garcia. Go ahead\, Katie. Thank you. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Thank you so much. Brandon. I’m here to present the the city’s progress on illgrass habitat mitigation and damage avoidance. In the blue text on the left you can see the the status updates which Adrian also presented which which have been presented to the Enforcement Committee prior to this meeting today in the text\, \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: on in the red. You will see our our updates from the most recent Enforcement Committee meeting\, which took place on August 20 third\, where we provided an update \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: on October eleventh we received A. BC DC. Response to expert review on our draft Eelgrass restoration Plan. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Following this\, South\, Ludo submitted a summary of future eel Grass Restoration Plan efforts on November twenty-seventh\, which included the city’s offer of additional protection measures rec recommended by regional experts. As far as this. This is the brief update on eel grass habitat from my end\, and I will. I will pass it on to Vice. Mayor Cox. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: vice Mayor\, I think you’re on mute. Excuse me. \nJoan Cox: thank you. Thank you\, Katie. \nJoan Cox: so I would like to address the issue that Adrian Klein made mention of during her introductory comments\, and that is the requirement of the settlement agreement. So the settlement agreement with the city of Sausalito States \nJoan Cox: quote goals in the plan will include compensatory mitigation at a ratio of no less than 1.2 to one mitigation area to impact area. So the settlement agreement says\, goals in the plan will include \nJoan Cox: on these and and indeed\, \nJoan Cox: that is important. Because the it’s important that it’d be a goal and not a requirement\, because it may actually be be infeasible. \nJoan Cox: So \nJoan Cox: on July 31\, 2023 regional experts\, lawyer and Merkel\, as well as coastal policy solutions opined that the 1.2 to one mitigation ratio could be infeasible to attain. Given Richardson Bay’s Natural Geomorphology and ability to support ingress. \nJoan Cox: It was therefore suggested that the settlement agreement be revisited. \nJoan Cox: And so\, on August seventeenth\, 2023\, I requested that Pcdc. Council provide a written analysis of Bcd. C’s position \nJoan Cox: without ever providing us with that analysis. BC DC. Staff on December thirteenth\, for the first time\, announced that the 1.2 to one ratio in the settlement agreement is a requirement and not just a goal. \nJoan Cox: as stated in the executed settlement agreement. It’s it baffles me that \nJoan Cox: the sentence in settlement agreement States goals in the plan will include\, and that BC. DC. Staff is now taking a position that this is a requirement in contravention of what regional experts opine is feasible. \nJoan Cox: So converting a goal into a requirement appears to be setting the city up for failure. \nJoan Cox: And this is very puzzling to me\, because we have a long history of cooperation and rapid progress toward meeting BC. DC. Goals\, and we would prefer to continue to work collaboratively\, moving forward. \nJoan Cox: It also is notable to me that this \nJoan Cox: goal is not in the settlement agreement with Rbra. \nJoan Cox: I noticed that this morning\, during Adrian Klein’s presentation that language does not appear in their settlement agreement. So why is BC. DC. Turning a goal into a requirement and insisting upon that goal only against the city of Sausalito\, and not \nJoan Cox: the Rvra. So \nJoan Cox: II hate to close on a challenging note. But this is an issue of great concern to the city. \nJoan Cox: And with that that concludes our presentation\, and we’re available to answer any questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much. The this committee thanks Ra. And the city of Sausalito’s representatives for the briefings. For being here and the time that it took to craft presentations. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this point\, do any of the Enforcement Committee members have \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: questions for either staff or for our guests. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t see any. \nBoardroom SX80: No questions. Actually\, Chair Gilmore. Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, Commissioner Eisen\, I can’t. I can’t see her on the screen. So it’s difficult. That’s the problem with showing up in person actually less visible. \nBoardroom SX80: Ii have a number of questions I did try to take notes as you suggested. Chair Gilmore\, but stick with me as I go back through the slides. \nBoardroom SX80: So with respect to the the \nBoardroom SX80: requests for extension that we’ve been told about today. \nBoardroom SX80: I am wondering\, and I guess I would go back to Director Gross. I’m going all the way back to the beginning of the slides. I think I heard from Adrian that the reason for those requests was to promote voluntary resolution. I think that was the phrase Adrianism. Yeah. \nSo I am wondering what? What exactly that means. What are we trying to reach some kind of a settlement agreement \nBoardroom SX80: in lieu of some kind of enforcement action. With respect to a couple of these vessels \nBrad Gross: for the question\, I appreciate it\, and no\, we are not looking for a settlement. We are actually\, we’re looking for a a conclusion. We’re looking for an amicable conclusion\, which is\, I’ll give you an example of the first floating home who was\, provided a 60 day extension. He worked diligently\, and was able to \nwith the assistance of the flexibility of this committee. \nBrad Gross: Get into a legal liverboard slip with this loading hall. \nBrad Gross: the next floating home that we’re working on. He claimed. We. We went through the citation process. We went through the abatement process. We are ready to move forward with a warrant if necessary\, but I thought it was\, \nBrad Gross: a a better solution to give him one more opportunity to get his boat relocated\, or turn it into our bra for proper disposal as opposed to \nBrad Gross: going through legal action\, II have to tell you\, and it’s no secret rvra is a very small agency with a very small budget with very high insurance costs all related to litigation. \nBrad Gross: Because of the actions that we’re taking. We will take those actions\, but it’s makes more sense to us to \nBrad Gross: give folks ample opportunity to abide by the regulations. Ultimately \nBrad Gross: this last vessel that got the extension and the other vessels got the extension \nBrad Gross: will be removed hopefully those folks will be housed. But \nBrad Gross: A perfect example is that if if we force people out of our anchorage. \nBrad Gross: they end up being a liability to somebody else. They move somewhere else. I could tell you that some of the the vessels that were really recently removed from saw Slato anchorage on the 72Â h notice simply made it over to our anchorage\, and one of them \nBrad Gross: is on a 30 day. Permit one of them’s getting a citation. So it’s become our problem. And we don’t want to. We don’t want to incur that type of oppression and any other agency. So working with these\, with the committee and these extensions\, I believe\, allows us\, and allows the voters ample time to take the correct actions. \nBoardroom SX80: Yep. \nwell\, I totally appreciate that these are in enormously complex \nBoardroom SX80: but what I’m trying to understand\, because we’ve heard now reports of regularly\, and each time there are sort of more and more \nBoardroom SX80: discussions about extensions\, but on the milestone slide one of the original slides. It’s the one with the black oyster catchers on it. \nI’m wondering if there is \nBoardroom SX80: any anticipation that there will be more requests for extension beyond the ones that have. \nBoardroom SX80: Just been provided. \nBrad Gross: That’s a great question. And and with in all honesty\, we are sitting with \nBrad Gross: over 30\, about 35 people who qualify for housing voucher program. \nBrad Gross: We have 6 factors out right now. We have\, according to our colleagues from health and human services. And we’re in housing authority. \nBrad Gross: They’re figuring we’re going to be able to get another 13 of them house within the year. As I told this committee\, and anybody who will listen\, we’re figuring they can house about 2 a month. So and all\, honestly\, yeah\, we’ll probably be back in close to 2\,024 to say\, look\, we’ve got a successful program. We’ve house 20 people. We remove 20 boats. We have a dozen left. We’re going to need some more time with them. \nBrad Gross: And I’m hoping that the this committee will see the wisdom in providing extensions if they’re required. As long as we are proving that the program is successful\, it’s really just as you know. The officers from Salsa said. It’s a time money staffing issue. Convincing \nBrad Gross: landlords to take these folks\, which isn’t really a problem. It’s just really a a timing and processing to get these people through the system. If we had. \nBrad Gross: you know\, we were\, we were allotted 3 million dollars. If we were allotted 6 million dollars we would have been able to bring in double the staff and put and house double the people. But we’re working diligently. We’re working successfully. It’s all proving to be working. So we’re hoping that if we do come that this committee will see the wisdom and providing another extension if required. \nBoardroom SX80: And II recognize that there’s a balancing act that goes on in terms of you know what what you achieve by an extension versus what you lose by an extension. But from what I understand from the eelgrass presentations both from the Rbra and Sausalito\, is that as these vessels continue to sit out there\, we continue to have \nBoardroom SX80: consequences to the eel grass which themselves require money and time to restore\, and to get back to where we should have been\, especially at this \nBoardroom SX80: critical time in our history\, where we have to do everything we can to capture carbon. So I’m hoping all of that is being balanced as we move through this problem. And along those lines. I’m wondering with respect to the Fedura. So now I’m sort of switching to Sausalito for a second. How long has it been that we have been \nBoardroom SX80: working with this particular owner? \nJoan Cox: When did we start that process. We’ve been working with this owner since since I’ve been involved in 2\,017 and perhaps longer. \nJoan Cox: Can provide an update. It it the last I understood. It looks as though we actually may have to \nJoan Cox: it it when it’s not entirely here\, we may actually have to undertake removal \nJoan Cox: through the enforcement process. But I’ll let Lieutenant another address. That group. \nBrian Mather: Yes\, Vice Mayor\, that’s accurate. You know we we’ve been engaged in some lengthy conversations\, and you know it’s turned into \nBrian Mather: the owner and the rep representatives not responding and getting legal aid. And and so there’s some stall tact\, tactics involved in that. So you know\, the city side at this point is enforcement. We’re hoping that maybe during the enforcement period that \nBrian Mather: they wake up and decide to actually take custody of their boat and and take care of it. But then\, you know\, like our bra says\, you know\, we run the risk of them moving that boat just into to their jurisdiction. We don’t want that\, and we’re not gonna allow that. So it’s a delicate situation. With resources\, and also taking people’s property and litigation. And what could happen after that? So we’re trying to do this right? \nBrian Mather: And that’s why we requested that extension is we gotta make sure we do this right for all parties involved and not rush into this. I know we\, the books\, been here for 26 years. So \nwe’re not trying to do this hastily. Here\, we’re just trying to do it right so. \nJoan Cox: And I will say\, you know\, we undertook the expense of doing a survey of the boat to see whether the boat is still salvageable. At this point the boat is actually considered to be marine debris under the definition. And so but we’ve made every effort to identify creative solutions. At this point. \nJoan Cox: Given this looming deadline we’ve into the enforcement approach. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, I mean\, if you’re saying that we have been trying to resolve this for 6 going on 7 years now\, yeah\, it really does think sound like the time is \nBoardroom SX80: ripe for moving to a different strategy than trying to get voluntary cooperation. But \nBoardroom SX80: at the last the last question I have\, and I’m I’m sorry to hear. \nThat a dispute has arisen between Sausalito and our staff\, because we have commented on each and every one of these presentations \nBoardroom SX80: about the thoroughness and the cooperation\, and how pleased we are at how things are moving. So I it’s concerning that we’ve had maybe the first of our sort of bumps in the road together. I’m I don’t know enough about this issue to ask even intelligent questions\, but it seemed to me \nBoardroom SX80: that when we set forth the 1.2 to one goal in the settlement agreement in the agreement \nBoardroom SX80: that there must have been some basis for thinking that was possible. So one of the things I would want to know\, maybe as we move forward is what has changed to make that now sound like it’s impossible. \nBoardroom SX80: because at at least a couple of years ago it sounds like it was considered feasible enough to set it as a goal. So that’s just a comment. I’m not really expecting a response. But that \nBoardroom SX80: is something that I think you know needs to be explored for for our committee. That’s all I have\, Mr. Chair Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Commissioner Eisen. Any other committee members \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: have questions or comments \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I wanna weigh in on that last point about the the settlement agreement. And I think this is going to be right for \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: either a future briefing by staff or the next time. Our scheduled briefing with the city of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Not only do I wanna know\, along with Commissioner Eisen is what’s changed between the time we entered into the agreement. And now that makes this infeasible. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: But I would like to hear from the the experts\, or or get more information on their expert opinion as to why it’s infeasible. And also Staff’s response to that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I just basically like to have a discussion. So we can understand a little bit more clearly. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The the facts of the situation. So that’s all I’m gonna say for now. And obviously I don’t expect \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: a comment. Now this is for a a future meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So\, having said that\, I’m going to ask if there’s any public comment on this item\, I know we had one hand raised earlier. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So first of all\, is there anybody in in the room \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: that would like to speak? \nBoardroom SX80: Non\, chair\, Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so then let’s go to the commenter \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: who attended this stage previously. \nBoardroom SX80: we have an online public comment from Barbara Salzman. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. go ahead. I believe you have 3Â min to speak. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: Barbara Saulson. I represent them more in Audubon society\, and I first like to commend Rebecca for her good presentation. And also say that I assume that we could just contact you for a copy of the record report\, because\, yeah\, we I don’t have that \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: and secondly\, about the RA presentation. There was a mention. I don’t think we need to spend a lot of time on this\, but there was a mention of going to other marine is in the vicinity for a possible relocation. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: and that does raise some concern for me because I it was my\, it’s been my understanding that Marina is a really only allowed to have liver boards or or people living on their boats for protection purposes. And it’s very limited. So I do have to raise. It’s a question of how how realistic that is as a as a \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: a relocation \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: potential moving forward because II wouldn’t. You wouldn’t be wanting to move people as to other marine is where it’s not legal\, of course. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: And thirdly\, with regard to to Sausalito and the the the apparent change here in in requirements. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: You know\, I’d like to point out the source of lead\, though it’s really been in the forefront of moving this along. They they they took the initial action\, and they are continuing our small city and they’re continuing to make in my view efforts and I would hope that this would be clarified and the the good point made by the city that it’s now changed to a requirement. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: II if II find it \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: You know\, unexplainable. Why\, why\, that’s taking place\, and so maybe something’s going on that I don’t understand. But I’ve been involved in this a long time\, and I do think that it’s not fair to have 1 one jurisdiction ha! Having to make certain requirements that are pretty \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: owner is\, and and the other jurisdiction\, I mean\, I want success for everybody but the other jurisdiction not having to \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: have that requirement. So I hope you consider that. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: Thanks a lot. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Do we have any other? \nBoardroom SX80: Sorry\, that’s all we have here\, Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. One last chance for any committee members to make a final comment or question. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, seeing then\, once again\, I want to extend the committee’s thanks to both the Rba and the city of Sausledo for very comprehensive and informative presentations today. Thank you very much. And enjoy the rest of your day. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. So now we move on to Item number 7. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: It is a staff presentation\, and a vote on a post recommend recommended decision to adopt a settlement agreement to be entered into with Roger Stan Bridge\, of Alameda\, City and County. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: If this committee votes to adopt the recommended Enforcement decision\, which includes the proposed settlement agreement\, it will be put up for a vote of approval or rejection by the full Commission at its January eighteenth. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: 2024\, meeting\, which is scheduled to be held online and in person at the Metro Center\, which is located at 3 75 Beale Street\, in San Francisco City and county\, and that meeting begins at 10’clock. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, after the staff gives her presentation\, I will ask\, respondent to affirm its agreement with the terms and conditions of the stipulated order. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Then I will hold public comment on this item\, and then afterwards we\, the committee\, will hold our discussion and vote on the staff’s recommendation. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, at this time. Will. The representative or representatives of the respondents. Please identify themselves for the record. \nBoardroom SX80: Margie\, just this is Adrian Klein. Just inform me\, Mister Standridge had been online\, but he is working. So it seems that we’ve lost him at this point. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you for that. But clearly he has been notified of the meeting and he was here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we will. Go ahead and proceed with policy enforcement analyst Adrian Klein. Will give her her presentation. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair. Gilmore. May I have the item? 7 slide? Thank you very much. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So as per usual. This will be quite brief\, but we’ll run through location timeline of events. Summary of the violation and staff recommendation to the Enforcement Committee next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So the site addresses 3 0 2 5 Marina. Drive in the city and county of Alameda the Red Arrow is pointing roughly to the address on the Alameda shoreline next slide\, please. Zooming in a second Google Earth image \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please\, when you’re ready. Thank you so much. There may be a little lag. So this red arrow is now pointing to \nBoardroom SX80: 3025\, Marina drive. \nBoardroom SX80: and you can see a single boat dock with a white boat. The single boat dock is the \nBoardroom SX80: subject of this proceeding. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So as you will have read in the staff\, recommended Enforcement decision. There was a an existing boat\, Doc\, that was replaced in 2\,000 by a former owner\, who submitted\, but never filed as complete a permit application. The BC. DC. Staff did not pursue resolution of this violation. Between \nBoardroom SX80: the year 2\,000 \nBoardroom SX80: and the present in 2018\, Mr. Roger Standrich Pre. Purchased this property\, and in 2021 BC. DC. Or 2022 BC. DC. Staff\, initiated communications with Mister Sandridge to have him either remove the unauthorized Doc or submit \nBoardroom SX80: a complete permit application so that we could retroactively authorize the existing structure. \nBoardroom SX80: Mr. Standridge was not surprisingly surprised to be hearing from us and to to learn of this unauthorized structure. So\, despite the fact that he was initially not particularly responsive\, recently he’s been very responsive and cooperative. \nBoardroom SX80: so we did. He wasn’t responsive to our initial enforcement communication\, so we escalated to commence a formal enforcement proceeding. This hearing is the culmination of that he did respond to the violation report\, and indicated that he would like to settle rather than have a contested order\, and we were able to reach those terms which I will describe. So next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this is just a single violation. For the failure to obtain a permit to replace a smaller replacement. Dock. So it is less bay fill than had been previously in place for a legitimate water oriented use of the bay next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So the terms which we have negotiated\, and both both Staff and Mister Standard Degree to our to either by the middle of February\, remove the unauthorized doc and gangway\, and submit photographic evidence or submit a filed application for the existing structures\, and to pay a $2\,000 penalty which Mr. Sandridge Hand delivered to the office yesterday. \nBoardroom SX80: and that concludes the staff presentation with that recommended recommended \nBoardroom SX80: decision for the committee. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Adrienne. Normally. This is where we would ask the respondent to \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: affirm that he agrees with the terms and conditions of the proposed settlement. Agreement. However\, he’s not here\, but I wanna point out again for the record that he has signed the settlement agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: However. It does not become effective until the full Commission votes on it on January eighteenth\, 2024. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So\, having said\, all of that do any members have questions for Adrian at this point. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, not seeing any. Margie\, do we have any public comment on this item? \nBoardroom SX80: We do not hear Gilmore \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I believe we didn’t have any written public comment prior to this correct \nBoardroom SX80: correct. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, great. So at this point in time\, I’ll need a motion and a second to approve \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the settlement agreement. \nBoardroom SX80: Move the staff recommendation. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. So \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the it was a new spot. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So it was moved by Commissioner Eisen and seconded by Commissioner best kids. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and Matthew\, would you please call the roll? \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, Commissioner Bieland. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Aye. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. Aye. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Commissioner Buscis. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay\, so this item is concluded\, and I wanna remind everybody that the Commission is scheduled to hear and vote on this recommended Enforcement decision at its February first. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So February first\, or January eighteenth meeting. Excuse me. Chair. W. Would you mind for the record stating the \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, I’m sorry\, unanimously \nBoardroom SX80: thank you. And \nBoardroom SX80: the next \nso you’re asking\, when is the next Commission meeting this? \nBoardroom SX80: Ph. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: yes. The next Commission meeting is the eighteenth. Is this gonna be heard on the eighteenth \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: or February? First cause? I have 2 different notes here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, goodness\, I’m sorry about that. Let me make sure I get the right date out \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for public and for the record. \nBoardroom SX80: Let me get pull up that information for you. If you’ll \nBoardroom SX80: indulge me for a moment. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s it’s it’s on the agenda. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m sorry\, having trouble accessing the agenda. So I just wanna make sure I give you the correct information \nso \nexcellent. Tell me \nBoardroom SX80: I’m sorry I can’t. I can’t pull it up\, but I think it’s it. I just was told by Margie. She believes it’s perhaps February first\, in fact. \nBoardroom SX80: which makes sense. At this point. I am pulling up the agenda right now. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and it is \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay. I can confirm that it is not on \nBoardroom SX80: commission meeting. February first. Yes\, okay\, so it’s on the February First Commission meeting. I just got confirmation from rachel. Thank you\, Rachel. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So for the court reporter strike all references to this being held on January eighteenth. The correct date is February first\, 2024. The meeting will be held at 3 75 Field Street in San Francisco at 10’clock. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Alright\, thank you. Everybody. Item\, 8 is a \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: vote\, a hearing\, and a vote on the recommended Enforcement decision to resolve enforcement case er 2021 0 4 4.0 0. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So our next agenda item is a staff presentation and a vote on a proposed recommended decision to adopt the settlement agreement to be entered into with Carl \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yohans Meyer\, of Tiburon\, Marin County. If this committee votes to adopt the recommended Enforcement decision\, which includes the proposed settlement agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: It will be put up for a vote \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: of approval or or rejection \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: by the full commission at its February first\, 2024\, meeting\, which is scheduled to be held online and in person \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: at the Metro Center\, located at 375 Beale Street. in San Francisco City and county\, starting at 10’clock. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Excuse me\, Matthew wants to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: No\, actually\, I put my hand out. Sorry I wanted to make sure that you gave the right date there\, too. It’s also going to be February first. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So after the staff presentation\, I’m going to ask the respondent to affirm. It’s agreement with the terms and conditions of the proposed agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Then I will allow public comment on this item\, and afterwards the committee will hold our discussion and vote on Staff’s recommendation. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this time will the representative or representatives for the respondent please identify themselves for the record. \nJohn Sharp: Yes\, good morning. I’m John Sharp. I’m the attorney for Mr. Johan’s Meyer the owner of 5 blending lane in Belvedere. Not Tiburon. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, thank you very much for that clarification. Thank you for being here today\, and welcome. So I will. I will now invite enforcement analyst Rachel Cone to give her opening remarks. Rachel. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Just one moment while I share my screen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And \nBoardroom SX80: does that look okay for everyone. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: okay. \nBoardroom SX80: So good morning chair\, Gilmore\, committee\, members and all in attendance today I’ll present Enforcement case number er 2021 dot 0 4 dot 0 0 \nBoardroom SX80: for which the respondent is Mr. Carl H. Johansmeyer\, represented today by Attorney John Sharp\, and thanks Mr. Sharp\, for being here. \nBoardroom SX80: I will begin by familiarizing you with the location of the violation\, followed by a timeline of events\, and then end by summarizing the violation and finally presenting the staff’s recommendation. \nBoardroom SX80: So there are 2 images on this slide. The one on the left is a zoomed out vicinity map\, and the one on the right focuses in more closely on the location of the violation. There is a red PIN on each image at 5 Blanding Lane\, Belvedere Island\, Marin County. \nBoardroom SX80: and the home is close to the southern tip of Belvedere island and faces east. \nBoardroom SX80: This is a photo of the property from the lower shoreline area taken facing west\, and there’s a yellow oval outlining the specific location of the violation. \nBoardroom SX80: On this slide the image on the left side of the screen shows the violation more closely. The respondent has represented that there was a fence surrounding this property for the past century\, and they needed to replace an 11 foot 2 inch long. Section of a 6 foot tall wire fence in approximately 2021 \nBoardroom SX80: that 11 foot 2 inch long. Section is the section that the respondent needed. Bcdc authorization prior to placing. \nBoardroom SX80: And I’ll now take you through the timeline of events in this case. So in May of 2021 BC. DC. Enforcement staff received a report from City of Belvedere Staff\, alleging that unpermitted fencing had been installed on the property of 5 Blanding lane within BC. DC’s 100 foot shoreline ban jurisdiction \nBoardroom SX80: BC DC. Opened enforcement case er 2021 dot 0 4 0 0\, and made initial contact with respondents authorized Representative Attorney John Sharp. \nBoardroom SX80: between May and June of 2021 respondent\, and Mr. Sharp informed Staff that they were meeting with consultants and a surveyor\, and had hired an architect\, indicating that they were beginning to put together initial application materials to seek and obtain after the fact permit for the fence replacement. \nBoardroom SX80: In September of 2021 city of Belvedere staff and a surveyor conducted a site visit at 5 Blanding Lane\, and reported their findings to BCDC. Staff\, who were unavailable to attend that day. \nBoardroom SX80: City staff confirmed that fencing had been placed on Mr. Johan’s Meyers property without permits. So with this information\, in October of 2021 Bcd. C. Staff issued a notice of violations to Mr. Johan’s Meyer\, initiating a standardized fine process which gave him 35 days to either remove the unpermitted fill\, or to seek and obtain a permit for the fence before standardized fines began accruing. \nBoardroom SX80: In March of 2022\, Mr. Sharp submitted an incomplete region. Wide permit application on behalf of the respondent\, seeking after-the-fact authorization for defense. \nBoardroom SX80: Then\, between October 2022 and October 2023\, Enforcement staff made several attempts to urge Mr. Johansmeyer to complete his Permit application and on October thirteenth\, 2\,023\, staff notified the respondent that the executive director was rescinding the opportunity to resolve the violation\, using the standardized fines. Process after determining that the respondent had not made a good faith effort to resolve the violation. \nBoardroom SX80: On October thirtieth\, 2023 staff mailed a violation report and complaint for administrative civil penalties to the respondent. \nBoardroom SX80: and finally\, on November thirtieth\, 2023 respondent and staff agreed to resolve this enforcement matter via the proposed settlement agreement. \nBoardroom SX80: So to summarize the one violation is for the failure to obtain a Bcd C. Permit prior to placing fencing in Bcd. C’s 100 foot shoreline ban jurisdiction\, and this is in violation of section 6\, 6\, 3\, 2. A of the Mccoyer Petras Act \nBoardroom SX80: to resolve this case. Staff recommends that the Enforcement committee vote to recommend that the Commission authorizes the executive director to execute the proposed settlement agreement\, which requires respondent to \nBoardroom SX80: one pay $2\,500 in administrative civil liability within 30 days of executing the agreement\, and 2 by February 2820\, 24. Either remove the unauthorized fence and submit photographic evidence of the same\, or submit their filed application\, seeking after the fact authorization for the fence. And that concludes the staff’s presentation\, and I will stop sharing my screen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much\, Rachel. At this point\, Mr. Sharp\, I’m gonna ask you if your client agrees to the terms and the conditions of the proposed settlement agreement. Yes\, my client does\, and I am authorized to state that he’s prepared to execute the agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Great! Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Do any Enforcement Committee members have any questions for either staff or for Mr. Sharp. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Go ahead. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. So just so that I’m understanding we sent a notice in March 2022\, that you have 35 days to fix this problem. \nBoardroom SX80: And now. a year and a half later. we’re settling it. Is that okay? What? What was happening in between then? Because. \nBoardroom SX80: what I’m worried about is the agreement says that they have to remove the fence or submit \nBoardroom SX80: the application which they said they were going to submit\, and really never did. So what happens if on February 2820 24\, \nBoardroom SX80: I mean\, we have. I don’t know how much effort has been put into this. We’re getting $2\,500 out of it. \nBoardroom SX80: What happens if yet again\, the respondent decides that they are going to neither remove the fence nor submit the proper application. \nBoardroom SX80: So that would then mean that the the settlement agreement goes away\, and we would commence formal enforcement through and and \nBoardroom SX80: require action through an order. Additional penalties we can seek\, because 2\,500 is not really going to be sufficient at that point. In time I would have to get back to you on that I’m not exactly sure. And how that would work. \nBoardroom SX80: Well\, I think the Commission may want to know that before they vote on that\, because an awful lot of effort is being put into getting somebody to do what they really should have done a year ago. \nBoardroom SX80: so \nBoardroom SX80: that’s that’s all I have. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Rebecca. I think you bring up a very good point. I think\, as part of the presentation to the full commission \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: given given the history\, I mean no disrespect. But given the history of this I think the Commission should be informed as to if there’s non compliance\, what the next steps are\, and what penalties could conceivably be levy for non-compliance? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Are there any other questions or comments by commission members\, committee members? Excuse me. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Seeing then\, Margie\, do we have any public comments? \nBoardroom SX80: He no public comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And did we? I don’t believe we had any written comments prior to the meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s correct. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so one last time for committee members\, any final comments or questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so at this point in time\, I would like a motion to approve the Executive Director directors recommended enforcement decision regarding proposed settlement agreement. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Someone \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I didn’t hear who moved. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, we have a motion by Commissioner Billen\, and a second by Commissioner Vasquez. Matthew\, would you please call them Wrong \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Bielin. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, Commissioner Busque. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: so the motion passes unanimously. 4 0. And this item is concluded. The Commission is scheduled to hear and vote on this recommended Enforcement decision at its February first\, 2\,024 meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and that will be held at feels 375 Deal Street in San Francisco at 10’clock committee members\, I will entertain a motion and a second to adjourn our meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: So moved \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: moved by Commissioner Eisen\, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez. Thank you very much. Everyone. Have a good day. We are adjourned. \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-11-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240118T080000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240118T170000
DTSTAMP:20260525T222126
CREATED:20240130T061624Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240130T061624Z
UID:10000161-1705564800-1705597200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:January 18\, 2024 Environmental Justice Working Group Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-18-2024-environmental-justice-working-group-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Environmental Justice Working Group
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240118T090000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240118T103000
DTSTAMP:20260525T222126
CREATED:20240130T061956Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240614T165331Z
UID:10000162-1705568400-1705573800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:January 18\, 2024 Rising Sea Level Working Group Meeting
DESCRIPTION:Meeting agenda\nDraft One Bay Vision for the Future of the Shoreline Presentation\nPresentation
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-18-2024-rising-sea-level-working-group-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Rising Sea Level Working Group
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240118T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240118T170000
DTSTAMP:20260525T222126
CREATED:20240118T044859Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250320T191230Z
UID:10000088-1705582800-1705597200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:January 18\, 2024 Commission Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:Supplemental Materials\n				Commission Mailing January 5\, 2024\n\nIssued Regionwide Permits\nApplications for permits\, federal consistency actions\, and amendments \n\nCommission Mailing January 12\, 2024\n\nDraft Minutes of December 21\, 2023 Hybrid Commission Meeting (PDF)\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC\n\nA Reborn Portal to a Great American City\nTerrific Article on CA Coastal Commission Seawall Litigation\nEditorial: Anchor-outs must abide by Richardson Bay rules\nWhat If People Don’t Need to Care About Climate Change to Fix It?\nCleaning Up After Lahaina\nFor the Billionaire Who Has Everything\, Consider an Island in the San Francisco Bay
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-18-2024-commission-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240124T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240124T120000
DTSTAMP:20260525T222126
CREATED:20240130T041106Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240304T202738Z
UID:10000126-1706088600-1706097600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:January 24\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Enforcement meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 544 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nPhysical Location \nMetro CenterYerba Buena Room375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, CA 94105415-352-3600 \nLive Webcast \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/81796419902?pwd=4pnoHbQhsdp8c53twTXZVf9Nten0fI.1 \nSee information on public participation \n\n\nTeleconference numbers(816) 423-4282Conference code374334 \n\nMeeting ID817 9641 9902Passcode042232\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				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic-CommentThe Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda. \nApproval of Draft Minutes from the January 11\, 2024 Enforcement Committee meeting.\nEnforcement ReportStaff will update the committee on the current status of the enforcement program’s activities(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing from Cities of Oakland and Alameda on Continuing Alameda-Oakland Estuary Clean-up Efforts.The Enforcement Committee will hear a briefing from the Cities of Oakland and Alameda regarding the progress they have made to clean up the Oakland/ Alameda Estuary. Their presentation will include their progress to date and their plans to maintain the Estuary.(John Creech) [415/352-3619; john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov](Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov)Public Comment // Staff Presentation // City Presentation\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Meeting Minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				Audio Meeting Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2024/01/01-11-EC-audio-recording.mp3 \nTranscript \n2024.01.11 ZOOM Recording Transcript – Enforcement Committee \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and this meeting of the Bcdc. Enforcement Committee is here by call to order. My name is Marie Gilmore\, and I am chair of this committee \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for Commissioners\, including those attending at Beale Street. Please ensure that your video camera cameras are always on\, and please mute yourselves when you are not speaking. Our first order of business to day is to call the roll. Matthew\, please call the Roll Commissioners. Please unmute yourselves while he does this\, to respond\, and then mute yourselves \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: after responding. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning\, Commissioner Bielyn. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen\, here Commissioner Vasquez. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: here \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we have a quorum present\, and are duly constituted to conduct business\, and that brings us to item 3 on our agenda public comment period. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: in accordance with our usual practice\, and as indicated on the agenda. We will now have general public comment on items that are not on the agenda. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I believe\, Margie\, we have not received any general comments prior to the meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: We did share. We received one\, and it will be posted on our website. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for members of the public attending online. If you would like to speak either during the general public comment period or during the public comment period for an item on the agenda. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Please raise your hand in the zoom application by clicking on the participants. Icon at the bottom of your screen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and look in the box where your name is listed under attendees. Find a small palm icon on the left. If you click on that palm\, icon\, it will raise your hand. or if you are joining this meeting by phone\, you must Dial Star 9 to raise your hand\, then Dial star 6 on your keypad to unmute your phone. When the host asks you in order to make a comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The meeting hosts will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order that they were raised. After you are called upon you will be unmuted\, so that you can share your comments. Please announce yourself by first and last name for the record before making your comment \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for members of the public attending in person. Please queue up at the Speaker’s podium and wait to be called upon to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commenters are limited to 3Â min to speak. Please keep your comments respectful and focused. We are here to listen to any individual who requests to speak. but each speaker has the responsibility to act in a civil and courteous manner as determined by the chair. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We will not tolerate hate\, speech\, direct threats\, indirect threats\, or abusive language. We will mute anyone who fails to follow those guidelines. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Margie\, do we have any commenters? \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour\, for online? We do not have\, as well as in person. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commissioner Vasquez. Is there anybody? Are there any members of the public that which to make general comments at your location? \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: No\, there are not. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. The next item on our agenda. Approval of the draft minutes for I believe\, is at the last 2 meetings. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Staff. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: thank you. So committee members\, I would appreciate a motion and second\, to approve these meet meeting minutes. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Second\, second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: we have a motion from Commissioner Vasquez\, and a second from Commissioner Bill in Matthew. Would you please call the role \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Bielin? \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Aye. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Hi\, Commissioner Vasquez. \nBoardroom SX80: chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. thank you. The minutes are approved. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The next item on our agenda is the Enforcement report and the Enforcement policy manager\, Matthew Trujillo will now provide the enforcement. Matthew. \nBoardroom SX80: thank you good morning\, chair committee members and greetings\, while members of the public in attendance welcome\, and also welcome to \nBoardroom SX80: Michael in who is acting general counsel here to day while Greg is on vacation. \nBoardroom SX80: First is a case update. Since our last meeting on November ninth\, 2023. In the past 2 months we’ve opened 5 new cases. We resolved 7 cases\, and as of today\, there are 71 unresolved cases in the queue. \nwhich is a net change of negative 2. Since my last report. \nBoardroom SX80: Second\, I want to note for this committee that we have issued extensions of time to both the city of Sausalito and to the Rbra\, to remove 2 vessels from Richardson’s Bay. \nThese extensions of time were granted on a finding of good cause by the executive director\, and they were both reviewed and approved by General by the general counsel prior to distributing \nBoardroom SX80: the city’s extension\, was granted through March 30\, first 2024\, and Rbra’s extension was granted through February 20\, seventh\, 2024\, \nBoardroom SX80: and that concludes my report. I’ll be glad to entertain any. Follow up questions about the status of the Enforcement program from the committee. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Matthew. Do any members of the committee have questions for Matthew for comments? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, seeing none? Are there any members of the public who have comments or questions on the Enforcement report. \nBoardroom SX80: There’s none. Joe Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you very much. Well\, that moves us on to item number 6\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: which is briefings by the Richardson Bay Regional Agency\, or Rvra\, and the city of Sausalito. On the anchor out abatement and eel grass restoration efforts in Richardson’s Bay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: by both the Rb. Ra. And the city of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this time will the representatives or Rvra please identify themselves for the record. \nBrad Gross: Good good morning\, chair\, Giomore. This is Brad\, Gross\, executive director for Rvra with me today I have our harbor\, Master Jim Malcolm and our eel grass representative Rebecca Schwartz Lessberg from coastal polis policy solutions. I’d I’d like to begin with a quick apology. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: You’re jumping the gun just a tag. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I would also like to have the representatives for the city of Sausalito identify themselves for the record. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Hello! I’m Katie via the city of sustainability manager. \nBoardroom SX80: Clear. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Good morning\, Brandon Phipps\, community and Economic Development director with city of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Joan\, you’re muted \nJoan Cox: Joan Cox\, vice Mayor of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you both city of Sausalito and our Bra representatives for being here. Welcome? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And can I caution anybody? If you’re not \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: being speaking directly\, could you please mute yourself\, cause I’m hearing some whispers or feedback. I’m not quite sure where it’s coming from\, but if you can mute mute yourself if you’re not speaking\, it would be greatly appreciated \nJoan Cox: if I might\, as we also have Robert Mooney with us\, who is our field brass consultant. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Great. Thank you very much. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Sorry to interrupt. I think we also should have a \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Brian Mather from the police department. I’m not sure if he was promoted\, or if he is online. But \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: I was told that he was coming \nand \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: let me confer with him. I’m not seeing him on the attendee list. Sorry about that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so at this point I’m going to invite Adrian Kline to give her introduction to this this presentation\, Adrian. \nBoardroom SX80: Let’s see. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning. \nBoardroom SX80: everybody. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: so I have a quick little Powerpoint\, the purpose of which is really just to highlight in blue text\, the settlement agreement terms which \nBoardroom SX80: the RBRA. And then the city will expand upon so next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this\, these 21 points. Mark the the categories in the Rba Settlement agreement\, and the 4 in blue\, I believe\, will be the focus of the Rba’s presentation today. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this is direct text from the agreement regarding eelgrass\, habitat restoration. And I’ll just give you a chance to read \nBoardroom SX80: those 3 points. \nBoardroom SX80: therefore. \nBoardroom SX80: and the next slide is a continuation of this \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: section. \nBoardroom SX80: Go ahead\, please. I oops! I think we skipped one. \nBoardroom SX80: Go back one\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Oh\, I’m sorry. My my mistake. \nBoardroom SX80: yes\, forward! \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. So regarding management of vessels on the anchorage after 2019\, the agreement required that they be removed by the middle of October of last year\, and the Rbi requested and received a one year long extension\, to meet this requirement\, which was \nBoardroom SX80: greatly influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: For vessels on the air anchorage prior to 2019 the floating homes were also to have been removed. The rba has been working hard to achieve this goal. For one\, they requested\, and received a 60 day extension\, and you’ll be hearing the status of that today. That was through December fifteenth\, and \nBoardroom SX80: in early December they received\, they requested\, a hundred 40 day extension\, and that\, as was just noted by Matthew\, was granted through February twenty-seventh. First\, a different single houseboat. So they are very discrete requests to rectify discrete. So negotiations. \nBoardroom SX80: or allow time for discrete negotiations. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: and these will be the presenters who you have all met\, so I’ll cede the floor to Brad Gross. Thank you. \nBrad Gross: Thank you very much\, Adrian\, and and my apologies. Chair Gilmore\, for jumping the gun I had just signed in. I was having problems with my connection\, and I was about to say that I apologize for no camera. But I’m going to leave it off \nBrad Gross: just to protect this connection that that we have and that I’m able to present to this board. So\, Adrian\, will you be presenting? Put it posting our Powerpoint. \nBrad Gross: I was counting on you to do that\, Brad. Is that okay? Great? Thank you. \nBrad Gross: If I \nBoardroom SX80: we’re happy to do that. Just let us know that day or 2 before next time. Thank you. \nBrad Gross: Not a problem. If \nBrad Gross: let me share my screen. Sorry for that. Everybody. My apologies. \nBrad Gross: Okay\, good morning\, everybody. \nBrad Gross: Chair Gail Moore\, Commissioners and members of BC. BC. Staff. As I said earlier\, I am Brad Gross\, and I have already. Introduced Jim Malcolm\, our harbor master\, and Rebecca Short Usberg will be presenting in conjunction with me today \nBrad Gross: before I begin. \nBrad Gross: I’d like to say that this presentation is dated by one month\, as we were originally scheduled as everybody knows\, to present on the December fourteenth\, and I will update any items verbally. If there have been any changes \nBrad Gross: as we have presented in the past\, we couldn’t do what we do here without our many partners. You see their logos displayed on this slide one of the changes. I did realize when looking at this slide\, that we fail to include coastal policy solutions\, and Merkel and associates who are ha obviously have been working with us for for many\, many years and helping us with our upcoming eographs program. \nBrad Gross: I’m just going to go through some of these milestones that Adrian had identified. And you’ve all seen in the past. \nBrad Gross: first of all\, \nBrad Gross: The petition for necessary Federal action has been completed and is on and going the removal of unoccupied. Most of these and the bright blue\, have already been done the ones with later due dates you see\, and that kind of I don’t know what to describe that color\, that other blue color \nBrad Gross: but the removal of unoccupied marine debris is done\, and ongoing as vessels may become marine debris\, we had we give them our immediate attention. We finalize the Environmental Protection and Management plan in 2021. No new vessels in the Eel Grass Protection zone is ongoing. There’ll be more discussion about that as we move on. The installation of moorings is on hold \nBrad Gross: the initiation of the Eel Grass restoration studies was done in 2022. The removal of the post 2019 vessels. As Adrian pointed out\, they received an extension\, and to October fifteenth of 2024\, and there’s some good progress that we’ll be talking about later on. What’s happening with those? The removal of the floating off floating homes off of all the point by October fifteenth. \nBrad Gross: 2023\, 2 were removed by the deadline\, and one \nBrad Gross: was actually the one that was provided. These initial 60 day extension was moved on a December eleventh to illegal floating home birth that leaves us one floating home\, and that vessel has been through a citation process and a nuisance abatement process for removal. And Rbra has requested\, and was recently granted one last \nBrad Gross: one last extension to allow the owner to repair and relocate his vessel. That extension now goes through February 20 twenty-seventh\, so our next presentation will have some more information on the the results of the extension\, and where that vessel there lies\, we anticipate it being out of the anchorage by the end of February. \nBrad Gross: moving on complete admin actions update ordinances has all been done\, and as we’ll show later in the presentation\, we do have their Coast Guard response\, which I’ve mentioned in the past\, and we have a new supporting order received from Judge Oric on December first\, which I will talk about further in the presentation \nBrad Gross: beginning of the implementation of the 10 Year Adaptive Management Plan. That plan was due. This again. This slide is a month old. It was planned\, was to be submitted on December fifteenth\, and it was submitted on time and on schedule. \nBrad Gross: Next item\, no vessels in the Epz. By October of 2024 we are working on a signage program and rubber. Master Malcolm will talk about the notifications that we’ve given to the vessels and our plans moving forward\, the removal of all occupied non safe and seaworthy vessels\, and now has an extension to october of 24 \nBrad Gross: and all these vessels in this category have been provided with the 12 month advance notice\, and again more of that by harbor. Master Malcolm. \nBrad Gross: Applying for a morning permit \nBrad Gross: the rest of these items have a due date by October of 2026\, so they will be reported on in future presentations\, but removal of all occupied safety\, worthy vessels\, removal of all vessels and occupants\, and only transient seaworthy vessels in the anchor zone\, all due dates of October of 2026. \nBrad Gross: I’m gonna just go through and report on \nBrad Gross: activities during this reporting period. I’m not going to go on the \nBrad Gross: Pass reporting period. But this is the vessel buyback program. During this reporting period 5 vessels have been purchased and properly disposed of. One floating home was purchased and disposed of during this reporting period\, bringing 8 total vessels\, purchasedly and properly disposed of since the reinstatement of the program\, in April of 2023\, \nBrad Gross: right around $40\,000 has been distributed since the reinstatement of the program\, and then just over $81\,000 has been distributed\, and 21 vessels have been properly disposed of since the program exception in 2022. \nBrad Gross: This is the letter I was talking about from the coastguard where it talks about Cfr. Section 33 dash point 1 10.1 2 6 alpha\, where the Coast Guard has delegated authority for the operational management to Richards of a regional agency. \nBrad Gross: This is a an important slide that I would like to present. On an order received by George Ork on December first\, 2023\, Judge Orrick provided an order to dismiss without leave to amend a claim against Rbra with language that supports Rbra’s position and codes regarding Rvra\, I’m sorry regarding Richardson Bay. \nBrad Gross: Specifically\, when Cfr. 33.1 10.1 2 6\, Alpha was identified\, the judge appined the following. the plaintiff argues or implies that Rbra’s anchorage ordinance is preempted by Federal law. He goes on to say that I agree that no regulation or Federal authority identified by the plaintiff\, preempts the authority of Rbra to control anchorages in Richardson Bay. Instead\, the Federal regulation he identified established Richardson Bay as a special anchorage and directs mariners to comply with Rbra’s permit scheme. \nBrad Gross: and although this opinion is still subject to appeal\, it mentions more than once regarding anchoring and living aboard on Richardson Bay that the United States Constitution does not confer a blanket right to anchor in Richardson Bay. Boaters do not have a constitutional right to unregulated long term anchorage in public navigable waters. \nHe goes on to talk about this particular plaintiff\, who was planning to live on his vessel. \nBrad Gross: where he says he admits that he intended to live on his boat in Richardson Bay\, which is not allowed under Arbra code\, and means that he would be denied a permit. \nBrad Gross: He goes on to say\, living aboard a houseboat or vessel anchored in Moore or moored in Richardson Bay is prohibited. \nIf \nBrad Gross: I’m gonna leave you with that\, well\, I’ll be back after Eographs update from Rebecca Schwartz\, Lessburg\, and the anchorage update by our harbour master. So I’ll turn this over to Rebecca. Now\, thank you. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Good morning\, everyone. Thank you\, Brad. Hello! I believe I’m know you all. But for those who I haven’t met\, my name is Rebecca Schwartz\, Lesburg. I’m the president of Coastal policy solutions. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and I’ve been working with Rvra to advance their ill re their efforts to protect and restore Eel grass in Richard Simbay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So I’ll be sharing 2 main components today. The first is an update about the grant our Bra received from the Us. Environmental Protection agency to restore eelgrass\, and the second is\, I’ll be sharing results from our 2023 monitoring update that describes the Eelgrass monitoring efforts over the past year \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: so\, as you may remember\, Rbra was awarded 2.8 million dollars from the EPA’s San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and that award funds\, the development of the Restoration and Adaptive Management plan that Brad mentioned\, that was submitted to BC. DC. On December fifteenth. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: It also funds the restoration of 15 acres of eel grass by 2027\, and the related ongoing adaptive management\, monitoring and partner engagement outreach associated with that Restoration effort \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: to implement this grant\, RBRA. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Awarded consultant services to Co. Still policy solutions and Merkel and associates for project management\, stakeholder engagement policy support\, and for the actual on the ground\, eel grass restoration. All of this is being done in collaboration with San Francisco State University’s Estuary and Ocean Science Center. Specifically\, Dr. Kathy Boyer and her lab \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and Audubon\, California. The sub awards for those project partners are in process \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So a little bit about the Restoration and adaptive management plan\, which we call the ramp. As Brad mentioned\, it was submitted on the fifteenth\, and this is a technical document that describes a 10 Year Adaptive Management Plan for restoration of 75 acres of eelgrass and Richardson Bay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now those 75 acres are anticipated to be restored through a combination of active restoration. So actually planting eel grass. non planting\, restoration actions\, things like removal of marine debris that’s on the bay bottom. \nand also \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: anticipated natural recovery of the eelgrass bed. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: This plan is consistent with the San Francisco Bay Plan\, the Richardson Bay special area plan and the California Ill. Grass mitigation policy. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: It does consider the beneficial reuse of dredge sediment. If backfill of mooring scars is required\, although that is not recommended as a first line action in this area. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and then genetic accounts for both passive and active restoration\, and it builds on the results of the ongoing restoration studies that have been going on in the anchor scars over the past couple of years. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The ramp itself\, as a document may be periodically updated as we receive results from those restoration studies\, other monitoring results or other adaptive management actions that become prudent \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, I’d like to switch gears and talk about the 2023 monitoring update this update was given to the Rba. Board of Directors and the public. In the during the fall. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and it’s a comprehensive report on all of the various \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: monitoring actions that have taken place over the past year to really get a sense of what is going. The dynamics of the ill grass bed and its health. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: There’s a variety of monitoring activities that we’ve taken. The first is that I’ll describe is the side scan sonar survey. \nThe survey was completed by Merkel and associates \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: during the summer of 2022. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And this really looks at the in the health of the bed overall. So not just in the area where boats are anchoring and not just in the sanctuary or restoration areas\, but really the the overall bed. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And there’s a few things that we can take away from these results. The first is that we have the same general pattern of eel grass covering Richardson Bay as previous years. So we see the core of the bed. In the central bay \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: it is present\, but less dense in the shallows. and there’s some evidence of wasting disease. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and it as expected. It is absent from the deeper parts of the bay. basically anywhere deeper than about 5 feet mean lower low water\, and that’s consistent with what we know about the light limits of eel grass in the San Francisco Bay Area. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, if we look at the overall acreage. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: we’re see and and how dense it is\, we can see a couple of things. The first is that we have just over 950 acres of eel grass\, and that’s \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: a good increase from the previous \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: size cancel in our survey that was completed\, which I’ll talk about in a moment. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: but ignoring for a second the total acreage. What I wanted to talk about is the cover class. So that gives us a sense of how dense the eelgrass bed is\, and that’s a proxy for eelgrass health \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: in the image. On the left hand side of the screen you see Richardson Bay. The green area is all the area that’s covered in eel grass\, and essentially the darker the green\, the more dense the eel grass is. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So\, even though we have 950 acres or so of eel grass. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Less than half of that eel grass \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: is in the 40 to 100% cover class. So less than half of it is in that really dense \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: cover class and over a quarter is in the less than 5% cover class. \nSo it’s important to look at\, not just the total acreage\, but also how dense and healthy the Yalegrass bed is \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So again\, I mentioned that binary change. If we look at 2019 versus 2022\, we see that 13% increase in the total acreage which is within normal bed variability next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: But if we take a closer look at that change again on the left hand side\, both the the green and red and tan areas\, that’s all eel grass cover. But essentially\, what we’re seeing is that there are some areas of the eel grass bed that have expanded. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And there’s some areas that have declined \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the areas that are in tan\, orange and getting into that red color. Those are areas where we’ve actually seen a decrease in the old grass cover \nthe portions of their green and getting into the darker greens. That’s where we see expansion. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: What we can see here is a general decline in that nor in that northern reach\, as we’re getting up into the Audubon sanctuary\, and that’s likely due to thermal stress. The water up there is more shallow\, it gets warmer\, and it pushes the eel grass beyond its thermal limits. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: That red area in the core of the bed is where? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Oh\, no\, not yet. Is where we’re seeing evidence of eelgrass wasting disease next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So as we look at our results through time\, we have these sides canceled on our surveys 6 times since 2\,003. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The biggest change that we saw historically\, was the 2\,009 to 2\,013\, and overall absolute cover is generally increasing\, but variable over the past 20 years. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now 20 years may feel like a long time to have data. And it’s a great data set to be working with. But it’s actually not very long in the context of an eel grass bed that can persuade me persist over hundreds or thousands of years. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, the reason I was really digging into the cover class and the areas where we have changes increase or \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: expansion or contraction of the eel grass is that it gets to what we call the 100% cover equivalency. Basically\, what that means is that looking at the total acreage of eel grass that we have. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: if all of it\, if we collapsed it down so that all of it was at a hundred per cent. Covered. What acreage would we have then? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, if we look\, and and that is a better indicator of the bed health\, because that can tell us things about eel grass\, bed assumed productivity\, biomass\, and other metrics\, things like carbon storage. \nSo that is the dashed black line in the graph on the left-hand side. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And again we have that same variable but generally increasing patterns since 2\,003. But where is the total acreage from 2019 to 2022 increased. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The 100% cover equivalency decreased. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Basically\, what is telling us is that we’re getting mixed messages and mixed signals from the eelgrass bed\, about how it’s how the how it’s doing from a health and productivity perspective \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the the second way that we’ve monitored. The bed is through aerial photography and Gis analysis. This has been done by Audubon\, California\, and has been repeated several times over the past several years \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: as opposed to the side scanned sonar which takes\, gets a comprehensive map of all of the eelgrass in Richard Simbay. The aerial photography is really designed as a damage assessment. So we just photograph the area where eel grass and anchoring co-occur so that we can get a better understanding \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: of how much eel grass is damaged by anchor scour\, and how much recovery we see within those scars \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: as a reminder. Anchor scour is the damage that we see to the eel grass from Anchor’s Change\, another ground tackle \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and these methods were \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: verified\, and by a peer reviewed journal that was published\, peer reviewed journal article that was published in 2019. And so we’ve been repeating the methods for several years since \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: This is this may be a familiar image to many of you. This is an example of the aerial photography that we receive. From these the aerial views that we receive from this photography. Now\, hopefully. Then\, if you go to the next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Yes\, that’s what I wanted to happen. What we’re doing is \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: looking specifically in roughly\, the area that is circled in blue here\, because that’s the area where we have both eel grass and anchoring. And so if when we zoom in to here\, we’re then able to say \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: how much of the eelgrass has been damaged from acre scour\, and you can see examples of what we call crop circles in this image\, depending on the clarity that you have on your screen. Basically the darker areas within this blue circle \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: or blue polygon. Those darker areas are eel grass and the circles that you see of lighter area within there. Those are the anchor scars or the crop circles that we’re talking about. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Next slide \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: we can. On the left is a more close up view of what we’re able to see in that photography. And the anchor scars that we’re able to document \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: on the right hand. Oh\, not yet on the right hand side \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: we’re looking at anchor scour. So basically\, if we add up the acreage of those of all those circles\, how much damage do we have? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: We have results from 2017\, 2021\, and 2022. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Our methods provide both a low and high estimate for total anchor scour \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: back in 2017\, which is the first time this method was done\, we saw between 50 and 85 acres\, or 8\, sorry 50 and 84 acres \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: in 2021. That high estimate was even higher. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And then in 22\, we’re really seeing a plateau of the damage. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: which is great news over all. We’re not seeing \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: robust recovery yet overall in the bed\, but we have it\, but we have seen \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: a plateau in the damage\, which is great news. We’ve at least stemmed the tide of ongoing anchor scour. Next slide a couple of notes about these damage assessments. In 2022 there was an area of unknown damage to the bed\, and it’s suspected that was a harmful algal bloom. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and that limited some of the interpretations we could make of the data next slide in 2023. The assessment actually wasn’t possible \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: because there was what’s called a macro algal mat\, basically\, a large \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: film of algae over the eel grass bed that was obscuring it from view. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And now these photographs cannot be taken at any time of the year\, so we couldn’t just wait for that to go away\, because the photographs have to be taken during the summer\, when the eel grass is at its maximum extent. It is a perennial plant. It grows and dies back each year\, so we need to take it during the summer. \nand it has to be taken at an extreme low tide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: so unfortunately\, that Macro Algolat happened during those windows of when we could have taken the photograph\, so we were not able to do the survey in 2023\, \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: some additional findings that I wanted to share. So what we have. In these photographs here. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: on the left hand side we have some examples of where we’ve seen recovery within anchor scars. So on top are the images from 2021\, and on the bottom are the images from 2022. The green circles on the left are the same in each photograph\, and you can see we can see robust regrowth of eel grass within specific eelgrass scars \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: on the right hand side. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: It’s the same years of images\, but these are examples of scars where we have not yet seen recovery. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So this is again\, both good news\, but also mixed news. The good news is that \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: again\, we’re demonstrating that as vessels are removed from the eograss protection zone we can expect for the eelgrass to recover. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: But if you’ll notice\, on the left hand side\, where we do see recovery\, those circles in 2021. They don’t have boats in them. We don’t know exactly what year those vessels were removed\, so from 2021 to 2022 \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: seems on our end as one year of recovery. But those scars actually could have been recovering for several years\, whereas on the right hand side\, where we don’t see the recovery in 2021. The boats are still there in 2022. They’re not there. So what this suggests is that it takes more than one year for the anchor scars to recover. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: which is good data for us to have\, because we don’t. Actually. there’s there’s not a lot of documented cases that can tell us how long we should expect it to take for these scars to restore themselves next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The last area of monitoring that we’ve been doing is our water bird monitoring\, and really the goal for this was to see where in Richardson Bay large groups of birds are doing what are codes called rafting\, which is when large groups of birds together rest on the base surface\, and they can rest in groups of up to 10\,000 birds. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The reason we’re looking at. This is because we wanted to know as we change the pattern of where boats are anchoring in Richardson Bay. Are we also seeing a change in the pattern of where birds are using the bay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: What we’ve seen here. So on the left hand side\, these are all of the drone. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: These are the I’m sorry. On the left hand side. It’s the results from the 6 drone surveys that we did during the 2022\, 2023 monitoring year. \nSo each of those image 6 images represents one survey. The red dots are where we see the rafts of birds. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now we\, similar to previous years. We continue to see rats primarily along the northern and eastern shorelines. So so far we have not seen any change in how birds are using the bay \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Okay\, that was a lot of data\, a lot of graphs\, a lot of information\, some major takeaways from that information. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So the good news is that the damage to eel grass from anchor scour appears to have plateaued. and we continue to see evidence of eel grass recovery \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the less good \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the overall health of the bed is questionable because we’re seeing an increase in that very sparse cover class. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: These are likely due to things like thermal stress\, wasting disease\, algal competition all things that are expected to increase with climate change. So the biggest takeaway from this is that\, given these known stressors that are going to continue to \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: stressed the eel grass in Richardson Bay. protecting and restoring the bed is more crucial now than ever. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: I believe I now hand it over to Jim\, but I will also be here at the end to answer any questions. \nRBRA: Morning. Thank you very much\, Rebecca. My name is Jim Malcolm\, the Harbor master for Richardson Bay Regional Agency going to talk this morning about our vessel census and status of vessels out on the anchorage to open our vessel census. We are currently our vessel. Census continues to drop. \nRBRA: We are as of December. We are sitting at 43 vessels. There has actually been. There has been a change to this\, but it went down by one and went back up by one. So we still sit at 43 vessels for January next slide\, please. \nRBRA: I’ll now go through the milestones individually\, and kind of discuss our trending for each milestone. Our first one is the post 2019 vessels as Director Gross had mentioned. In August we had\, we were at 14 of those post\, 2\,019 vessels. We currently in December. We are at 7\, and probably by the end of the week we’ll be sitting at 6. Post 2\,000 vessels \nRBRA: for our floating homes again\, as Director Gross have mentioned. In A. We were 2 in August\, and now we are down to our one remaining floating home. \nRBRA: our vessels in the Ap. In the eel grass protection zone 53. And we’re present last July 42 in August. And now we are down to 35 \nRBRA: and this is efforts through both vessel removals and efforts to \nRBRA: move vessels out of the eel grass protection zone into the actual anchoring zone. This will \nRBRA: be this number will continue to drop as we move forward on our signage project. And yeah\, actually mark out where the anchorage is\, and we continue on our efforts towards relocating\, reap both relocating vessels into the actual anchorage out of the eel grass protection zone\, and remove vessels from the anchorage and remove vessels from the Bay completely. \nRBRA: Our our October fifteenth\, of 2\,026 deadline for all occupied safe and seaworthy vessels removed. There were 10 last June or 10 in June of 2022\, 7 in August of 2023\, and that number remains steady at 7. \nRBRA: Total vessels on the water. We were 57 last last July 48\, and August\, and as I mentioned\, 43\, \nRBRA: and then\, in addition to that\, we have our th vessels that are present legally present under a 30 day permit. We have that numbers actually change since December. We now have 6 \nRBRA: 30 day permits. However\, 3 of those have overstayed their permit\, and are in various mechanisms of enforcement to have those vessels depart \nRBRA: next slide\, please. \nRBRA: 6. As I mentioned\, the this is the part of our efforts to work with the vessels that are over staying there. 30 day permits 6 citations were issued as of last December\, that numbers actually increased to 7 \nRBRA: 7 citations issued 3 initial. \nRBRA: 2Â s and one third. Actually\, that has increased by another. Third note\, third citation for a vessel. All of the citations that have been issued so far are for the Rba code section for entering in excess of 72Â h. \nRBRA: 2 nuisance abatements\, 2 nuisance abatement processes have been commenced one is on our one remaining floating home\, which we’ve put a stay on while the \nRBRA: responsible party for that floating home as their extension to remove the vessel\, and another nuisance abate. Note. Nuisance\, abatement. Notice will be going to a hearing next week. \nRBRA: All vessels are due to vacate the anchorage. By October fifteenth\, 2024\, with the exception of the 7 safe and seaworthy vessels all vessels that were due to vacate were issued a 12 month advance notice last October. \nRBRA: The a copy of the notices on the slide here. \nRBRA: Our plan is to prepare another notice for January\, and then\, as we progress into the summer\, the the number of notices \nRBRA: will increase in frequency \nRBRA: as vessels\, and then hopefully\, all vessels will also\, the number of vessels on the anchorage will decrease as we increase our both enforcement efforts and notice \nRBRA: and education efforts towards where vessels can legally anchor\, and which vessels are to be removed. \nRBRA: Finally\, for enforcement\, our planning is underway as director. Gross message mentioned for our signage and posting for the anchorage. 5 signs are to be to place on existing piles. \nRBRA: We have already identified the owners of those piles and have been in touch with them. and installation of one new pile and 3 floating buoys will be put in place to mark the actual bounds of the legal anchorage. \nRBRA: Plans are also underway to create the permit and submit to Bcd staff \nRBRA: permits are not yet submitted. The effective date for the permits will be this October and then all vessels in the Egrass protection zone as I mentioned\, did receive a 12 month notice to vacate\, and they’ll be receiving another mo another notice \nRBRA: this month. \nRBRA: Next slide\, please. \nRBRA: and that concludes my portion. And now I’m gonna turn it back over to Director Gross\, however\, similar to Rebecca. I will be remaining for the end of the presentation for any questions. \nBrad Gross: Thank you\, Jim. And thank you again\, Commissioners. \nBrad Gross: I’m gonna talk about our housing program now\, and how this all ties in with the vessels in the anchorage and the eel grass improvements that we’re planning\, as I’ve stated in the past our housing program is comprised by 4 components funding temporary housing support \nBrad Gross: case management and marina participations. And I’ve talked about all this in the past and just gonna go through it really quick our funding. 3 million dollars was received in March of 2023\, with thanks to Senator Mcguire for his support. The program began seeking applications in May of 2023\, and to date there’s been over a hundred $80\,000 expended into the program. \nBrad Gross: moving on Rbra rent housing authority contract was approved. We discussed their prefunding of $30\,000 last time we met with another $86\,000 provided to health and human services. \nBrad Gross: The contract between Health and Human Services and Episcopal community services for case management was approved in August of 2023 and Ecs. Has established a well received landside meeting dates in Sausalito. \nBrad Gross: and recently began there on the water outreach effort. I think the last time we talked. We were still looking for that full time case worker\, and that full time case worker with Ecs did begin employment very successfully\, I might say\, in October of 2023. \nBrad Gross: Regarding the Marina’s activities during this reporting period one marina is now committed\, and one marina has withdrawn participation. We are still seeking marinas\, not just in the Sausalito area\, but surrounding areas that are interested in assisting our bra and our programs to relocate the qualified vessels to Marinas. \nBrad Gross: This\, at a previous meeting this committee approved an extension for the post 2019 vessels that I mentioned earlier and harbor Master Malcolm mentioned\, and as part of that approval of that extension we \nBrad Gross: committed to providing this slide\, and this is a spreadsheet of tracking their progress. As you can see. \nBrad Gross: all but 3 vessels are either gone or engaged in some forward fashion in the program. So I wanna thank the committee. The Commission again for the extension\, because it’s proved to be very successful. We are working to get the last 3 folks engaged\, and the a few of these. I I’m not privy to the names of the people who have received vouchers\, but a few of these people I do know on this slide have vouchers and are actively seeking housing right now. \nBrad Gross: the temporary housing voucher program. There are 4 persons that are now housed. This again. This slide is a month dated there are 10 persons that are participating. I know that number is now 11\, which includes the 4 persons that are housed. 5 persons are in the queue to participate \nBrad Gross: with 2 persons that have a voucher and one pending as of last month. But as of today\, there are actually 6 people with vouchers that are actively seeking \nBrad Gross: housing. \nBrad Gross: What that important to us is that those 6 people relate to 6 more vessels being off the anchorage by the time. These soon after these folks get their housing\, and 4 vessels have been purchased via the vessel buyback program. Once those 6 people with vouchers are housed\, we anticipate getting those vessels which would bring us up into double digits vessels turned in via the vessel. Buy back program. \nBrad Gross: Now\, this is a new slide. You haven’t seen this one before but this slide\, and I’d like to explain it quickly. The the top 2 lines represent the vessels and the floating homes in the anchorage. \nBrad Gross: The bottom 7 lines represent our different supported programs like floating homes turned in persons\, house persons and process and remaining floating homes\, vessels turned in\, total vessels of loading homes turned in\, and persons with with vouchers. \nBrad Gross: and\, as you can see\, all the lines representing the ve. The vessels along the top are trending down. \nBrad Gross: and program related. Lines of vessels and floating home surged in persons with the vouchers. And most importantly\, persons housed are all trending up \nBrad Gross: and over the next few months we will see these lines eventually intercept and ultimately completely switch sides\, top to bottom\, which would be representing more successes in our programs. This is a very exciting trend that we’re seeing. And at our next presentation\, I think\, this. This slide will be very telling. \nBrad Gross: with that I want to \nBrad Gross: close\, and I’ll acknowledge this committee and BC. DC. Staff for their flexibility to work with us and our Bra\, and to explore \nBrad Gross: creative and common sense solutions to achieve our common goals. I’m convinced that this type of innovative and collaborative work will prove successful in the end. Thank you very much for your time and letting us present our latest achievements. If there are any questions \nBrad Gross: myself. Our master\, Malcolm and Rebecca Short Lustburg would be glad to answer them. Thank you very much. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much for that very comprehensive \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: presentation \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I think I’m gonna ask the committee if you will hold all your questions. Until we hear the city of Sausalito. I know that was a lot of information. But I know you guys probably took great notes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So Adrian\, do you have an introduction for the city of Sausalita. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair Gilmore. Again. It is brief and follows the identical format. \nBoardroom SX80: So maybe\, Brad\, if you unshare your screen\, please and \nBoardroom SX80: If I could kindly ask Mtc. To share Adrian. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair. Goma\, we have. Barbara Salzman would like to speak. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: Well\, I just had. \nBoardroom SX80: You’re muted chair. \nBoardroom SX80: chair. Gilmore\, you’re muted. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I’m sorry. Is Miss Salzman part of the presentation? Or is this public comment. \nBoardroom SX80: public comment\, public comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, we’re gonna hold public comment until later. We’re gonna go through the city of Sausalito’s presentation\, and then we’ll take questions and comments from committee members\, and then we will take public comments. So that’s kind of the way I see the scope \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: alright. So Miss Klein\, would you please give your introduction to the city of Sausalito’s presentation\, please? \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, I’d be happy to thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning again\, Adrian Klein. \nBoardroom SX80: So next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Again. These are the 10 sections of the city of Sausalito settlement agreement between BCDC. \nBoardroom SX80: And I believe the focus of their presentation today will be on vessel removal and eel grass\, habitat mitigation and damage next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Most relevant is that \nBoardroom SX80: the city requested and received an extension mentioned earlier today by Matthew \nBoardroom SX80: to remove a the largest of the anchor outs known as the Fedora \nBoardroom SX80: from December 30\, first to March thirty-first. For reasons similar to those described by the Rba this will promote voluntary resolution. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: This \nBoardroom SX80: image outlines the settlement agreement\, provisions relating to illgress\, habitat mitigation\, and damage avoidance. \nBoardroom SX80: I’ll give you a chance to just glance through that. \nBoardroom SX80: And if that’s enough time next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: And this is a summary of the actions by the city and BC. DC. On this eel Grass Restoration plan. Most relevant is that in the summer and the fall we received an excellent draft eelgrass Restoration plan\, provided some comments on 2 occasions and also received input from third party experts. \nBoardroom SX80: We’re continuing as we do with the Rba to meet monthly we are. \nBoardroom SX80: The city is preparing to submit its I believe\, final eel grass restoration plan. Soon. We’re in agreement on the majority of the components of that plan \nBoardroom SX80: with some discussion around the total acreage that will be \nBoardroom SX80: planted\, and whether the agreement \nBoardroom SX80: goal of one to 2 mitigation to one acre impact is a requirement. and I believe the city may address that\, but we just wanted to \nBoardroom SX80: share that \nBoardroom SX80: question. That’s on the table with you. Thank you very much. I’ll turn this over. I would expect first to councilmember Joan Cox\, who will then go ahead\, I believe\, and introduce her staff. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: and we could unshare the VCDC. Presentation to allow the city to share its presentation. Thank you very much. \nJoan Cox: Thank you so much. Adrienne\, and good morning\, Chair Gilmore and members \nJoan Cox: of the Enforcement Committee. This is our triannual update to the Enforcement Committee. My name is Joan Cox\, and I’m the vice mayor for \nJoan Cox: Sausalita. \nJoan Cox: Here’s an outline of the topics that we will cover today. We’ll start off with our waterfront management update \nJoan Cox: provided by sassy police \nJoan Cox: the department Brian Mathers. Then we will have a report on our regional cooperation in housing presented by our community and economic development. Director Brandon. \nJoan Cox: Then our resiliency and sustainability manager Katie throw Garcia will provide an update on the eel grass habitat mitigation and damage avoidance plan and I’ll include some comments there and then we will close and \nJoan Cox: be available for questions. So with that I’ll turn it over to \nJoan Cox: Brian matters. \nBrian Mather: Good morning\, everybody. Thanks for having me. \nBrian Mather: So I’ll go over a brief review of our waterfront management. So currently we have 5 total vessels in our anchorage. Right now\, what? That’s actually a reduction from the last meeting or triannual update\, I believe. We had. \nBrian Mather: We had 5 legacy and and one extra. So there were 6. So next slide\, please. \nBrian Mather: if we have a slide next slide. \nBrian Mather: anyway. So what we have is for legacy anchor routes. We actually ended up one of our legacy members ended up \nBrian Mather: getting ill. And so we’ve removed that person from the water\, and we’re working on housing for that person currently. The \nso the main issue or the main focus right now is the vendor\, as you see\, and that’s why we asked for the extension \nBrian Mather: and it was granted. So we appreciate that. So we’ve been in communication with the owner. We’ve been trying to work with the owner. There’s been some delays in the cooperation with the owner. And so we’ve been actively and currently are still actively working on the enforcement piece of that\, and are hoping to have that done within the next \nBrian Mather: month or so. But you know\, with whether finances staffing for marine assets and everything else\, it it’s a pretty complicated venture\, because it’s a very large boat. \nBrian Mather: So we’re we’re doing 2 things trying to get cooperation still from the owner and also working on the enforcement end of it\, if if that needs to take place. \nBrian Mather: So that’s the the end of our update. As far as our waterfront management. We haven’t had any. We had 2 vessels come in in the last month we were able to get them to move on within the 72Â h period\, in accordance with our State ordinance. \nBrian Mather: So that’s where we stand at this moment. If there’s any questions after\, I’ll be standing by for any questions. \nJoan Cox: thank you. And with that we’ll turn to Brandon Phipps\, our community Development Director. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Good morning\, Chair\, Gilmore\, Dcdc. Members and members of the public as Vice Mayor Cox mentioned. My name is Brandon Phipps\, Community and Economic Development Director. With so solido. Glad to be addressing you today to provide a brief update in connection with Section 3\, a per agreement related to regional cooperation and the development of resources\, and taking\, if necessary\, actions to support housing opportunities for anchor outs and Richardson Bay. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Regarding ad use. The city recently updated its adu ordinance to comply with State adu law. More specifically\, this item was approved with recommendations by the planning Commission in July was adopted by City Council in October. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: The Community Development Department continues to track new housing policy at the State level and may be required to make additional updates to our ordinance this year in order to continue to be compliant\, and we certainly intend to do that as required. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Additionally\, I’ll just briefly speak to this. On January 5 of this year the city of Sausalito released a public comment draft environmental impact report for the implementation of our housing element programs. And this document has been prepared to address \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project\, that being our housing element\, but particularly as related to the rezoning and selected opportunity sites at higher densities\, and this is all required under the California Environmental Quality Act. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: So the draft Eir will be circulated for a 45 day review period\, during which comments on the draft Eir may be submitted to the city\, and I hope this goes without saying. But the city welcomes any comments from the Bcd. On the public comment Draft Eir\, which is posted to our website. And I am happy to \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: provide any personal contact information or follow up with individual BC. DC members. If there are any questions\, that will do it for my update this morning. Thank you all for your time today\, and I will now pass the mic to our illgress. Consultant Robert Moody\, who will discuss excuse me\, I will pass the mic to Katie. Back. Garcia. Go ahead\, Katie. Thank you. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Thank you so much. Brandon. I’m here to present the the city’s progress on illgrass habitat mitigation and damage avoidance. In the blue text on the left you can see the the status updates which Adrian also presented which which have been presented to the Enforcement Committee prior to this meeting today in the text\, \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: on in the red. You will see our our updates from the most recent Enforcement Committee meeting\, which took place on August 20 third\, where we provided an update \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: on October eleventh we received A. BC DC. Response to expert review on our draft Eelgrass restoration Plan. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Following this\, South\, Ludo submitted a summary of future eel Grass Restoration Plan efforts on November twenty-seventh\, which included the city’s offer of additional protection measures rec recommended by regional experts. As far as this. This is the brief update on eel grass habitat from my end\, and I will. I will pass it on to Vice. Mayor Cox. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: vice Mayor\, I think you’re on mute. Excuse me. \nJoan Cox: thank you. Thank you\, Katie. \nJoan Cox: so I would like to address the issue that Adrian Klein made mention of during her introductory comments\, and that is the requirement of the settlement agreement. So the settlement agreement with the city of Sausalito States \nJoan Cox: quote goals in the plan will include compensatory mitigation at a ratio of no less than 1.2 to one mitigation area to impact area. So the settlement agreement says\, goals in the plan will include \nJoan Cox: on these and and indeed\, \nJoan Cox: that is important. Because the it’s important that it’d be a goal and not a requirement\, because it may actually be be infeasible. \nJoan Cox: So \nJoan Cox: on July 31\, 2023 regional experts\, lawyer and Merkel\, as well as coastal policy solutions opined that the 1.2 to one mitigation ratio could be infeasible to attain. Given Richardson Bay’s Natural Geomorphology and ability to support ingress. \nJoan Cox: It was therefore suggested that the settlement agreement be revisited. \nJoan Cox: And so\, on August seventeenth\, 2023\, I requested that Pcdc. Council provide a written analysis of Bcd. C’s position \nJoan Cox: without ever providing us with that analysis. BC DC. Staff on December thirteenth\, for the first time\, announced that the 1.2 to one ratio in the settlement agreement is a requirement and not just a goal. \nJoan Cox: as stated in the executed settlement agreement. It’s it baffles me that \nJoan Cox: the sentence in settlement agreement States goals in the plan will include\, and that BC. DC. Staff is now taking a position that this is a requirement in contravention of what regional experts opine is feasible. \nJoan Cox: So converting a goal into a requirement appears to be setting the city up for failure. \nJoan Cox: And this is very puzzling to me\, because we have a long history of cooperation and rapid progress toward meeting BC. DC. Goals\, and we would prefer to continue to work collaboratively\, moving forward. \nJoan Cox: It also is notable to me that this \nJoan Cox: goal is not in the settlement agreement with Rbra. \nJoan Cox: I noticed that this morning\, during Adrian Klein’s presentation that language does not appear in their settlement agreement. So why is BC. DC. Turning a goal into a requirement and insisting upon that goal only against the city of Sausalito\, and not \nJoan Cox: the Rvra. So \nJoan Cox: II hate to close on a challenging note. But this is an issue of great concern to the city. \nJoan Cox: And with that that concludes our presentation\, and we’re available to answer any questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much. The this committee thanks Ra. And the city of Sausalito’s representatives for the briefings. For being here and the time that it took to craft presentations. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this point\, do any of the Enforcement Committee members have \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: questions for either staff or for our guests. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t see any. \nBoardroom SX80: No questions. Actually\, Chair Gilmore. Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, Commissioner Eisen\, I can’t. I can’t see her on the screen. So it’s difficult. That’s the problem with showing up in person actually less visible. \nBoardroom SX80: Ii have a number of questions I did try to take notes as you suggested. Chair Gilmore\, but stick with me as I go back through the slides. \nBoardroom SX80: So with respect to the the \nBoardroom SX80: requests for extension that we’ve been told about today. \nBoardroom SX80: I am wondering\, and I guess I would go back to Director Gross. I’m going all the way back to the beginning of the slides. I think I heard from Adrian that the reason for those requests was to promote voluntary resolution. I think that was the phrase Adrianism. Yeah. \nSo I am wondering what? What exactly that means. What are we trying to reach some kind of a settlement agreement \nBoardroom SX80: in lieu of some kind of enforcement action. With respect to a couple of these vessels \nBrad Gross: for the question\, I appreciate it\, and no\, we are not looking for a settlement. We are actually\, we’re looking for a a conclusion. We’re looking for an amicable conclusion\, which is\, I’ll give you an example of the first floating home who was\, provided a 60 day extension. He worked diligently\, and was able to \nwith the assistance of the flexibility of this committee. \nBrad Gross: Get into a legal liverboard slip with this loading hall. \nBrad Gross: the next floating home that we’re working on. He claimed. We. We went through the citation process. We went through the abatement process. We are ready to move forward with a warrant if necessary\, but I thought it was\, \nBrad Gross: a a better solution to give him one more opportunity to get his boat relocated\, or turn it into our bra for proper disposal as opposed to \nBrad Gross: going through legal action\, II have to tell you\, and it’s no secret rvra is a very small agency with a very small budget with very high insurance costs all related to litigation. \nBrad Gross: Because of the actions that we’re taking. We will take those actions\, but it’s makes more sense to us to \nBrad Gross: give folks ample opportunity to abide by the regulations. Ultimately \nBrad Gross: this last vessel that got the extension and the other vessels got the extension \nBrad Gross: will be removed hopefully those folks will be housed. But \nBrad Gross: A perfect example is that if if we force people out of our anchorage. \nBrad Gross: they end up being a liability to somebody else. They move somewhere else. I could tell you that some of the the vessels that were really recently removed from saw Slato anchorage on the 72Â h notice simply made it over to our anchorage\, and one of them \nBrad Gross: is on a 30 day. Permit one of them’s getting a citation. So it’s become our problem. And we don’t want to. We don’t want to incur that type of oppression and any other agency. So working with these\, with the committee and these extensions\, I believe\, allows us\, and allows the voters ample time to take the correct actions. \nBoardroom SX80: Yep. \nwell\, I totally appreciate that these are in enormously complex \nBoardroom SX80: but what I’m trying to understand\, because we’ve heard now reports of regularly\, and each time there are sort of more and more \nBoardroom SX80: discussions about extensions\, but on the milestone slide one of the original slides. It’s the one with the black oyster catchers on it. \nI’m wondering if there is \nBoardroom SX80: any anticipation that there will be more requests for extension beyond the ones that have. \nBoardroom SX80: Just been provided. \nBrad Gross: That’s a great question. And and with in all honesty\, we are sitting with \nBrad Gross: over 30\, about 35 people who qualify for housing voucher program. \nBrad Gross: We have 6 factors out right now. We have\, according to our colleagues from health and human services. And we’re in housing authority. \nBrad Gross: They’re figuring we’re going to be able to get another 13 of them house within the year. As I told this committee\, and anybody who will listen\, we’re figuring they can house about 2 a month. So and all\, honestly\, yeah\, we’ll probably be back in close to 2\,024 to say\, look\, we’ve got a successful program. We’ve house 20 people. We remove 20 boats. We have a dozen left. We’re going to need some more time with them. \nBrad Gross: And I’m hoping that the this committee will see the wisdom in providing extensions if they’re required. As long as we are proving that the program is successful\, it’s really just as you know. The officers from Salsa said. It’s a time money staffing issue. Convincing \nBrad Gross: landlords to take these folks\, which isn’t really a problem. It’s just really a a timing and processing to get these people through the system. If we had. \nBrad Gross: you know\, we were\, we were allotted 3 million dollars. If we were allotted 6 million dollars we would have been able to bring in double the staff and put and house double the people. But we’re working diligently. We’re working successfully. It’s all proving to be working. So we’re hoping that if we do come that this committee will see the wisdom and providing another extension if required. \nBoardroom SX80: And II recognize that there’s a balancing act that goes on in terms of you know what what you achieve by an extension versus what you lose by an extension. But from what I understand from the eelgrass presentations both from the Rbra and Sausalito\, is that as these vessels continue to sit out there\, we continue to have \nBoardroom SX80: consequences to the eel grass which themselves require money and time to restore\, and to get back to where we should have been\, especially at this \nBoardroom SX80: critical time in our history\, where we have to do everything we can to capture carbon. So I’m hoping all of that is being balanced as we move through this problem. And along those lines. I’m wondering with respect to the Fedura. So now I’m sort of switching to Sausalito for a second. How long has it been that we have been \nBoardroom SX80: working with this particular owner? \nJoan Cox: When did we start that process. We’ve been working with this owner since since I’ve been involved in 2\,017 and perhaps longer. \nJoan Cox: Can provide an update. It it the last I understood. It looks as though we actually may have to \nJoan Cox: it it when it’s not entirely here\, we may actually have to undertake removal \nJoan Cox: through the enforcement process. But I’ll let Lieutenant another address. That group. \nBrian Mather: Yes\, Vice Mayor\, that’s accurate. You know we we’ve been engaged in some lengthy conversations\, and you know it’s turned into \nBrian Mather: the owner and the rep representatives not responding and getting legal aid. And and so there’s some stall tact\, tactics involved in that. So you know\, the city side at this point is enforcement. We’re hoping that maybe during the enforcement period that \nBrian Mather: they wake up and decide to actually take custody of their boat and and take care of it. But then\, you know\, like our bra says\, you know\, we run the risk of them moving that boat just into to their jurisdiction. We don’t want that\, and we’re not gonna allow that. So it’s a delicate situation. With resources\, and also taking people’s property and litigation. And what could happen after that? So we’re trying to do this right? \nBrian Mather: And that’s why we requested that extension is we gotta make sure we do this right for all parties involved and not rush into this. I know we\, the books\, been here for 26 years. So \nwe’re not trying to do this hastily. Here\, we’re just trying to do it right so. \nJoan Cox: And I will say\, you know\, we undertook the expense of doing a survey of the boat to see whether the boat is still salvageable. At this point the boat is actually considered to be marine debris under the definition. And so but we’ve made every effort to identify creative solutions. At this point. \nJoan Cox: Given this looming deadline we’ve into the enforcement approach. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, I mean\, if you’re saying that we have been trying to resolve this for 6 going on 7 years now\, yeah\, it really does think sound like the time is \nBoardroom SX80: ripe for moving to a different strategy than trying to get voluntary cooperation. But \nBoardroom SX80: at the last the last question I have\, and I’m I’m sorry to hear. \nThat a dispute has arisen between Sausalito and our staff\, because we have commented on each and every one of these presentations \nBoardroom SX80: about the thoroughness and the cooperation\, and how pleased we are at how things are moving. So I it’s concerning that we’ve had maybe the first of our sort of bumps in the road together. I’m I don’t know enough about this issue to ask even intelligent questions\, but it seemed to me \nBoardroom SX80: that when we set forth the 1.2 to one goal in the settlement agreement in the agreement \nBoardroom SX80: that there must have been some basis for thinking that was possible. So one of the things I would want to know\, maybe as we move forward is what has changed to make that now sound like it’s impossible. \nBoardroom SX80: because at at least a couple of years ago it sounds like it was considered feasible enough to set it as a goal. So that’s just a comment. I’m not really expecting a response. But that \nBoardroom SX80: is something that I think you know needs to be explored for for our committee. That’s all I have\, Mr. Chair Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Commissioner Eisen. Any other committee members \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: have questions or comments \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I wanna weigh in on that last point about the the settlement agreement. And I think this is going to be right for \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: either a future briefing by staff or the next time. Our scheduled briefing with the city of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Not only do I wanna know\, along with Commissioner Eisen is what’s changed between the time we entered into the agreement. And now that makes this infeasible. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: But I would like to hear from the the experts\, or or get more information on their expert opinion as to why it’s infeasible. And also Staff’s response to that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I just basically like to have a discussion. So we can understand a little bit more clearly. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The the facts of the situation. So that’s all I’m gonna say for now. And obviously I don’t expect \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: a comment. Now this is for a a future meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So\, having said that\, I’m going to ask if there’s any public comment on this item\, I know we had one hand raised earlier. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So first of all\, is there anybody in in the room \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: that would like to speak? \nBoardroom SX80: Non\, chair\, Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so then let’s go to the commenter \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: who attended this stage previously. \nBoardroom SX80: we have an online public comment from Barbara Salzman. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. go ahead. I believe you have 3Â min to speak. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: Barbara Saulson. I represent them more in Audubon society\, and I first like to commend Rebecca for her good presentation. And also say that I assume that we could just contact you for a copy of the record report\, because\, yeah\, we I don’t have that \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: and secondly\, about the RA presentation. There was a mention. I don’t think we need to spend a lot of time on this\, but there was a mention of going to other marine is in the vicinity for a possible relocation. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: and that does raise some concern for me because I it was my\, it’s been my understanding that Marina is a really only allowed to have liver boards or or people living on their boats for protection purposes. And it’s very limited. So I do have to raise. It’s a question of how how realistic that is as a as a \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: a relocation \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: potential moving forward because II wouldn’t. You wouldn’t be wanting to move people as to other marine is where it’s not legal\, of course. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: And thirdly\, with regard to to Sausalito and the the the apparent change here in in requirements. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: You know\, I’d like to point out the source of lead\, though it’s really been in the forefront of moving this along. They they they took the initial action\, and they are continuing our small city and they’re continuing to make in my view efforts and I would hope that this would be clarified and the the good point made by the city that it’s now changed to a requirement. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: II if II find it \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: You know\, unexplainable. Why\, why\, that’s taking place\, and so maybe something’s going on that I don’t understand. But I’ve been involved in this a long time\, and I do think that it’s not fair to have 1 one jurisdiction ha! Having to make certain requirements that are pretty \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: owner is\, and and the other jurisdiction\, I mean\, I want success for everybody but the other jurisdiction not having to \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: have that requirement. So I hope you consider that. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: Thanks a lot. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Do we have any other? \nBoardroom SX80: Sorry\, that’s all we have here\, Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. One last chance for any committee members to make a final comment or question. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, seeing then\, once again\, I want to extend the committee’s thanks to both the Rba and the city of Sausledo for very comprehensive and informative presentations today. Thank you very much. And enjoy the rest of your day. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. So now we move on to Item number 7. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: It is a staff presentation\, and a vote on a post recommend recommended decision to adopt a settlement agreement to be entered into with Roger Stan Bridge\, of Alameda\, City and County. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: If this committee votes to adopt the recommended Enforcement decision\, which includes the proposed settlement agreement\, it will be put up for a vote of approval or rejection by the full Commission at its January eighteenth. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: 2024\, meeting\, which is scheduled to be held online and in person at the Metro Center\, which is located at 3 75 Beale Street\, in San Francisco City and county\, and that meeting begins at 10’clock. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, after the staff gives her presentation\, I will ask\, respondent to affirm its agreement with the terms and conditions of the stipulated order. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Then I will hold public comment on this item\, and then afterwards we\, the committee\, will hold our discussion and vote on the staff’s recommendation. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, at this time. Will. The representative or representatives of the respondents. Please identify themselves for the record. \nBoardroom SX80: Margie\, just this is Adrian Klein. Just inform me\, Mister Standridge had been online\, but he is working. So it seems that we’ve lost him at this point. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you for that. But clearly he has been notified of the meeting and he was here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we will. Go ahead and proceed with policy enforcement analyst Adrian Klein. Will give her her presentation. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair. Gilmore. May I have the item? 7 slide? Thank you very much. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So as per usual. This will be quite brief\, but we’ll run through location timeline of events. Summary of the violation and staff recommendation to the Enforcement Committee next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So the site addresses 3 0 2 5 Marina. Drive in the city and county of Alameda the Red Arrow is pointing roughly to the address on the Alameda shoreline next slide\, please. Zooming in a second Google Earth image \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please\, when you’re ready. Thank you so much. There may be a little lag. So this red arrow is now pointing to \nBoardroom SX80: 3025\, Marina drive. \nBoardroom SX80: and you can see a single boat dock with a white boat. The single boat dock is the \nBoardroom SX80: subject of this proceeding. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So as you will have read in the staff\, recommended Enforcement decision. There was a an existing boat\, Doc\, that was replaced in 2\,000 by a former owner\, who submitted\, but never filed as complete a permit application. The BC. DC. Staff did not pursue resolution of this violation. Between \nBoardroom SX80: the year 2\,000 \nBoardroom SX80: and the present in 2018\, Mr. Roger Standrich Pre. Purchased this property\, and in 2021 BC. DC. Or 2022 BC. DC. Staff\, initiated communications with Mister Sandridge to have him either remove the unauthorized Doc or submit \nBoardroom SX80: a complete permit application so that we could retroactively authorize the existing structure. \nBoardroom SX80: Mr. Standridge was not surprisingly surprised to be hearing from us and to to learn of this unauthorized structure. So\, despite the fact that he was initially not particularly responsive\, recently he’s been very responsive and cooperative. \nBoardroom SX80: so we did. He wasn’t responsive to our initial enforcement communication\, so we escalated to commence a formal enforcement proceeding. This hearing is the culmination of that he did respond to the violation report\, and indicated that he would like to settle rather than have a contested order\, and we were able to reach those terms which I will describe. So next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this is just a single violation. For the failure to obtain a permit to replace a smaller replacement. Dock. So it is less bay fill than had been previously in place for a legitimate water oriented use of the bay next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So the terms which we have negotiated\, and both both Staff and Mister Standard Degree to our to either by the middle of February\, remove the unauthorized doc and gangway\, and submit photographic evidence or submit a filed application for the existing structures\, and to pay a $2\,000 penalty which Mr. Sandridge Hand delivered to the office yesterday. \nBoardroom SX80: and that concludes the staff presentation with that recommended recommended \nBoardroom SX80: decision for the committee. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Adrienne. Normally. This is where we would ask the respondent to \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: affirm that he agrees with the terms and conditions of the proposed settlement. Agreement. However\, he’s not here\, but I wanna point out again for the record that he has signed the settlement agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: However. It does not become effective until the full Commission votes on it on January eighteenth\, 2024. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So\, having said\, all of that do any members have questions for Adrian at this point. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, not seeing any. Margie\, do we have any public comment on this item? \nBoardroom SX80: We do not hear Gilmore \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I believe we didn’t have any written public comment prior to this correct \nBoardroom SX80: correct. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, great. So at this point in time\, I’ll need a motion and a second to approve \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the settlement agreement. \nBoardroom SX80: Move the staff recommendation. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. So \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the it was a new spot. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So it was moved by Commissioner Eisen and seconded by Commissioner best kids. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and Matthew\, would you please call the roll? \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, Commissioner Bieland. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Aye. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. Aye. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Commissioner Buscis. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay\, so this item is concluded\, and I wanna remind everybody that the Commission is scheduled to hear and vote on this recommended Enforcement decision at its February first. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So February first\, or January eighteenth meeting. Excuse me. Chair. W. Would you mind for the record stating the \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, I’m sorry\, unanimously \nBoardroom SX80: thank you. And \nBoardroom SX80: the next \nso you’re asking\, when is the next Commission meeting this? \nBoardroom SX80: Ph. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: yes. The next Commission meeting is the eighteenth. Is this gonna be heard on the eighteenth \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: or February? First cause? I have 2 different notes here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, goodness\, I’m sorry about that. Let me make sure I get the right date out \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for public and for the record. \nBoardroom SX80: Let me get pull up that information for you. If you’ll \nBoardroom SX80: indulge me for a moment. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s it’s it’s on the agenda. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m sorry\, having trouble accessing the agenda. So I just wanna make sure I give you the correct information \nso \nexcellent. Tell me \nBoardroom SX80: I’m sorry I can’t. I can’t pull it up\, but I think it’s it. I just was told by Margie. She believes it’s perhaps February first\, in fact. \nBoardroom SX80: which makes sense. At this point. I am pulling up the agenda right now. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and it is \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay. I can confirm that it is not on \nBoardroom SX80: commission meeting. February first. Yes\, okay\, so it’s on the February First Commission meeting. I just got confirmation from rachel. Thank you\, Rachel. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So for the court reporter strike all references to this being held on January eighteenth. The correct date is February first\, 2024. The meeting will be held at 3 75 Field Street in San Francisco at 10’clock. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Alright\, thank you. Everybody. Item\, 8 is a \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: vote\, a hearing\, and a vote on the recommended Enforcement decision to resolve enforcement case er 2021 0 4 4.0 0. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So our next agenda item is a staff presentation and a vote on a proposed recommended decision to adopt the settlement agreement to be entered into with Carl \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yohans Meyer\, of Tiburon\, Marin County. If this committee votes to adopt the recommended Enforcement decision\, which includes the proposed settlement agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: It will be put up for a vote \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: of approval or or rejection \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: by the full commission at its February first\, 2024\, meeting\, which is scheduled to be held online and in person \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: at the Metro Center\, located at 375 Beale Street. in San Francisco City and county\, starting at 10’clock. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Excuse me\, Matthew wants to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: No\, actually\, I put my hand out. Sorry I wanted to make sure that you gave the right date there\, too. It’s also going to be February first. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So after the staff presentation\, I’m going to ask the respondent to affirm. It’s agreement with the terms and conditions of the proposed agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Then I will allow public comment on this item\, and afterwards the committee will hold our discussion and vote on Staff’s recommendation. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this time will the representative or representatives for the respondent please identify themselves for the record. \nJohn Sharp: Yes\, good morning. I’m John Sharp. I’m the attorney for Mr. Johan’s Meyer the owner of 5 blending lane in Belvedere. Not Tiburon. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, thank you very much for that clarification. Thank you for being here today\, and welcome. So I will. I will now invite enforcement analyst Rachel Cone to give her opening remarks. Rachel. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Just one moment while I share my screen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And \nBoardroom SX80: does that look okay for everyone. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: okay. \nBoardroom SX80: So good morning chair\, Gilmore\, committee\, members and all in attendance today I’ll present Enforcement case number er 2021 dot 0 4 dot 0 0 \nBoardroom SX80: for which the respondent is Mr. Carl H. Johansmeyer\, represented today by Attorney John Sharp\, and thanks Mr. Sharp\, for being here. \nBoardroom SX80: I will begin by familiarizing you with the location of the violation\, followed by a timeline of events\, and then end by summarizing the violation and finally presenting the staff’s recommendation. \nBoardroom SX80: So there are 2 images on this slide. The one on the left is a zoomed out vicinity map\, and the one on the right focuses in more closely on the location of the violation. There is a red PIN on each image at 5 Blanding Lane\, Belvedere Island\, Marin County. \nBoardroom SX80: and the home is close to the southern tip of Belvedere island and faces east. \nBoardroom SX80: This is a photo of the property from the lower shoreline area taken facing west\, and there’s a yellow oval outlining the specific location of the violation. \nBoardroom SX80: On this slide the image on the left side of the screen shows the violation more closely. The respondent has represented that there was a fence surrounding this property for the past century\, and they needed to replace an 11 foot 2 inch long. Section of a 6 foot tall wire fence in approximately 2021 \nBoardroom SX80: that 11 foot 2 inch long. Section is the section that the respondent needed. Bcdc authorization prior to placing. \nBoardroom SX80: And I’ll now take you through the timeline of events in this case. So in May of 2021 BC. DC. Enforcement staff received a report from City of Belvedere Staff\, alleging that unpermitted fencing had been installed on the property of 5 Blanding lane within BC. DC’s 100 foot shoreline ban jurisdiction \nBoardroom SX80: BC DC. Opened enforcement case er 2021 dot 0 4 0 0\, and made initial contact with respondents authorized Representative Attorney John Sharp. \nBoardroom SX80: between May and June of 2021 respondent\, and Mr. Sharp informed Staff that they were meeting with consultants and a surveyor\, and had hired an architect\, indicating that they were beginning to put together initial application materials to seek and obtain after the fact permit for the fence replacement. \nBoardroom SX80: In September of 2021 city of Belvedere staff and a surveyor conducted a site visit at 5 Blanding Lane\, and reported their findings to BCDC. Staff\, who were unavailable to attend that day. \nBoardroom SX80: City staff confirmed that fencing had been placed on Mr. Johan’s Meyers property without permits. So with this information\, in October of 2021 Bcd. C. Staff issued a notice of violations to Mr. Johan’s Meyer\, initiating a standardized fine process which gave him 35 days to either remove the unpermitted fill\, or to seek and obtain a permit for the fence before standardized fines began accruing. \nBoardroom SX80: In March of 2022\, Mr. Sharp submitted an incomplete region. Wide permit application on behalf of the respondent\, seeking after-the-fact authorization for defense. \nBoardroom SX80: Then\, between October 2022 and October 2023\, Enforcement staff made several attempts to urge Mr. Johansmeyer to complete his Permit application and on October thirteenth\, 2\,023\, staff notified the respondent that the executive director was rescinding the opportunity to resolve the violation\, using the standardized fines. Process after determining that the respondent had not made a good faith effort to resolve the violation. \nBoardroom SX80: On October thirtieth\, 2023 staff mailed a violation report and complaint for administrative civil penalties to the respondent. \nBoardroom SX80: and finally\, on November thirtieth\, 2023 respondent and staff agreed to resolve this enforcement matter via the proposed settlement agreement. \nBoardroom SX80: So to summarize the one violation is for the failure to obtain a Bcd C. Permit prior to placing fencing in Bcd. C’s 100 foot shoreline ban jurisdiction\, and this is in violation of section 6\, 6\, 3\, 2. A of the Mccoyer Petras Act \nBoardroom SX80: to resolve this case. Staff recommends that the Enforcement committee vote to recommend that the Commission authorizes the executive director to execute the proposed settlement agreement\, which requires respondent to \nBoardroom SX80: one pay $2\,500 in administrative civil liability within 30 days of executing the agreement\, and 2 by February 2820\, 24. Either remove the unauthorized fence and submit photographic evidence of the same\, or submit their filed application\, seeking after the fact authorization for the fence. And that concludes the staff’s presentation\, and I will stop sharing my screen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much\, Rachel. At this point\, Mr. Sharp\, I’m gonna ask you if your client agrees to the terms and the conditions of the proposed settlement agreement. Yes\, my client does\, and I am authorized to state that he’s prepared to execute the agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Great! Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Do any Enforcement Committee members have any questions for either staff or for Mr. Sharp. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Go ahead. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. So just so that I’m understanding we sent a notice in March 2022\, that you have 35 days to fix this problem. \nBoardroom SX80: And now. a year and a half later. we’re settling it. Is that okay? What? What was happening in between then? Because. \nBoardroom SX80: what I’m worried about is the agreement says that they have to remove the fence or submit \nBoardroom SX80: the application which they said they were going to submit\, and really never did. So what happens if on February 2820 24\, \nBoardroom SX80: I mean\, we have. I don’t know how much effort has been put into this. We’re getting $2\,500 out of it. \nBoardroom SX80: What happens if yet again\, the respondent decides that they are going to neither remove the fence nor submit the proper application. \nBoardroom SX80: So that would then mean that the the settlement agreement goes away\, and we would commence formal enforcement through and and \nBoardroom SX80: require action through an order. Additional penalties we can seek\, because 2\,500 is not really going to be sufficient at that point. In time I would have to get back to you on that I’m not exactly sure. And how that would work. \nBoardroom SX80: Well\, I think the Commission may want to know that before they vote on that\, because an awful lot of effort is being put into getting somebody to do what they really should have done a year ago. \nBoardroom SX80: so \nBoardroom SX80: that’s that’s all I have. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Rebecca. I think you bring up a very good point. I think\, as part of the presentation to the full commission \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: given given the history\, I mean no disrespect. But given the history of this I think the Commission should be informed as to if there’s non compliance\, what the next steps are\, and what penalties could conceivably be levy for non-compliance? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Are there any other questions or comments by commission members\, committee members? Excuse me. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Seeing then\, Margie\, do we have any public comments? \nBoardroom SX80: He no public comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And did we? I don’t believe we had any written comments prior to the meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s correct. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so one last time for committee members\, any final comments or questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so at this point in time\, I would like a motion to approve the Executive Director directors recommended enforcement decision regarding proposed settlement agreement. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Someone \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I didn’t hear who moved. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, we have a motion by Commissioner Billen\, and a second by Commissioner Vasquez. Matthew\, would you please call them Wrong \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Bielin. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, Commissioner Busque. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: so the motion passes unanimously. 4 0. And this item is concluded. The Commission is scheduled to hear and vote on this recommended Enforcement decision at its February first\, 2\,024 meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and that will be held at feels 375 Deal Street in San Francisco at 10’clock committee members\, I will entertain a motion and a second to adjourn our meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: So moved \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: moved by Commissioner Eisen\, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez. Thank you very much. Everyone. Have a good day. We are adjourned. \n2024.01.11 ZOOM Recording Transcript – Enforcement Committee \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and this meeting of the Bcdc. Enforcement Committee is here by call to order. My name is Marie Gilmore\, and I am chair of this committee \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for Commissioners\, including those attending at Beale Street. Please ensure that your video camera cameras are always on\, and please mute yourselves when you are not speaking. Our first order of business to day is to call the roll. Matthew\, please call the Roll Commissioners. Please unmute yourselves while he does this\, to respond\, and then mute yourselves \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: after responding. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning\, Commissioner Bielyn. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen\, here Commissioner Vasquez. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: here \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we have a quorum present\, and are duly constituted to conduct business\, and that brings us to item 3 on our agenda public comment period. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: in accordance with our usual practice\, and as indicated on the agenda. We will now have general public comment on items that are not on the agenda. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I believe\, Margie\, we have not received any general comments prior to the meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: We did share. We received one\, and it will be posted on our website. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for members of the public attending online. If you would like to speak either during the general public comment period or during the public comment period for an item on the agenda. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Please raise your hand in the zoom application by clicking on the participants. Icon at the bottom of your screen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and look in the box where your name is listed under attendees. Find a small palm icon on the left. If you click on that palm\, icon\, it will raise your hand. or if you are joining this meeting by phone\, you must Dial Star 9 to raise your hand\, then Dial star 6 on your keypad to unmute your phone. When the host asks you in order to make a comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The meeting hosts will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order that they were raised. After you are called upon you will be unmuted\, so that you can share your comments. Please announce yourself by first and last name for the record before making your comment \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for members of the public attending in person. Please queue up at the Speaker’s podium and wait to be called upon to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commenters are limited to 3Â min to speak. Please keep your comments respectful and focused. We are here to listen to any individual who requests to speak. but each speaker has the responsibility to act in a civil and courteous manner as determined by the chair. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We will not tolerate hate\, speech\, direct threats\, indirect threats\, or abusive language. We will mute anyone who fails to follow those guidelines. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Margie\, do we have any commenters? \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour\, for online? We do not have\, as well as in person. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commissioner Vasquez. Is there anybody? Are there any members of the public that which to make general comments at your location? \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: No\, there are not. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. The next item on our agenda. Approval of the draft minutes for I believe\, is at the last 2 meetings. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Staff. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: thank you. So committee members\, I would appreciate a motion and second\, to approve these meet meeting minutes. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Second\, second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: we have a motion from Commissioner Vasquez\, and a second from Commissioner Bill in Matthew. Would you please call the role \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Bielin? \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Aye. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Hi\, Commissioner Vasquez. \nBoardroom SX80: chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. thank you. The minutes are approved. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The next item on our agenda is the Enforcement report and the Enforcement policy manager\, Matthew Trujillo will now provide the enforcement. Matthew. \nBoardroom SX80: thank you good morning\, chair committee members and greetings\, while members of the public in attendance welcome\, and also welcome to \nBoardroom SX80: Michael in who is acting general counsel here to day while Greg is on vacation. \nBoardroom SX80: First is a case update. Since our last meeting on November ninth\, 2023. In the past 2 months we’ve opened 5 new cases. We resolved 7 cases\, and as of today\, there are 71 unresolved cases in the queue. \nwhich is a net change of negative 2. Since my last report. \nBoardroom SX80: Second\, I want to note for this committee that we have issued extensions of time to both the city of Sausalito and to the Rbra\, to remove 2 vessels from Richardson’s Bay. \nThese extensions of time were granted on a finding of good cause by the executive director\, and they were both reviewed and approved by General by the general counsel prior to distributing \nBoardroom SX80: the city’s extension\, was granted through March 30\, first 2024\, and Rbra’s extension was granted through February 20\, seventh\, 2024\, \nBoardroom SX80: and that concludes my report. I’ll be glad to entertain any. Follow up questions about the status of the Enforcement program from the committee. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Matthew. Do any members of the committee have questions for Matthew for comments? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, seeing none? Are there any members of the public who have comments or questions on the Enforcement report. \nBoardroom SX80: There’s none. Joe Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you very much. Well\, that moves us on to item number 6\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: which is briefings by the Richardson Bay Regional Agency\, or Rvra\, and the city of Sausalito. On the anchor out abatement and eel grass restoration efforts in Richardson’s Bay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: by both the Rb. Ra. And the city of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this time will the representatives or Rvra please identify themselves for the record. \nBrad Gross: Good good morning\, chair\, Giomore. This is Brad\, Gross\, executive director for Rvra with me today I have our harbor\, Master Jim Malcolm and our eel grass representative Rebecca Schwartz Lessberg from coastal polis policy solutions. I’d I’d like to begin with a quick apology. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: You’re jumping the gun just a tag. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I would also like to have the representatives for the city of Sausalito identify themselves for the record. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Hello! I’m Katie via the city of sustainability manager. \nBoardroom SX80: Clear. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Good morning\, Brandon Phipps\, community and Economic Development director with city of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Joan\, you’re muted \nJoan Cox: Joan Cox\, vice Mayor of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you both city of Sausalito and our Bra representatives for being here. Welcome? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And can I caution anybody? If you’re not \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: being speaking directly\, could you please mute yourself\, cause I’m hearing some whispers or feedback. I’m not quite sure where it’s coming from\, but if you can mute mute yourself if you’re not speaking\, it would be greatly appreciated \nJoan Cox: if I might\, as we also have Robert Mooney with us\, who is our field brass consultant. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Great. Thank you very much. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Sorry to interrupt. I think we also should have a \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Brian Mather from the police department. I’m not sure if he was promoted\, or if he is online. But \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: I was told that he was coming \nand \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: let me confer with him. I’m not seeing him on the attendee list. Sorry about that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so at this point I’m going to invite Adrian Kline to give her introduction to this this presentation\, Adrian. \nBoardroom SX80: Let’s see. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning. \nBoardroom SX80: everybody. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: so I have a quick little Powerpoint\, the purpose of which is really just to highlight in blue text\, the settlement agreement terms which \nBoardroom SX80: the RBRA. And then the city will expand upon so next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this\, these 21 points. Mark the the categories in the Rba Settlement agreement\, and the 4 in blue\, I believe\, will be the focus of the Rba’s presentation today. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this is direct text from the agreement regarding eelgrass\, habitat restoration. And I’ll just give you a chance to read \nBoardroom SX80: those 3 points. \nBoardroom SX80: therefore. \nBoardroom SX80: and the next slide is a continuation of this \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: section. \nBoardroom SX80: Go ahead\, please. I oops! I think we skipped one. \nBoardroom SX80: Go back one\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Oh\, I’m sorry. My my mistake. \nBoardroom SX80: yes\, forward! \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. So regarding management of vessels on the anchorage after 2019\, the agreement required that they be removed by the middle of October of last year\, and the Rbi requested and received a one year long extension\, to meet this requirement\, which was \nBoardroom SX80: greatly influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: For vessels on the air anchorage prior to 2019 the floating homes were also to have been removed. The rba has been working hard to achieve this goal. For one\, they requested\, and received a 60 day extension\, and you’ll be hearing the status of that today. That was through December fifteenth\, and \nBoardroom SX80: in early December they received\, they requested\, a hundred 40 day extension\, and that\, as was just noted by Matthew\, was granted through February twenty-seventh. First\, a different single houseboat. So they are very discrete requests to rectify discrete. So negotiations. \nBoardroom SX80: or allow time for discrete negotiations. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: and these will be the presenters who you have all met\, so I’ll cede the floor to Brad Gross. Thank you. \nBrad Gross: Thank you very much\, Adrian\, and and my apologies. Chair Gilmore\, for jumping the gun I had just signed in. I was having problems with my connection\, and I was about to say that I apologize for no camera. But I’m going to leave it off \nBrad Gross: just to protect this connection that that we have and that I’m able to present to this board. So\, Adrian\, will you be presenting? Put it posting our Powerpoint. \nBrad Gross: I was counting on you to do that\, Brad. Is that okay? Great? Thank you. \nBrad Gross: If I \nBoardroom SX80: we’re happy to do that. Just let us know that day or 2 before next time. Thank you. \nBrad Gross: Not a problem. If \nBrad Gross: let me share my screen. Sorry for that. Everybody. My apologies. \nBrad Gross: Okay\, good morning\, everybody. \nBrad Gross: Chair Gail Moore\, Commissioners and members of BC. BC. Staff. As I said earlier\, I am Brad Gross\, and I have already. Introduced Jim Malcolm\, our harbor master\, and Rebecca Short Usberg will be presenting in conjunction with me today \nBrad Gross: before I begin. \nBrad Gross: I’d like to say that this presentation is dated by one month\, as we were originally scheduled as everybody knows\, to present on the December fourteenth\, and I will update any items verbally. If there have been any changes \nBrad Gross: as we have presented in the past\, we couldn’t do what we do here without our many partners. You see their logos displayed on this slide one of the changes. I did realize when looking at this slide\, that we fail to include coastal policy solutions\, and Merkel and associates who are ha obviously have been working with us for for many\, many years and helping us with our upcoming eographs program. \nBrad Gross: I’m just going to go through some of these milestones that Adrian had identified. And you’ve all seen in the past. \nBrad Gross: first of all\, \nBrad Gross: The petition for necessary Federal action has been completed and is on and going the removal of unoccupied. Most of these and the bright blue\, have already been done the ones with later due dates you see\, and that kind of I don’t know what to describe that color\, that other blue color \nBrad Gross: but the removal of unoccupied marine debris is done\, and ongoing as vessels may become marine debris\, we had we give them our immediate attention. We finalize the Environmental Protection and Management plan in 2021. No new vessels in the Eel Grass Protection zone is ongoing. There’ll be more discussion about that as we move on. The installation of moorings is on hold \nBrad Gross: the initiation of the Eel Grass restoration studies was done in 2022. The removal of the post 2019 vessels. As Adrian pointed out\, they received an extension\, and to October fifteenth of 2024\, and there’s some good progress that we’ll be talking about later on. What’s happening with those? The removal of the floating off floating homes off of all the point by October fifteenth. \nBrad Gross: 2023\, 2 were removed by the deadline\, and one \nBrad Gross: was actually the one that was provided. These initial 60 day extension was moved on a December eleventh to illegal floating home birth that leaves us one floating home\, and that vessel has been through a citation process and a nuisance abatement process for removal. And Rbra has requested\, and was recently granted one last \nBrad Gross: one last extension to allow the owner to repair and relocate his vessel. That extension now goes through February 20 twenty-seventh\, so our next presentation will have some more information on the the results of the extension\, and where that vessel there lies\, we anticipate it being out of the anchorage by the end of February. \nBrad Gross: moving on complete admin actions update ordinances has all been done\, and as we’ll show later in the presentation\, we do have their Coast Guard response\, which I’ve mentioned in the past\, and we have a new supporting order received from Judge Oric on December first\, which I will talk about further in the presentation \nBrad Gross: beginning of the implementation of the 10 Year Adaptive Management Plan. That plan was due. This again. This slide is a month old. It was planned\, was to be submitted on December fifteenth\, and it was submitted on time and on schedule. \nBrad Gross: Next item\, no vessels in the Epz. By October of 2024 we are working on a signage program and rubber. Master Malcolm will talk about the notifications that we’ve given to the vessels and our plans moving forward\, the removal of all occupied non safe and seaworthy vessels\, and now has an extension to october of 24 \nBrad Gross: and all these vessels in this category have been provided with the 12 month advance notice\, and again more of that by harbor. Master Malcolm. \nBrad Gross: Applying for a morning permit \nBrad Gross: the rest of these items have a due date by October of 2026\, so they will be reported on in future presentations\, but removal of all occupied safety\, worthy vessels\, removal of all vessels and occupants\, and only transient seaworthy vessels in the anchor zone\, all due dates of October of 2026. \nBrad Gross: I’m gonna just go through and report on \nBrad Gross: activities during this reporting period. I’m not going to go on the \nBrad Gross: Pass reporting period. But this is the vessel buyback program. During this reporting period 5 vessels have been purchased and properly disposed of. One floating home was purchased and disposed of during this reporting period\, bringing 8 total vessels\, purchasedly and properly disposed of since the reinstatement of the program\, in April of 2023\, \nBrad Gross: right around $40\,000 has been distributed since the reinstatement of the program\, and then just over $81\,000 has been distributed\, and 21 vessels have been properly disposed of since the program exception in 2022. \nBrad Gross: This is the letter I was talking about from the coastguard where it talks about Cfr. Section 33 dash point 1 10.1 2 6 alpha\, where the Coast Guard has delegated authority for the operational management to Richards of a regional agency. \nBrad Gross: This is a an important slide that I would like to present. On an order received by George Ork on December first\, 2023\, Judge Orrick provided an order to dismiss without leave to amend a claim against Rbra with language that supports Rbra’s position and codes regarding Rvra\, I’m sorry regarding Richardson Bay. \nBrad Gross: Specifically\, when Cfr. 33.1 10.1 2 6\, Alpha was identified\, the judge appined the following. the plaintiff argues or implies that Rbra’s anchorage ordinance is preempted by Federal law. He goes on to say that I agree that no regulation or Federal authority identified by the plaintiff\, preempts the authority of Rbra to control anchorages in Richardson Bay. Instead\, the Federal regulation he identified established Richardson Bay as a special anchorage and directs mariners to comply with Rbra’s permit scheme. \nBrad Gross: and although this opinion is still subject to appeal\, it mentions more than once regarding anchoring and living aboard on Richardson Bay that the United States Constitution does not confer a blanket right to anchor in Richardson Bay. Boaters do not have a constitutional right to unregulated long term anchorage in public navigable waters. \nHe goes on to talk about this particular plaintiff\, who was planning to live on his vessel. \nBrad Gross: where he says he admits that he intended to live on his boat in Richardson Bay\, which is not allowed under Arbra code\, and means that he would be denied a permit. \nBrad Gross: He goes on to say\, living aboard a houseboat or vessel anchored in Moore or moored in Richardson Bay is prohibited. \nIf \nBrad Gross: I’m gonna leave you with that\, well\, I’ll be back after Eographs update from Rebecca Schwartz\, Lessburg\, and the anchorage update by our harbour master. So I’ll turn this over to Rebecca. Now\, thank you. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Good morning\, everyone. Thank you\, Brad. Hello! I believe I’m know you all. But for those who I haven’t met\, my name is Rebecca Schwartz\, Lesburg. I’m the president of Coastal policy solutions. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and I’ve been working with Rvra to advance their ill re their efforts to protect and restore Eel grass in Richard Simbay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So I’ll be sharing 2 main components today. The first is an update about the grant our Bra received from the Us. Environmental Protection agency to restore eelgrass\, and the second is\, I’ll be sharing results from our 2023 monitoring update that describes the Eelgrass monitoring efforts over the past year \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: so\, as you may remember\, Rbra was awarded 2.8 million dollars from the EPA’s San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and that award funds\, the development of the Restoration and Adaptive Management plan that Brad mentioned\, that was submitted to BC. DC. On December fifteenth. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: It also funds the restoration of 15 acres of eel grass by 2027\, and the related ongoing adaptive management\, monitoring and partner engagement outreach associated with that Restoration effort \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: to implement this grant\, RBRA. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Awarded consultant services to Co. Still policy solutions and Merkel and associates for project management\, stakeholder engagement policy support\, and for the actual on the ground\, eel grass restoration. All of this is being done in collaboration with San Francisco State University’s Estuary and Ocean Science Center. Specifically\, Dr. Kathy Boyer and her lab \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and Audubon\, California. The sub awards for those project partners are in process \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So a little bit about the Restoration and adaptive management plan\, which we call the ramp. As Brad mentioned\, it was submitted on the fifteenth\, and this is a technical document that describes a 10 Year Adaptive Management Plan for restoration of 75 acres of eelgrass and Richardson Bay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now those 75 acres are anticipated to be restored through a combination of active restoration. So actually planting eel grass. non planting\, restoration actions\, things like removal of marine debris that’s on the bay bottom. \nand also \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: anticipated natural recovery of the eelgrass bed. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: This plan is consistent with the San Francisco Bay Plan\, the Richardson Bay special area plan and the California Ill. Grass mitigation policy. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: It does consider the beneficial reuse of dredge sediment. If backfill of mooring scars is required\, although that is not recommended as a first line action in this area. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and then genetic accounts for both passive and active restoration\, and it builds on the results of the ongoing restoration studies that have been going on in the anchor scars over the past couple of years. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The ramp itself\, as a document may be periodically updated as we receive results from those restoration studies\, other monitoring results or other adaptive management actions that become prudent \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, I’d like to switch gears and talk about the 2023 monitoring update this update was given to the Rba. Board of Directors and the public. In the during the fall. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and it’s a comprehensive report on all of the various \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: monitoring actions that have taken place over the past year to really get a sense of what is going. The dynamics of the ill grass bed and its health. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: There’s a variety of monitoring activities that we’ve taken. The first is that I’ll describe is the side scan sonar survey. \nThe survey was completed by Merkel and associates \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: during the summer of 2022. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And this really looks at the in the health of the bed overall. So not just in the area where boats are anchoring and not just in the sanctuary or restoration areas\, but really the the overall bed. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And there’s a few things that we can take away from these results. The first is that we have the same general pattern of eel grass covering Richardson Bay as previous years. So we see the core of the bed. In the central bay \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: it is present\, but less dense in the shallows. and there’s some evidence of wasting disease. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and it as expected. It is absent from the deeper parts of the bay. basically anywhere deeper than about 5 feet mean lower low water\, and that’s consistent with what we know about the light limits of eel grass in the San Francisco Bay Area. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, if we look at the overall acreage. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: we’re see and and how dense it is\, we can see a couple of things. The first is that we have just over 950 acres of eel grass\, and that’s \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: a good increase from the previous \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: size cancel in our survey that was completed\, which I’ll talk about in a moment. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: but ignoring for a second the total acreage. What I wanted to talk about is the cover class. So that gives us a sense of how dense the eelgrass bed is\, and that’s a proxy for eelgrass health \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: in the image. On the left hand side of the screen you see Richardson Bay. The green area is all the area that’s covered in eel grass\, and essentially the darker the green\, the more dense the eel grass is. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So\, even though we have 950 acres or so of eel grass. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Less than half of that eel grass \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: is in the 40 to 100% cover class. So less than half of it is in that really dense \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: cover class and over a quarter is in the less than 5% cover class. \nSo it’s important to look at\, not just the total acreage\, but also how dense and healthy the Yalegrass bed is \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So again\, I mentioned that binary change. If we look at 2019 versus 2022\, we see that 13% increase in the total acreage which is within normal bed variability next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: But if we take a closer look at that change again on the left hand side\, both the the green and red and tan areas\, that’s all eel grass cover. But essentially\, what we’re seeing is that there are some areas of the eel grass bed that have expanded. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And there’s some areas that have declined \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the areas that are in tan\, orange and getting into that red color. Those are areas where we’ve actually seen a decrease in the old grass cover \nthe portions of their green and getting into the darker greens. That’s where we see expansion. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: What we can see here is a general decline in that nor in that northern reach\, as we’re getting up into the Audubon sanctuary\, and that’s likely due to thermal stress. The water up there is more shallow\, it gets warmer\, and it pushes the eel grass beyond its thermal limits. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: That red area in the core of the bed is where? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Oh\, no\, not yet. Is where we’re seeing evidence of eelgrass wasting disease next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So as we look at our results through time\, we have these sides canceled on our surveys 6 times since 2\,003. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The biggest change that we saw historically\, was the 2\,009 to 2\,013\, and overall absolute cover is generally increasing\, but variable over the past 20 years. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now 20 years may feel like a long time to have data. And it’s a great data set to be working with. But it’s actually not very long in the context of an eel grass bed that can persuade me persist over hundreds or thousands of years. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, the reason I was really digging into the cover class and the areas where we have changes increase or \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: expansion or contraction of the eel grass is that it gets to what we call the 100% cover equivalency. Basically\, what that means is that looking at the total acreage of eel grass that we have. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: if all of it\, if we collapsed it down so that all of it was at a hundred per cent. Covered. What acreage would we have then? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, if we look\, and and that is a better indicator of the bed health\, because that can tell us things about eel grass\, bed assumed productivity\, biomass\, and other metrics\, things like carbon storage. \nSo that is the dashed black line in the graph on the left-hand side. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And again we have that same variable but generally increasing patterns since 2\,003. But where is the total acreage from 2019 to 2022 increased. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The 100% cover equivalency decreased. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Basically\, what is telling us is that we’re getting mixed messages and mixed signals from the eelgrass bed\, about how it’s how the how it’s doing from a health and productivity perspective \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the the second way that we’ve monitored. The bed is through aerial photography and Gis analysis. This has been done by Audubon\, California\, and has been repeated several times over the past several years \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: as opposed to the side scanned sonar which takes\, gets a comprehensive map of all of the eelgrass in Richard Simbay. The aerial photography is really designed as a damage assessment. So we just photograph the area where eel grass and anchoring co-occur so that we can get a better understanding \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: of how much eel grass is damaged by anchor scour\, and how much recovery we see within those scars \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: as a reminder. Anchor scour is the damage that we see to the eel grass from Anchor’s Change\, another ground tackle \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and these methods were \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: verified\, and by a peer reviewed journal that was published\, peer reviewed journal article that was published in 2019. And so we’ve been repeating the methods for several years since \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: This is this may be a familiar image to many of you. This is an example of the aerial photography that we receive. From these the aerial views that we receive from this photography. Now\, hopefully. Then\, if you go to the next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Yes\, that’s what I wanted to happen. What we’re doing is \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: looking specifically in roughly\, the area that is circled in blue here\, because that’s the area where we have both eel grass and anchoring. And so if when we zoom in to here\, we’re then able to say \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: how much of the eelgrass has been damaged from acre scour\, and you can see examples of what we call crop circles in this image\, depending on the clarity that you have on your screen. Basically the darker areas within this blue circle \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: or blue polygon. Those darker areas are eel grass and the circles that you see of lighter area within there. Those are the anchor scars or the crop circles that we’re talking about. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Next slide \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: we can. On the left is a more close up view of what we’re able to see in that photography. And the anchor scars that we’re able to document \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: on the right hand. Oh\, not yet on the right hand side \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: we’re looking at anchor scour. So basically\, if we add up the acreage of those of all those circles\, how much damage do we have? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: We have results from 2017\, 2021\, and 2022. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Our methods provide both a low and high estimate for total anchor scour \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: back in 2017\, which is the first time this method was done\, we saw between 50 and 85 acres\, or 8\, sorry 50 and 84 acres \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: in 2021. That high estimate was even higher. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And then in 22\, we’re really seeing a plateau of the damage. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: which is great news over all. We’re not seeing \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: robust recovery yet overall in the bed\, but we have it\, but we have seen \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: a plateau in the damage\, which is great news. We’ve at least stemmed the tide of ongoing anchor scour. Next slide a couple of notes about these damage assessments. In 2022 there was an area of unknown damage to the bed\, and it’s suspected that was a harmful algal bloom. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and that limited some of the interpretations we could make of the data next slide in 2023. The assessment actually wasn’t possible \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: because there was what’s called a macro algal mat\, basically\, a large \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: film of algae over the eel grass bed that was obscuring it from view. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And now these photographs cannot be taken at any time of the year\, so we couldn’t just wait for that to go away\, because the photographs have to be taken during the summer\, when the eel grass is at its maximum extent. It is a perennial plant. It grows and dies back each year\, so we need to take it during the summer. \nand it has to be taken at an extreme low tide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: so unfortunately\, that Macro Algolat happened during those windows of when we could have taken the photograph\, so we were not able to do the survey in 2023\, \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: some additional findings that I wanted to share. So what we have. In these photographs here. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: on the left hand side we have some examples of where we’ve seen recovery within anchor scars. So on top are the images from 2021\, and on the bottom are the images from 2022. The green circles on the left are the same in each photograph\, and you can see we can see robust regrowth of eel grass within specific eelgrass scars \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: on the right hand side. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: It’s the same years of images\, but these are examples of scars where we have not yet seen recovery. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So this is again\, both good news\, but also mixed news. The good news is that \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: again\, we’re demonstrating that as vessels are removed from the eograss protection zone we can expect for the eelgrass to recover. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: But if you’ll notice\, on the left hand side\, where we do see recovery\, those circles in 2021. They don’t have boats in them. We don’t know exactly what year those vessels were removed\, so from 2021 to 2022 \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: seems on our end as one year of recovery. But those scars actually could have been recovering for several years\, whereas on the right hand side\, where we don’t see the recovery in 2021. The boats are still there in 2022. They’re not there. So what this suggests is that it takes more than one year for the anchor scars to recover. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: which is good data for us to have\, because we don’t. Actually. there’s there’s not a lot of documented cases that can tell us how long we should expect it to take for these scars to restore themselves next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The last area of monitoring that we’ve been doing is our water bird monitoring\, and really the goal for this was to see where in Richardson Bay large groups of birds are doing what are codes called rafting\, which is when large groups of birds together rest on the base surface\, and they can rest in groups of up to 10\,000 birds. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The reason we’re looking at. This is because we wanted to know as we change the pattern of where boats are anchoring in Richardson Bay. Are we also seeing a change in the pattern of where birds are using the bay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: What we’ve seen here. So on the left hand side\, these are all of the drone. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: These are the I’m sorry. On the left hand side. It’s the results from the 6 drone surveys that we did during the 2022\, 2023 monitoring year. \nSo each of those image 6 images represents one survey. The red dots are where we see the rafts of birds. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now we\, similar to previous years. We continue to see rats primarily along the northern and eastern shorelines. So so far we have not seen any change in how birds are using the bay \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Okay\, that was a lot of data\, a lot of graphs\, a lot of information\, some major takeaways from that information. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So the good news is that the damage to eel grass from anchor scour appears to have plateaued. and we continue to see evidence of eel grass recovery \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the less good \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the overall health of the bed is questionable because we’re seeing an increase in that very sparse cover class. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: These are likely due to things like thermal stress\, wasting disease\, algal competition all things that are expected to increase with climate change. So the biggest takeaway from this is that\, given these known stressors that are going to continue to \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: stressed the eel grass in Richardson Bay. protecting and restoring the bed is more crucial now than ever. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: I believe I now hand it over to Jim\, but I will also be here at the end to answer any questions. \nRBRA: Morning. Thank you very much\, Rebecca. My name is Jim Malcolm\, the Harbor master for Richardson Bay Regional Agency going to talk this morning about our vessel census and status of vessels out on the anchorage to open our vessel census. We are currently our vessel. Census continues to drop. \nRBRA: We are as of December. We are sitting at 43 vessels. There has actually been. There has been a change to this\, but it went down by one and went back up by one. So we still sit at 43 vessels for January next slide\, please. \nRBRA: I’ll now go through the milestones individually\, and kind of discuss our trending for each milestone. Our first one is the post 2019 vessels as Director Gross had mentioned. In August we had\, we were at 14 of those post\, 2\,019 vessels. We currently in December. We are at 7\, and probably by the end of the week we’ll be sitting at 6. Post 2\,000 vessels \nRBRA: for our floating homes again\, as Director Gross have mentioned. In A. We were 2 in August\, and now we are down to our one remaining floating home. \nRBRA: our vessels in the Ap. In the eel grass protection zone 53. And we’re present last July 42 in August. And now we are down to 35 \nRBRA: and this is efforts through both vessel removals and efforts to \nRBRA: move vessels out of the eel grass protection zone into the actual anchoring zone. This will \nRBRA: be this number will continue to drop as we move forward on our signage project. And yeah\, actually mark out where the anchorage is\, and we continue on our efforts towards relocating\, reap both relocating vessels into the actual anchorage out of the eel grass protection zone\, and remove vessels from the anchorage and remove vessels from the Bay completely. \nRBRA: Our our October fifteenth\, of 2\,026 deadline for all occupied safe and seaworthy vessels removed. There were 10 last June or 10 in June of 2022\, 7 in August of 2023\, and that number remains steady at 7. \nRBRA: Total vessels on the water. We were 57 last last July 48\, and August\, and as I mentioned\, 43\, \nRBRA: and then\, in addition to that\, we have our th vessels that are present legally present under a 30 day permit. We have that numbers actually change since December. We now have 6 \nRBRA: 30 day permits. However\, 3 of those have overstayed their permit\, and are in various mechanisms of enforcement to have those vessels depart \nRBRA: next slide\, please. \nRBRA: 6. As I mentioned\, the this is the part of our efforts to work with the vessels that are over staying there. 30 day permits 6 citations were issued as of last December\, that numbers actually increased to 7 \nRBRA: 7 citations issued 3 initial. \nRBRA: 2Â s and one third. Actually\, that has increased by another. Third note\, third citation for a vessel. All of the citations that have been issued so far are for the Rba code section for entering in excess of 72Â h. \nRBRA: 2 nuisance abatements\, 2 nuisance abatement processes have been commenced one is on our one remaining floating home\, which we’ve put a stay on while the \nRBRA: responsible party for that floating home as their extension to remove the vessel\, and another nuisance abate. Note. Nuisance\, abatement. Notice will be going to a hearing next week. \nRBRA: All vessels are due to vacate the anchorage. By October fifteenth\, 2024\, with the exception of the 7 safe and seaworthy vessels all vessels that were due to vacate were issued a 12 month advance notice last October. \nRBRA: The a copy of the notices on the slide here. \nRBRA: Our plan is to prepare another notice for January\, and then\, as we progress into the summer\, the the number of notices \nRBRA: will increase in frequency \nRBRA: as vessels\, and then hopefully\, all vessels will also\, the number of vessels on the anchorage will decrease as we increase our both enforcement efforts and notice \nRBRA: and education efforts towards where vessels can legally anchor\, and which vessels are to be removed. \nRBRA: Finally\, for enforcement\, our planning is underway as director. Gross message mentioned for our signage and posting for the anchorage. 5 signs are to be to place on existing piles. \nRBRA: We have already identified the owners of those piles and have been in touch with them. and installation of one new pile and 3 floating buoys will be put in place to mark the actual bounds of the legal anchorage. \nRBRA: Plans are also underway to create the permit and submit to Bcd staff \nRBRA: permits are not yet submitted. The effective date for the permits will be this October and then all vessels in the Egrass protection zone as I mentioned\, did receive a 12 month notice to vacate\, and they’ll be receiving another mo another notice \nRBRA: this month. \nRBRA: Next slide\, please. \nRBRA: and that concludes my portion. And now I’m gonna turn it back over to Director Gross\, however\, similar to Rebecca. I will be remaining for the end of the presentation for any questions. \nBrad Gross: Thank you\, Jim. And thank you again\, Commissioners. \nBrad Gross: I’m gonna talk about our housing program now\, and how this all ties in with the vessels in the anchorage and the eel grass improvements that we’re planning\, as I’ve stated in the past our housing program is comprised by 4 components funding temporary housing support \nBrad Gross: case management and marina participations. And I’ve talked about all this in the past and just gonna go through it really quick our funding. 3 million dollars was received in March of 2023\, with thanks to Senator Mcguire for his support. The program began seeking applications in May of 2023\, and to date there’s been over a hundred $80\,000 expended into the program. \nBrad Gross: moving on Rbra rent housing authority contract was approved. We discussed their prefunding of $30\,000 last time we met with another $86\,000 provided to health and human services. \nBrad Gross: The contract between Health and Human Services and Episcopal community services for case management was approved in August of 2023 and Ecs. Has established a well received landside meeting dates in Sausalito. \nBrad Gross: and recently began there on the water outreach effort. I think the last time we talked. We were still looking for that full time case worker\, and that full time case worker with Ecs did begin employment very successfully\, I might say\, in October of 2023. \nBrad Gross: Regarding the Marina’s activities during this reporting period one marina is now committed\, and one marina has withdrawn participation. We are still seeking marinas\, not just in the Sausalito area\, but surrounding areas that are interested in assisting our bra and our programs to relocate the qualified vessels to Marinas. \nBrad Gross: This\, at a previous meeting this committee approved an extension for the post 2019 vessels that I mentioned earlier and harbor Master Malcolm mentioned\, and as part of that approval of that extension we \nBrad Gross: committed to providing this slide\, and this is a spreadsheet of tracking their progress. As you can see. \nBrad Gross: all but 3 vessels are either gone or engaged in some forward fashion in the program. So I wanna thank the committee. The Commission again for the extension\, because it’s proved to be very successful. We are working to get the last 3 folks engaged\, and the a few of these. I I’m not privy to the names of the people who have received vouchers\, but a few of these people I do know on this slide have vouchers and are actively seeking housing right now. \nBrad Gross: the temporary housing voucher program. There are 4 persons that are now housed. This again. This slide is a month dated there are 10 persons that are participating. I know that number is now 11\, which includes the 4 persons that are housed. 5 persons are in the queue to participate \nBrad Gross: with 2 persons that have a voucher and one pending as of last month. But as of today\, there are actually 6 people with vouchers that are actively seeking \nBrad Gross: housing. \nBrad Gross: What that important to us is that those 6 people relate to 6 more vessels being off the anchorage by the time. These soon after these folks get their housing\, and 4 vessels have been purchased via the vessel buyback program. Once those 6 people with vouchers are housed\, we anticipate getting those vessels which would bring us up into double digits vessels turned in via the vessel. Buy back program. \nBrad Gross: Now\, this is a new slide. You haven’t seen this one before but this slide\, and I’d like to explain it quickly. The the top 2 lines represent the vessels and the floating homes in the anchorage. \nBrad Gross: The bottom 7 lines represent our different supported programs like floating homes turned in persons\, house persons and process and remaining floating homes\, vessels turned in\, total vessels of loading homes turned in\, and persons with with vouchers. \nBrad Gross: and\, as you can see\, all the lines representing the ve. The vessels along the top are trending down. \nBrad Gross: and program related. Lines of vessels and floating home surged in persons with the vouchers. And most importantly\, persons housed are all trending up \nBrad Gross: and over the next few months we will see these lines eventually intercept and ultimately completely switch sides\, top to bottom\, which would be representing more successes in our programs. This is a very exciting trend that we’re seeing. And at our next presentation\, I think\, this. This slide will be very telling. \nBrad Gross: with that I want to \nBrad Gross: close\, and I’ll acknowledge this committee and BC. DC. Staff for their flexibility to work with us and our Bra\, and to explore \nBrad Gross: creative and common sense solutions to achieve our common goals. I’m convinced that this type of innovative and collaborative work will prove successful in the end. Thank you very much for your time and letting us present our latest achievements. If there are any questions \nBrad Gross: myself. Our master\, Malcolm and Rebecca Short Lustburg would be glad to answer them. Thank you very much. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much for that very comprehensive \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: presentation \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I think I’m gonna ask the committee if you will hold all your questions. Until we hear the city of Sausalito. I know that was a lot of information. But I know you guys probably took great notes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So Adrian\, do you have an introduction for the city of Sausalita. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair Gilmore. Again. It is brief and follows the identical format. \nBoardroom SX80: So maybe\, Brad\, if you unshare your screen\, please and \nBoardroom SX80: If I could kindly ask Mtc. To share Adrian. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair. Goma\, we have. Barbara Salzman would like to speak. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: Well\, I just had. \nBoardroom SX80: You’re muted chair. \nBoardroom SX80: chair. Gilmore\, you’re muted. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I’m sorry. Is Miss Salzman part of the presentation? Or is this public comment. \nBoardroom SX80: public comment\, public comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, we’re gonna hold public comment until later. We’re gonna go through the city of Sausalito’s presentation\, and then we’ll take questions and comments from committee members\, and then we will take public comments. So that’s kind of the way I see the scope \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: alright. So Miss Klein\, would you please give your introduction to the city of Sausalito’s presentation\, please? \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, I’d be happy to thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning again\, Adrian Klein. \nBoardroom SX80: So next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Again. These are the 10 sections of the city of Sausalito settlement agreement between BCDC. \nBoardroom SX80: And I believe the focus of their presentation today will be on vessel removal and eel grass\, habitat mitigation and damage next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Most relevant is that \nBoardroom SX80: the city requested and received an extension mentioned earlier today by Matthew \nBoardroom SX80: to remove a the largest of the anchor outs known as the Fedora \nBoardroom SX80: from December 30\, first to March thirty-first. For reasons similar to those described by the Rba this will promote voluntary resolution. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: This \nBoardroom SX80: image outlines the settlement agreement\, provisions relating to illgress\, habitat mitigation\, and damage avoidance. \nBoardroom SX80: I’ll give you a chance to just glance through that. \nBoardroom SX80: And if that’s enough time next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: And this is a summary of the actions by the city and BC. DC. On this eel Grass Restoration plan. Most relevant is that in the summer and the fall we received an excellent draft eelgrass Restoration plan\, provided some comments on 2 occasions and also received input from third party experts. \nBoardroom SX80: We’re continuing as we do with the Rba to meet monthly we are. \nBoardroom SX80: The city is preparing to submit its I believe\, final eel grass restoration plan. Soon. We’re in agreement on the majority of the components of that plan \nBoardroom SX80: with some discussion around the total acreage that will be \nBoardroom SX80: planted\, and whether the agreement \nBoardroom SX80: goal of one to 2 mitigation to one acre impact is a requirement. and I believe the city may address that\, but we just wanted to \nBoardroom SX80: share that \nBoardroom SX80: question. That’s on the table with you. Thank you very much. I’ll turn this over. I would expect first to councilmember Joan Cox\, who will then go ahead\, I believe\, and introduce her staff. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: and we could unshare the VCDC. Presentation to allow the city to share its presentation. Thank you very much. \nJoan Cox: Thank you so much. Adrienne\, and good morning\, Chair Gilmore and members \nJoan Cox: of the Enforcement Committee. This is our triannual update to the Enforcement Committee. My name is Joan Cox\, and I’m the vice mayor for \nJoan Cox: Sausalita. \nJoan Cox: Here’s an outline of the topics that we will cover today. We’ll start off with our waterfront management update \nJoan Cox: provided by sassy police \nJoan Cox: the department Brian Mathers. Then we will have a report on our regional cooperation in housing presented by our community and economic development. Director Brandon. \nJoan Cox: Then our resiliency and sustainability manager Katie throw Garcia will provide an update on the eel grass habitat mitigation and damage avoidance plan and I’ll include some comments there and then we will close and \nJoan Cox: be available for questions. So with that I’ll turn it over to \nJoan Cox: Brian matters. \nBrian Mather: Good morning\, everybody. Thanks for having me. \nBrian Mather: So I’ll go over a brief review of our waterfront management. So currently we have 5 total vessels in our anchorage. Right now\, what? That’s actually a reduction from the last meeting or triannual update\, I believe. We had. \nBrian Mather: We had 5 legacy and and one extra. So there were 6. So next slide\, please. \nBrian Mather: if we have a slide next slide. \nBrian Mather: anyway. So what we have is for legacy anchor routes. We actually ended up one of our legacy members ended up \nBrian Mather: getting ill. And so we’ve removed that person from the water\, and we’re working on housing for that person currently. The \nso the main issue or the main focus right now is the vendor\, as you see\, and that’s why we asked for the extension \nBrian Mather: and it was granted. So we appreciate that. So we’ve been in communication with the owner. We’ve been trying to work with the owner. There’s been some delays in the cooperation with the owner. And so we’ve been actively and currently are still actively working on the enforcement piece of that\, and are hoping to have that done within the next \nBrian Mather: month or so. But you know\, with whether finances staffing for marine assets and everything else\, it it’s a pretty complicated venture\, because it’s a very large boat. \nBrian Mather: So we’re we’re doing 2 things trying to get cooperation still from the owner and also working on the enforcement end of it\, if if that needs to take place. \nBrian Mather: So that’s the the end of our update. As far as our waterfront management. We haven’t had any. We had 2 vessels come in in the last month we were able to get them to move on within the 72Â h period\, in accordance with our State ordinance. \nBrian Mather: So that’s where we stand at this moment. If there’s any questions after\, I’ll be standing by for any questions. \nJoan Cox: thank you. And with that we’ll turn to Brandon Phipps\, our community Development Director. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Good morning\, Chair\, Gilmore\, Dcdc. Members and members of the public as Vice Mayor Cox mentioned. My name is Brandon Phipps\, Community and Economic Development Director. With so solido. Glad to be addressing you today to provide a brief update in connection with Section 3\, a per agreement related to regional cooperation and the development of resources\, and taking\, if necessary\, actions to support housing opportunities for anchor outs and Richardson Bay. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Regarding ad use. The city recently updated its adu ordinance to comply with State adu law. More specifically\, this item was approved with recommendations by the planning Commission in July was adopted by City Council in October. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: The Community Development Department continues to track new housing policy at the State level and may be required to make additional updates to our ordinance this year in order to continue to be compliant\, and we certainly intend to do that as required. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Additionally\, I’ll just briefly speak to this. On January 5 of this year the city of Sausalito released a public comment draft environmental impact report for the implementation of our housing element programs. And this document has been prepared to address \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project\, that being our housing element\, but particularly as related to the rezoning and selected opportunity sites at higher densities\, and this is all required under the California Environmental Quality Act. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: So the draft Eir will be circulated for a 45 day review period\, during which comments on the draft Eir may be submitted to the city\, and I hope this goes without saying. But the city welcomes any comments from the Bcd. On the public comment Draft Eir\, which is posted to our website. And I am happy to \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: provide any personal contact information or follow up with individual BC. DC members. If there are any questions\, that will do it for my update this morning. Thank you all for your time today\, and I will now pass the mic to our illgress. Consultant Robert Moody\, who will discuss excuse me\, I will pass the mic to Katie. Back. Garcia. Go ahead\, Katie. Thank you. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Thank you so much. Brandon. I’m here to present the the city’s progress on illgrass habitat mitigation and damage avoidance. In the blue text on the left you can see the the status updates which Adrian also presented which which have been presented to the Enforcement Committee prior to this meeting today in the text\, \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: on in the red. You will see our our updates from the most recent Enforcement Committee meeting\, which took place on August 20 third\, where we provided an update \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: on October eleventh we received A. BC DC. Response to expert review on our draft Eelgrass restoration Plan. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Following this\, South\, Ludo submitted a summary of future eel Grass Restoration Plan efforts on November twenty-seventh\, which included the city’s offer of additional protection measures rec recommended by regional experts. As far as this. This is the brief update on eel grass habitat from my end\, and I will. I will pass it on to Vice. Mayor Cox. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: vice Mayor\, I think you’re on mute. Excuse me. \nJoan Cox: thank you. Thank you\, Katie. \nJoan Cox: so I would like to address the issue that Adrian Klein made mention of during her introductory comments\, and that is the requirement of the settlement agreement. So the settlement agreement with the city of Sausalito States \nJoan Cox: quote goals in the plan will include compensatory mitigation at a ratio of no less than 1.2 to one mitigation area to impact area. So the settlement agreement says\, goals in the plan will include \nJoan Cox: on these and and indeed\, \nJoan Cox: that is important. Because the it’s important that it’d be a goal and not a requirement\, because it may actually be be infeasible. \nJoan Cox: So \nJoan Cox: on July 31\, 2023 regional experts\, lawyer and Merkel\, as well as coastal policy solutions opined that the 1.2 to one mitigation ratio could be infeasible to attain. Given Richardson Bay’s Natural Geomorphology and ability to support ingress. \nJoan Cox: It was therefore suggested that the settlement agreement be revisited. \nJoan Cox: And so\, on August seventeenth\, 2023\, I requested that Pcdc. Council provide a written analysis of Bcd. C’s position \nJoan Cox: without ever providing us with that analysis. BC DC. Staff on December thirteenth\, for the first time\, announced that the 1.2 to one ratio in the settlement agreement is a requirement and not just a goal. \nJoan Cox: as stated in the executed settlement agreement. It’s it baffles me that \nJoan Cox: the sentence in settlement agreement States goals in the plan will include\, and that BC. DC. Staff is now taking a position that this is a requirement in contravention of what regional experts opine is feasible. \nJoan Cox: So converting a goal into a requirement appears to be setting the city up for failure. \nJoan Cox: And this is very puzzling to me\, because we have a long history of cooperation and rapid progress toward meeting BC. DC. Goals\, and we would prefer to continue to work collaboratively\, moving forward. \nJoan Cox: It also is notable to me that this \nJoan Cox: goal is not in the settlement agreement with Rbra. \nJoan Cox: I noticed that this morning\, during Adrian Klein’s presentation that language does not appear in their settlement agreement. So why is BC. DC. Turning a goal into a requirement and insisting upon that goal only against the city of Sausalito\, and not \nJoan Cox: the Rvra. So \nJoan Cox: II hate to close on a challenging note. But this is an issue of great concern to the city. \nJoan Cox: And with that that concludes our presentation\, and we’re available to answer any questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much. The this committee thanks Ra. And the city of Sausalito’s representatives for the briefings. For being here and the time that it took to craft presentations. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this point\, do any of the Enforcement Committee members have \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: questions for either staff or for our guests. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t see any. \nBoardroom SX80: No questions. Actually\, Chair Gilmore. Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, Commissioner Eisen\, I can’t. I can’t see her on the screen. So it’s difficult. That’s the problem with showing up in person actually less visible. \nBoardroom SX80: Ii have a number of questions I did try to take notes as you suggested. Chair Gilmore\, but stick with me as I go back through the slides. \nBoardroom SX80: So with respect to the the \nBoardroom SX80: requests for extension that we’ve been told about today. \nBoardroom SX80: I am wondering\, and I guess I would go back to Director Gross. I’m going all the way back to the beginning of the slides. I think I heard from Adrian that the reason for those requests was to promote voluntary resolution. I think that was the phrase Adrianism. Yeah. \nSo I am wondering what? What exactly that means. What are we trying to reach some kind of a settlement agreement \nBoardroom SX80: in lieu of some kind of enforcement action. With respect to a couple of these vessels \nBrad Gross: for the question\, I appreciate it\, and no\, we are not looking for a settlement. We are actually\, we’re looking for a a conclusion. We’re looking for an amicable conclusion\, which is\, I’ll give you an example of the first floating home who was\, provided a 60 day extension. He worked diligently\, and was able to \nwith the assistance of the flexibility of this committee. \nBrad Gross: Get into a legal liverboard slip with this loading hall. \nBrad Gross: the next floating home that we’re working on. He claimed. We. We went through the citation process. We went through the abatement process. We are ready to move forward with a warrant if necessary\, but I thought it was\, \nBrad Gross: a a better solution to give him one more opportunity to get his boat relocated\, or turn it into our bra for proper disposal as opposed to \nBrad Gross: going through legal action\, II have to tell you\, and it’s no secret rvra is a very small agency with a very small budget with very high insurance costs all related to litigation. \nBrad Gross: Because of the actions that we’re taking. We will take those actions\, but it’s makes more sense to us to \nBrad Gross: give folks ample opportunity to abide by the regulations. Ultimately \nBrad Gross: this last vessel that got the extension and the other vessels got the extension \nBrad Gross: will be removed hopefully those folks will be housed. But \nBrad Gross: A perfect example is that if if we force people out of our anchorage. \nBrad Gross: they end up being a liability to somebody else. They move somewhere else. I could tell you that some of the the vessels that were really recently removed from saw Slato anchorage on the 72Â h notice simply made it over to our anchorage\, and one of them \nBrad Gross: is on a 30 day. Permit one of them’s getting a citation. So it’s become our problem. And we don’t want to. We don’t want to incur that type of oppression and any other agency. So working with these\, with the committee and these extensions\, I believe\, allows us\, and allows the voters ample time to take the correct actions. \nBoardroom SX80: Yep. \nwell\, I totally appreciate that these are in enormously complex \nBoardroom SX80: but what I’m trying to understand\, because we’ve heard now reports of regularly\, and each time there are sort of more and more \nBoardroom SX80: discussions about extensions\, but on the milestone slide one of the original slides. It’s the one with the black oyster catchers on it. \nI’m wondering if there is \nBoardroom SX80: any anticipation that there will be more requests for extension beyond the ones that have. \nBoardroom SX80: Just been provided. \nBrad Gross: That’s a great question. And and with in all honesty\, we are sitting with \nBrad Gross: over 30\, about 35 people who qualify for housing voucher program. \nBrad Gross: We have 6 factors out right now. We have\, according to our colleagues from health and human services. And we’re in housing authority. \nBrad Gross: They’re figuring we’re going to be able to get another 13 of them house within the year. As I told this committee\, and anybody who will listen\, we’re figuring they can house about 2 a month. So and all\, honestly\, yeah\, we’ll probably be back in close to 2\,024 to say\, look\, we’ve got a successful program. We’ve house 20 people. We remove 20 boats. We have a dozen left. We’re going to need some more time with them. \nBrad Gross: And I’m hoping that the this committee will see the wisdom in providing extensions if they’re required. As long as we are proving that the program is successful\, it’s really just as you know. The officers from Salsa said. It’s a time money staffing issue. Convincing \nBrad Gross: landlords to take these folks\, which isn’t really a problem. It’s just really a a timing and processing to get these people through the system. If we had. \nBrad Gross: you know\, we were\, we were allotted 3 million dollars. If we were allotted 6 million dollars we would have been able to bring in double the staff and put and house double the people. But we’re working diligently. We’re working successfully. It’s all proving to be working. So we’re hoping that if we do come that this committee will see the wisdom and providing another extension if required. \nBoardroom SX80: And II recognize that there’s a balancing act that goes on in terms of you know what what you achieve by an extension versus what you lose by an extension. But from what I understand from the eelgrass presentations both from the Rbra and Sausalito\, is that as these vessels continue to sit out there\, we continue to have \nBoardroom SX80: consequences to the eel grass which themselves require money and time to restore\, and to get back to where we should have been\, especially at this \nBoardroom SX80: critical time in our history\, where we have to do everything we can to capture carbon. So I’m hoping all of that is being balanced as we move through this problem. And along those lines. I’m wondering with respect to the Fedura. So now I’m sort of switching to Sausalito for a second. How long has it been that we have been \nBoardroom SX80: working with this particular owner? \nJoan Cox: When did we start that process. We’ve been working with this owner since since I’ve been involved in 2\,017 and perhaps longer. \nJoan Cox: Can provide an update. It it the last I understood. It looks as though we actually may have to \nJoan Cox: it it when it’s not entirely here\, we may actually have to undertake removal \nJoan Cox: through the enforcement process. But I’ll let Lieutenant another address. That group. \nBrian Mather: Yes\, Vice Mayor\, that’s accurate. You know we we’ve been engaged in some lengthy conversations\, and you know it’s turned into \nBrian Mather: the owner and the rep representatives not responding and getting legal aid. And and so there’s some stall tact\, tactics involved in that. So you know\, the city side at this point is enforcement. We’re hoping that maybe during the enforcement period that \nBrian Mather: they wake up and decide to actually take custody of their boat and and take care of it. But then\, you know\, like our bra says\, you know\, we run the risk of them moving that boat just into to their jurisdiction. We don’t want that\, and we’re not gonna allow that. So it’s a delicate situation. With resources\, and also taking people’s property and litigation. And what could happen after that? So we’re trying to do this right? \nBrian Mather: And that’s why we requested that extension is we gotta make sure we do this right for all parties involved and not rush into this. I know we\, the books\, been here for 26 years. So \nwe’re not trying to do this hastily. Here\, we’re just trying to do it right so. \nJoan Cox: And I will say\, you know\, we undertook the expense of doing a survey of the boat to see whether the boat is still salvageable. At this point the boat is actually considered to be marine debris under the definition. And so but we’ve made every effort to identify creative solutions. At this point. \nJoan Cox: Given this looming deadline we’ve into the enforcement approach. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, I mean\, if you’re saying that we have been trying to resolve this for 6 going on 7 years now\, yeah\, it really does think sound like the time is \nBoardroom SX80: ripe for moving to a different strategy than trying to get voluntary cooperation. But \nBoardroom SX80: at the last the last question I have\, and I’m I’m sorry to hear. \nThat a dispute has arisen between Sausalito and our staff\, because we have commented on each and every one of these presentations \nBoardroom SX80: about the thoroughness and the cooperation\, and how pleased we are at how things are moving. So I it’s concerning that we’ve had maybe the first of our sort of bumps in the road together. I’m I don’t know enough about this issue to ask even intelligent questions\, but it seemed to me \nBoardroom SX80: that when we set forth the 1.2 to one goal in the settlement agreement in the agreement \nBoardroom SX80: that there must have been some basis for thinking that was possible. So one of the things I would want to know\, maybe as we move forward is what has changed to make that now sound like it’s impossible. \nBoardroom SX80: because at at least a couple of years ago it sounds like it was considered feasible enough to set it as a goal. So that’s just a comment. I’m not really expecting a response. But that \nBoardroom SX80: is something that I think you know needs to be explored for for our committee. That’s all I have\, Mr. Chair Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Commissioner Eisen. Any other committee members \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: have questions or comments \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I wanna weigh in on that last point about the the settlement agreement. And I think this is going to be right for \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: either a future briefing by staff or the next time. Our scheduled briefing with the city of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Not only do I wanna know\, along with Commissioner Eisen is what’s changed between the time we entered into the agreement. And now that makes this infeasible. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: But I would like to hear from the the experts\, or or get more information on their expert opinion as to why it’s infeasible. And also Staff’s response to that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I just basically like to have a discussion. So we can understand a little bit more clearly. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The the facts of the situation. So that’s all I’m gonna say for now. And obviously I don’t expect \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: a comment. Now this is for a a future meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So\, having said that\, I’m going to ask if there’s any public comment on this item\, I know we had one hand raised earlier. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So first of all\, is there anybody in in the room \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: that would like to speak? \nBoardroom SX80: Non\, chair\, Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so then let’s go to the commenter \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: who attended this stage previously. \nBoardroom SX80: we have an online public comment from Barbara Salzman. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. go ahead. I believe you have 3Â min to speak. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: Barbara Saulson. I represent them more in Audubon society\, and I first like to commend Rebecca for her good presentation. And also say that I assume that we could just contact you for a copy of the record report\, because\, yeah\, we I don’t have that \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: and secondly\, about the RA presentation. There was a mention. I don’t think we need to spend a lot of time on this\, but there was a mention of going to other marine is in the vicinity for a possible relocation. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: and that does raise some concern for me because I it was my\, it’s been my understanding that Marina is a really only allowed to have liver boards or or people living on their boats for protection purposes. And it’s very limited. So I do have to raise. It’s a question of how how realistic that is as a as a \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: a relocation \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: potential moving forward because II wouldn’t. You wouldn’t be wanting to move people as to other marine is where it’s not legal\, of course. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: And thirdly\, with regard to to Sausalito and the the the apparent change here in in requirements. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: You know\, I’d like to point out the source of lead\, though it’s really been in the forefront of moving this along. They they they took the initial action\, and they are continuing our small city and they’re continuing to make in my view efforts and I would hope that this would be clarified and the the good point made by the city that it’s now changed to a requirement. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: II if II find it \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: You know\, unexplainable. Why\, why\, that’s taking place\, and so maybe something’s going on that I don’t understand. But I’ve been involved in this a long time\, and I do think that it’s not fair to have 1 one jurisdiction ha! Having to make certain requirements that are pretty \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: owner is\, and and the other jurisdiction\, I mean\, I want success for everybody but the other jurisdiction not having to \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: have that requirement. So I hope you consider that. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: Thanks a lot. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Do we have any other? \nBoardroom SX80: Sorry\, that’s all we have here\, Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. One last chance for any committee members to make a final comment or question. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, seeing then\, once again\, I want to extend the committee’s thanks to both the Rba and the city of Sausledo for very comprehensive and informative presentations today. Thank you very much. And enjoy the rest of your day. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. So now we move on to Item number 7. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: It is a staff presentation\, and a vote on a post recommend recommended decision to adopt a settlement agreement to be entered into with Roger Stan Bridge\, of Alameda\, City and County. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: If this committee votes to adopt the recommended Enforcement decision\, which includes the proposed settlement agreement\, it will be put up for a vote of approval or rejection by the full Commission at its January eighteenth. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: 2024\, meeting\, which is scheduled to be held online and in person at the Metro Center\, which is located at 3 75 Beale Street\, in San Francisco City and county\, and that meeting begins at 10’clock. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, after the staff gives her presentation\, I will ask\, respondent to affirm its agreement with the terms and conditions of the stipulated order. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Then I will hold public comment on this item\, and then afterwards we\, the committee\, will hold our discussion and vote on the staff’s recommendation. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, at this time. Will. The representative or representatives of the respondents. Please identify themselves for the record. \nBoardroom SX80: Margie\, just this is Adrian Klein. Just inform me\, Mister Standridge had been online\, but he is working. So it seems that we’ve lost him at this point. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you for that. But clearly he has been notified of the meeting and he was here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we will. Go ahead and proceed with policy enforcement analyst Adrian Klein. Will give her her presentation. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair. Gilmore. May I have the item? 7 slide? Thank you very much. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So as per usual. This will be quite brief\, but we’ll run through location timeline of events. Summary of the violation and staff recommendation to the Enforcement Committee next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So the site addresses 3 0 2 5 Marina. Drive in the city and county of Alameda the Red Arrow is pointing roughly to the address on the Alameda shoreline next slide\, please. Zooming in a second Google Earth image \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please\, when you’re ready. Thank you so much. There may be a little lag. So this red arrow is now pointing to \nBoardroom SX80: 3025\, Marina drive. \nBoardroom SX80: and you can see a single boat dock with a white boat. The single boat dock is the \nBoardroom SX80: subject of this proceeding. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So as you will have read in the staff\, recommended Enforcement decision. There was a an existing boat\, Doc\, that was replaced in 2\,000 by a former owner\, who submitted\, but never filed as complete a permit application. The BC. DC. Staff did not pursue resolution of this violation. Between \nBoardroom SX80: the year 2\,000 \nBoardroom SX80: and the present in 2018\, Mr. Roger Standrich Pre. Purchased this property\, and in 2021 BC. DC. Or 2022 BC. DC. Staff\, initiated communications with Mister Sandridge to have him either remove the unauthorized Doc or submit \nBoardroom SX80: a complete permit application so that we could retroactively authorize the existing structure. \nBoardroom SX80: Mr. Standridge was not surprisingly surprised to be hearing from us and to to learn of this unauthorized structure. So\, despite the fact that he was initially not particularly responsive\, recently he’s been very responsive and cooperative. \nBoardroom SX80: so we did. He wasn’t responsive to our initial enforcement communication\, so we escalated to commence a formal enforcement proceeding. This hearing is the culmination of that he did respond to the violation report\, and indicated that he would like to settle rather than have a contested order\, and we were able to reach those terms which I will describe. So next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this is just a single violation. For the failure to obtain a permit to replace a smaller replacement. Dock. So it is less bay fill than had been previously in place for a legitimate water oriented use of the bay next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So the terms which we have negotiated\, and both both Staff and Mister Standard Degree to our to either by the middle of February\, remove the unauthorized doc and gangway\, and submit photographic evidence or submit a filed application for the existing structures\, and to pay a $2\,000 penalty which Mr. Sandridge Hand delivered to the office yesterday. \nBoardroom SX80: and that concludes the staff presentation with that recommended recommended \nBoardroom SX80: decision for the committee. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Adrienne. Normally. This is where we would ask the respondent to \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: affirm that he agrees with the terms and conditions of the proposed settlement. Agreement. However\, he’s not here\, but I wanna point out again for the record that he has signed the settlement agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: However. It does not become effective until the full Commission votes on it on January eighteenth\, 2024. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So\, having said\, all of that do any members have questions for Adrian at this point. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, not seeing any. Margie\, do we have any public comment on this item? \nBoardroom SX80: We do not hear Gilmore \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I believe we didn’t have any written public comment prior to this correct \nBoardroom SX80: correct. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, great. So at this point in time\, I’ll need a motion and a second to approve \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the settlement agreement. \nBoardroom SX80: Move the staff recommendation. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. So \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the it was a new spot. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So it was moved by Commissioner Eisen and seconded by Commissioner best kids. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and Matthew\, would you please call the roll? \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, Commissioner Bieland. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Aye. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. Aye. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Commissioner Buscis. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay\, so this item is concluded\, and I wanna remind everybody that the Commission is scheduled to hear and vote on this recommended Enforcement decision at its February first. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So February first\, or January eighteenth meeting. Excuse me. Chair. W. Would you mind for the record stating the \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, I’m sorry\, unanimously \nBoardroom SX80: thank you. And \nBoardroom SX80: the next \nso you’re asking\, when is the next Commission meeting this? \nBoardroom SX80: Ph. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: yes. The next Commission meeting is the eighteenth. Is this gonna be heard on the eighteenth \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: or February? First cause? I have 2 different notes here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, goodness\, I’m sorry about that. Let me make sure I get the right date out \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for public and for the record. \nBoardroom SX80: Let me get pull up that information for you. If you’ll \nBoardroom SX80: indulge me for a moment. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s it’s it’s on the agenda. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m sorry\, having trouble accessing the agenda. So I just wanna make sure I give you the correct information \nso \nexcellent. Tell me \nBoardroom SX80: I’m sorry I can’t. I can’t pull it up\, but I think it’s it. I just was told by Margie. She believes it’s perhaps February first\, in fact. \nBoardroom SX80: which makes sense. At this point. I am pulling up the agenda right now. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and it is \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay. I can confirm that it is not on \nBoardroom SX80: commission meeting. February first. Yes\, okay\, so it’s on the February First Commission meeting. I just got confirmation from rachel. Thank you\, Rachel. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So for the court reporter strike all references to this being held on January eighteenth. The correct date is February first\, 2024. The meeting will be held at 3 75 Field Street in San Francisco at 10’clock. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Alright\, thank you. Everybody. Item\, 8 is a \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: vote\, a hearing\, and a vote on the recommended Enforcement decision to resolve enforcement case er 2021 0 4 4.0 0. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So our next agenda item is a staff presentation and a vote on a proposed recommended decision to adopt the settlement agreement to be entered into with Carl \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yohans Meyer\, of Tiburon\, Marin County. If this committee votes to adopt the recommended Enforcement decision\, which includes the proposed settlement agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: It will be put up for a vote \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: of approval or or rejection \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: by the full commission at its February first\, 2024\, meeting\, which is scheduled to be held online and in person \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: at the Metro Center\, located at 375 Beale Street. in San Francisco City and county\, starting at 10’clock. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Excuse me\, Matthew wants to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: No\, actually\, I put my hand out. Sorry I wanted to make sure that you gave the right date there\, too. It’s also going to be February first. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So after the staff presentation\, I’m going to ask the respondent to affirm. It’s agreement with the terms and conditions of the proposed agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Then I will allow public comment on this item\, and afterwards the committee will hold our discussion and vote on Staff’s recommendation. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this time will the representative or representatives for the respondent please identify themselves for the record. \nJohn Sharp: Yes\, good morning. I’m John Sharp. I’m the attorney for Mr. Johan’s Meyer the owner of 5 blending lane in Belvedere. Not Tiburon. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, thank you very much for that clarification. Thank you for being here today\, and welcome. So I will. I will now invite enforcement analyst Rachel Cone to give her opening remarks. Rachel. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Just one moment while I share my screen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And \nBoardroom SX80: does that look okay for everyone. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: okay. \nBoardroom SX80: So good morning chair\, Gilmore\, committee\, members and all in attendance today I’ll present Enforcement case number er 2021 dot 0 4 dot 0 0 \nBoardroom SX80: for which the respondent is Mr. Carl H. Johansmeyer\, represented today by Attorney John Sharp\, and thanks Mr. Sharp\, for being here. \nBoardroom SX80: I will begin by familiarizing you with the location of the violation\, followed by a timeline of events\, and then end by summarizing the violation and finally presenting the staff’s recommendation. \nBoardroom SX80: So there are 2 images on this slide. The one on the left is a zoomed out vicinity map\, and the one on the right focuses in more closely on the location of the violation. There is a red PIN on each image at 5 Blanding Lane\, Belvedere Island\, Marin County. \nBoardroom SX80: and the home is close to the southern tip of Belvedere island and faces east. \nBoardroom SX80: This is a photo of the property from the lower shoreline area taken facing west\, and there’s a yellow oval outlining the specific location of the violation. \nBoardroom SX80: On this slide the image on the left side of the screen shows the violation more closely. The respondent has represented that there was a fence surrounding this property for the past century\, and they needed to replace an 11 foot 2 inch long. Section of a 6 foot tall wire fence in approximately 2021 \nBoardroom SX80: that 11 foot 2 inch long. Section is the section that the respondent needed. Bcdc authorization prior to placing. \nBoardroom SX80: And I’ll now take you through the timeline of events in this case. So in May of 2021 BC. DC. Enforcement staff received a report from City of Belvedere Staff\, alleging that unpermitted fencing had been installed on the property of 5 Blanding lane within BC. DC’s 100 foot shoreline ban jurisdiction \nBoardroom SX80: BC DC. Opened enforcement case er 2021 dot 0 4 0 0\, and made initial contact with respondents authorized Representative Attorney John Sharp. \nBoardroom SX80: between May and June of 2021 respondent\, and Mr. Sharp informed Staff that they were meeting with consultants and a surveyor\, and had hired an architect\, indicating that they were beginning to put together initial application materials to seek and obtain after the fact permit for the fence replacement. \nBoardroom SX80: In September of 2021 city of Belvedere staff and a surveyor conducted a site visit at 5 Blanding Lane\, and reported their findings to BCDC. Staff\, who were unavailable to attend that day. \nBoardroom SX80: City staff confirmed that fencing had been placed on Mr. Johan’s Meyers property without permits. So with this information\, in October of 2021 Bcd. C. Staff issued a notice of violations to Mr. Johan’s Meyer\, initiating a standardized fine process which gave him 35 days to either remove the unpermitted fill\, or to seek and obtain a permit for the fence before standardized fines began accruing. \nBoardroom SX80: In March of 2022\, Mr. Sharp submitted an incomplete region. Wide permit application on behalf of the respondent\, seeking after-the-fact authorization for defense. \nBoardroom SX80: Then\, between October 2022 and October 2023\, Enforcement staff made several attempts to urge Mr. Johansmeyer to complete his Permit application and on October thirteenth\, 2\,023\, staff notified the respondent that the executive director was rescinding the opportunity to resolve the violation\, using the standardized fines. Process after determining that the respondent had not made a good faith effort to resolve the violation. \nBoardroom SX80: On October thirtieth\, 2023 staff mailed a violation report and complaint for administrative civil penalties to the respondent. \nBoardroom SX80: and finally\, on November thirtieth\, 2023 respondent and staff agreed to resolve this enforcement matter via the proposed settlement agreement. \nBoardroom SX80: So to summarize the one violation is for the failure to obtain a Bcd C. Permit prior to placing fencing in Bcd. C’s 100 foot shoreline ban jurisdiction\, and this is in violation of section 6\, 6\, 3\, 2. A of the Mccoyer Petras Act \nBoardroom SX80: to resolve this case. Staff recommends that the Enforcement committee vote to recommend that the Commission authorizes the executive director to execute the proposed settlement agreement\, which requires respondent to \nBoardroom SX80: one pay $2\,500 in administrative civil liability within 30 days of executing the agreement\, and 2 by February 2820\, 24. Either remove the unauthorized fence and submit photographic evidence of the same\, or submit their filed application\, seeking after the fact authorization for the fence. And that concludes the staff’s presentation\, and I will stop sharing my screen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much\, Rachel. At this point\, Mr. Sharp\, I’m gonna ask you if your client agrees to the terms and the conditions of the proposed settlement agreement. Yes\, my client does\, and I am authorized to state that he’s prepared to execute the agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Great! Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Do any Enforcement Committee members have any questions for either staff or for Mr. Sharp. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Go ahead. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. So just so that I’m understanding we sent a notice in March 2022\, that you have 35 days to fix this problem. \nBoardroom SX80: And now. a year and a half later. we’re settling it. Is that okay? What? What was happening in between then? Because. \nBoardroom SX80: what I’m worried about is the agreement says that they have to remove the fence or submit \nBoardroom SX80: the application which they said they were going to submit\, and really never did. So what happens if on February 2820 24\, \nBoardroom SX80: I mean\, we have. I don’t know how much effort has been put into this. We’re getting $2\,500 out of it. \nBoardroom SX80: What happens if yet again\, the respondent decides that they are going to neither remove the fence nor submit the proper application. \nBoardroom SX80: So that would then mean that the the settlement agreement goes away\, and we would commence formal enforcement through and and \nBoardroom SX80: require action through an order. Additional penalties we can seek\, because 2\,500 is not really going to be sufficient at that point. In time I would have to get back to you on that I’m not exactly sure. And how that would work. \nBoardroom SX80: Well\, I think the Commission may want to know that before they vote on that\, because an awful lot of effort is being put into getting somebody to do what they really should have done a year ago. \nBoardroom SX80: so \nBoardroom SX80: that’s that’s all I have. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Rebecca. I think you bring up a very good point. I think\, as part of the presentation to the full commission \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: given given the history\, I mean no disrespect. But given the history of this I think the Commission should be informed as to if there’s non compliance\, what the next steps are\, and what penalties could conceivably be levy for non-compliance? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Are there any other questions or comments by commission members\, committee members? Excuse me. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Seeing then\, Margie\, do we have any public comments? \nBoardroom SX80: He no public comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And did we? I don’t believe we had any written comments prior to the meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s correct. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so one last time for committee members\, any final comments or questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so at this point in time\, I would like a motion to approve the Executive Director directors recommended enforcement decision regarding proposed settlement agreement. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Someone \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I didn’t hear who moved. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, we have a motion by Commissioner Billen\, and a second by Commissioner Vasquez. Matthew\, would you please call them Wrong \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Bielin. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, Commissioner Busque. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: so the motion passes unanimously. 4 0. And this item is concluded. The Commission is scheduled to hear and vote on this recommended Enforcement decision at its February first\, 2\,024 meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and that will be held at feels 375 Deal Street in San Francisco at 10’clock committee members\, I will entertain a motion and a second to adjourn our meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: So moved \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: moved by Commissioner Eisen\, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez. Thank you very much. Everyone. Have a good day. We are adjourned. \n  \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-24-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240124T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240124T170000
DTSTAMP:20260525T222126
CREATED:20240130T052154Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240130T052154Z
UID:10000149-1706101200-1706115600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:January 24\, 2024 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-24-2024-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240129T080000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240129T170000
DTSTAMP:20260525T222126
CREATED:20240130T055935Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240130T055935Z
UID:10000156-1706515200-1706547600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:August 21\, 2024 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/august-21-2024-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240201T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240201T170000
DTSTAMP:20260525T222126
CREATED:20240118T071934Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250320T190819Z
UID:10000090-1706792400-1706806800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:February 1\, 2024 Commission Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Commissioners are located at the primary physical location and may be located at the teleconference locations specified below\, all of which are publicly accessible. The Zoom videoconference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually is also specified below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nPrimary Physical Meeting Location \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, CA 94105415-352-3600 \nTeleconference Locations \n\nSonoma County Administration Building575 Administration Drive\, Room 100ASanta Rosa\, CA 95405 \nCaltrans Building111 Grand Avenue\, Room 15-220Oakland\, CA 94612 \nMarin County Civic Center3501 Civic Center Drive\, Suite 410BSan Rafael\, CA 94903 \n\n\nPalo Alto City HallGround Floor Community Meeting Room250 Hamilton AvenuePalo Alto\, CA 94301 \n116 W 23rd Street\, 5th FloorNew York\, NY 10011 \n360 Alcatraz AvenueOakland\, CA 94618 \n890 Osos Street\, Suite HSan Luis Obispo\, CA 93401 \n\n\nCity of Novato Administrative OfficesBaget Conference Room922 Machin AvenueNovato\, CA 94945 \nSolano County Administration Center675 Texas Street\, Suite 6500Fairfield\, CA 94533 \nNapa County Administration Building1195 Third Street\, Room 310Napa\, CA 94559 \n\nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nLive Webcast \nJoin the meeting via Zoom \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/82557391023?pwd=TwTLPTiueHMXiUK3SeSsOH3acpAS3w.oivswZ_6CPmxDWEa \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers \n1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID825 5739 1023 \nPasscode407711 \nIf you call in by telephone: \n\nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourself\nPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak\n \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period (Each speaker is limited to three minutes)\nA maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.\n(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nApproval of Minutes for December 21\, 2023 Meeting\n(Reylina Ruiz) [415/352-3638; reylina.ruiz@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nResolution of Senator John Laird // Resolution of Graciela Gomez\n\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters\nThere is no administrative listing\n(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing and Vote on a Recommended Enforcement Decision to Resolve Enforcement Case No. ER2000.004.00\nThe Commission will consider whether to support a recommended enforcement decision to enter into a settlement agreement to resolve a violation at 3025 Marina Drive\, City and County of Alameda.\n(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]\nStaff Presentation\nPublic Hearing and Vote on a Recommended Enforcement Decision to Resolve Enforcement Case No. ER2021.044.00\nThe Commission will consider whether to support a recommended enforcement decision to enter into a settlement agreement to resolve a violation at 5 Blanding Lane\, Belvedere\, Marin County.\n(Rachel Cohen) [415/352-3661; rachel.cohen@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing on Updates to the California Sea-Level Rise Guidance\nRepresentatives of the California Natural Resources Agency Ocean Protection Council (OPC) will brief the Commission on updates to the California Sea-Level Rise Guidance\, last issued in 2018. This update aims to incorporate the most current scientific knowledge and improved planning and decision-making guidance to support preparedness for rising sea levels\, and is used by BCDC to determine how best to ensure that projects and plans are resilient to rising sea levels.\n(Jessica Fain) [415/352-3642; jessica.fain@bcdc.ca.gov]\nDraft California Sea Level Rise Guidance\nhttps://opc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SLR-Guidance-DRAFT-Jan-2024-508.pdf // Presentation\nBriefing on the Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan Progress\nThe Commission will receive a briefing from staff on the Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan and the plan’s draft “One Bay Vision\,” which was developed based on extensive public engagement in Fall 2023. The briefing will also include an update on the project’s relationship with SB 272 (Laird 2023) and plans for spring outreach.\n(Jaclyn Mandoske) [415/352-3631; jaclyn.mandoske@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Comment // Presentation\nBriefing on Plan Bay Area 2050+\nThe Commission will receive a briefing by staff from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission/Association of Bay Area Governments on Plan Bay Area 2050+\, a limited and focused update to Plan Bay Area 2050\, the region’s long-range plan. The briefing will include a general overview of the update\, with a focus on the plan’s sea level rise adaptation\, conservation\, and parks and open space strategies.\n(Jessica Fain) [415/352-3642; jessica.fain@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPresentation\n2023 Enforcement Program Annual Progress Report\nThe Commission will receive a progress report on the program improvements and developments in 2023.\n(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]\nCommission Strategic Plan Progress Report\nSenior staff will present an update on the progress associated with the Commission’s 2023-2025 Strategic Plan.\n(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3653; larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov]\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Articles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nSolano County billionaires’ utopia: Seeking support but picking fights\nIs the Bay Area entering a ‘golden age of ferries’?\nCalifornia coastal protections versus housing: The battle is on\nHow S.F.’s Embarcadero could be transformed by this $13.5 billion proposal\nAs abandoned boats pile up in Bay Area waters\, who’s responsible for the environmental damage?\nRICHARDSON BAY REGIONAL AGENCY RECOGNIZES BANNER YEAR FOR PROTECTING LOCAL ENVIRONMENT AND COMPLYING WITH STATE MANDATES\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Meeting Minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				Audio Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2024/01/2024-02-01-audio-recording.mp3\nTranscript \nBoardroom SX80: Good afternoon and welcome to our once again. Hybrid VCDC. Commission meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: My name is Zach Wasserman\, and I am the chair of BCDC. \nBoardroom SX80: Our first order of business is to call the role Commissioners. If you are participating virtually\, please unmute yourselves when you’re called\, and then mute yourselves again after responding \nBoardroom SX80: a new\, ragged. \nBoardroom SX80: sorry\, Ragathaan. \nBoardroom SX80: Close enough\, Ragan. Thank you. Thank you. Our Hr. Analysis will be sitting in for Alina today. Anu\, will you please call the roll \nBoardroom SX80: chair? Wasserman here? \nBoardroom SX80: Vice Charizon \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Adiego\, here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner on here\, Commissioner\, Bird \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eklan. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: present \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Goren. \nSusan Gorin\, Commissioner: present \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Haas. \nKarl Hasz\, Commissioner: Yeah. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Freskin\, present Commissioner Pine. present Commissioner Randolph \nBoardroom SX80: here \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Zapida. here Commissioner Beech. present Commissioner Kimball. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: here \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Kishimoto \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: here \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: here’s Nervousness \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner\, Gallagher\, here. Commissioner Gilmore\, here. Did I miss anyone? \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Yes\, Commissioner\, show Walter is here \nBoardroom SX80: now. Bask was this here. \nDavid Ambuehl\, Commissioner: Thank you. Commissioner. Commissioner Gunther is here. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Here. I’m meeting \nDavid Ambuehl\, Commissioner: Commissioner. Ambul is here. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Decisions happen. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Did I miss anyone else? \nBoardroom SX80: We have 20 who attended the roll call? \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. We have a quorum\, and so we may conduct our business. \nBoardroom SX80: That brings us to item 3\, which is public comment period. If anyone wishes to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not yet held a public hearing or is not on today’s agenda. You may have 3 min to do so\, and I’m going to start with and not impose a strict time limit and recognize \nBoardroom SX80: John Coleman. \nBoardroom SX80: Some of you will know this\, if you may not. He has an announcement\, I won’t steal his thunder. \nBoardroom SX80: I might make a few comments after he speaks. John\, the floor is yours. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Now it’s on. Thank you. Chair Wasserman Commissioners and BC. DC. Staff. Some of you may have read or heard A week ago\, Tuesday last week I made an announcement at East Bay mud that I’m resigning from East\, famous board of directors\, and I’m leaving the Bay planning coalition at the Effective. I think. March 6 or so. \nBoardroom SX80: and it’s for new opportunity. It’s a new\, really a new opportunity. I’m going to becoming become the manager of natural resources at the Calaveras County Water district. The other Ccwd up in the mountains. And what’s unique is for 33 plus years I’ve created policy. \nBoardroom SX80: Now\, I have to implement policy\, and it’s gonna be a big change\, but one I’m really looking forward to. It’s gonna afford me the opportunities. My first years of college at Oregon State in the forestry program and after transferred to Uc. Berkeley in the natural resources department working on water policy. So I get to actually finally put all those together and work in an area that I’ve not had that chance in in a different realm. And I need to really think. \nLarry and Zach! And actually the Commission and the entire Bcd. C. Staff. When I came here 13 years ago\, I guess it might be \nBoardroom SX80: okay to say our relationship was not \nBoardroom SX80: always real good\, and we still disagree with some things. However\, having said that we’re able to work through the issues in a plight\, cordial manner\, and work to get solutions to problems and be able to support many of the programs that you’re working on. And you’ve done a great job. And I think Bpc has done a really good job in terms of working with this regulatory agencies and others like the corps of Engineers and \nBoardroom SX80: State water resource. San Francisco Regional Water Quality control board. \nBoardroom SX80: I’ve loved it. I have many friends from who I’ve done the work with Bpc. Annie Spay mud\, and I hope that those friendships will continue going into the future. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m going to be living in Calaveras County\, moving up there in March. And yes\, it’s a little bit different\, and will take 45 min from my place to the office\, but it won’t be like what it took to go from my home to here this morning. It’ll be a little different. It may take more than 45 min\, depending on the elements\, if it’s a heavy snowstorm. \nBoardroom SX80: or whatever. But I have the vehicle to make sure I can get through all that\, and don’t have to put chains on\, and that’ll put me closer to next year. Skiing when I can resume skiing at Bear Valley. Yes\, Aaron\, we’ve talked about that. And one of your board members is not here today. That’s John Joya and John and I go back 33 years when we served together on East Bay. Mud board\, I believe\, is \nBoardroom SX80: San Diego now\, and Senator Laird’s up there\, and I worked with Senator Laird\, who was at the California Conservation Corps\, and he was great to work with\, and so many of you were\, and it’s an opportunity I could not pass up \nBoardroom SX80: for a lot of reasons. I leave with some \nBoardroom SX80: reluctance\, I guess\, because I’ve really enjoyed what I’ve done in working with the people I’ve worked with\, and I am leaving Bpc. In good stead\, like Cameron car to stand\, and hopefully you’ll be taking a greater role at the Bay planning coalition. \nBoardroom SX80: and Robert Rogers if he could stand behind me\, and he’s doing our legislation and taking over more responsibilities. So Bpc. Is not going away in any measure to act. We’re becoming more active and are getting new members and taking on new challenges. As I’m gonna take on a new challenge. \nBoardroom SX80: They’re taking on more challenges. But it’s one that I’m really looking forward to\, and I’d like to thank \nBoardroom SX80: all of you and the staff \nBoardroom SX80: for working with me at Bpc. In a very proactive role\, and if you’re ever in Calaveras County\, look me up because I have a house\, and Arnold might work in San Andreas\, and it’s little different. You may notice I’m Maureen sort of \nBoardroom SX80: blue\, gray blue jeans \nBoardroom SX80: down there up there. You don’t wear a tie. You don’t wear a sports coat\, and blue jeans are the norm. So I’m so really gonna fit in because I won’t have to wear a suit anymore unless it’s something really special\, but probably won’t be up there that I having to wear the suit\, because then I’ll be people. Look at you with suspicion going! \nBoardroom SX80: What are you doing? You’re in a suit and a tie that doesn’t look right. What are you up to? So I’m gonna go from suit and tie\, giving you a look of what it’s gonna be like in terms of more casual. And with that I’d like to again say thank you to everybody for the great opportunity I’ve had over the last 13 years in this role. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, John. Thank you. You most certainly will be missed. We \nBoardroom SX80: from my perspective. \nBoardroom SX80: In addition to our individual constituencies as as commissioners. We have a number of specific constituencies\, but sort of the 2 leading ones\, if you like our Bay planning Council and save the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: and you have done\, I think\, an an excellent job\, not only representing your constituents and your group\, but also working with us and helping us steer our ship and ships as we go through the various issues that bring us together. So I thank you for that. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Cool\, and I \nBoardroom SX80: wait. I can sit down now. You may sit down now. I’d just like to say Thank you very much. I’ve been honored and loved doing what I’ve been doing so. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: I have no other cards. Are there any virtual public speakers? There is one public comment. \nBoardroom SX80: oh. \nBoardroom SX80: caller\, unmute yourself and you and you have 3 min. \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): Hi\, thanks very much. This is David Lewis\, executive director at Save the Bay. \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): And I also wanna add my congratulations. And\, thanks to John Coleman. I’m particularly disappointed that he’s stepping out\, because now I can’t avoid confronting the fact \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): that\, I am probably the longest continuously serving BC. DC. Stakeholder at 26 years with save the day. I wanted to briefly. Add to my to probably 2 year history of \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): flagging concerns with cargill storage of bittern and open ponds. Next to the bay south of the Dunbar Bridge. As many of you know\, Staff has been working for several years to try to to finalize a new permit for operation and maintenance of Cargill salt making operations\, especially focusing on \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): their maintenance of the levees and burns that separate their material from the bay. \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): One of the optimistic signs that we had was that cargo is developing a plant \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): or a pipeline to move their toxic bittern from open ponds. There’s 60 million tons of bitter and stored there just south of the Dunbarton Bridge\, right next to the bay\, and the plan was a pipeline to connect with the East Bay dischargers \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): authority\, facility and dilute that material and get it \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): back into the day in a safe manner. \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): however\, as soon as the environmental impact report last year was completed\, to authorize a preferred alternative route for that pipeline\, Cargill decided not to pursue that. And they’re basically going back to the drawing board to come up with a new route and a new Eir and new permits and new construction\, and the bottom line is the soonest that pipeline could be reducing the bitterness in those ponds. Is 8 to 10 years from now. \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): so this makes it even more urgent for Vcdc. And the Regional Water Board to strengthen the protections for the bay by insisting on stronger integrity\, and of the berms that separate this highly toxic material from the bay \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): and from the marshes right next to those ponds that contain endangered species assault marsh\, harvest mouse so as this permit\, slowly moves along the the delay of this pipeline makes it even more important for BC. DC. To ensure that those berms have integrity\, not only in the event of an earthquake\, but in the \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): expected and anticipatable higher tides during king tides and with sea level rise. Thanks very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Any other public speakers. There are no more public comments. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: That brings us to item 4. Approval of the minutes of our December 20\, first\, 2023 meeting. We have been furnished a draft of these\, and I would appreciate a motion\, and second\, to approve the minutes. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: I’ll move approval of the minutes. \nBoardroom SX80: I’ll take Commissioner Eklan’s motion\, and I’ll take Commissioner Pescin’s second \nBoardroom SX80: is there any objection to the minutes. \nBoardroom SX80: any abstentions? The minutes are approved unanimously. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: That brings me to my report. I’m going to start on what is certainly a high note we have a \nBoardroom SX80: I’m not telling you. I’m going to get to low notes\, but I’m starting on a high note that we have prepared a resolution of appreciation for the tremendous work that State Senator John Laird has done to preserve and enhance the California coast\, including the San Francisco Bay shoreline. In particular\, we are gratefully acknowledging his steadfast work to move. SP. 272\, through the State Legislature last year. \nBoardroom SX80: This measure will ensure that coastal local governments will prepare plans to address and prepare for rising sea level. \nBoardroom SX80: As we stated\, the resolution\, the legislation signed by the Governor is entirely consistent with\, and will significantly move forward. Our Bay adapt initiative and our upcoming regional shoreline adaptation plan. \nBoardroom SX80: I think one of the keynotes in the resolution\, and and that\, in fact\, is a hallmark of Senator Laird’s career is persistence. I’m sure he learned it in many places\, but one of them is what the University of California\, Santa Cruz\, which we share. So banana slugs may move slowly\, but we are persistent. I would we all have the resolution. \nBoardroom SX80: and I’m not going to read it in full. But again\, the most important part is the vision that this measure contains in it the practical application and the persistence in getting it passed and approved by the Governor. \nBoardroom SX80: I would appreciate a motion\, and second\, to approve the resolution. Happy to move it. I think when I was there\, John? Was the Mayor. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Is there a second \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eklan? Seconds the \nBoardroom SX80: Please raise your hand? I’m sorry. Do I hear any objection to the motion. hearing and seeing none\, it is approved. \nBoardroom SX80: We thank you very much\, Senator Laird\, and the virtual floor is yours. \nSenator John Laird: Well\, thank you very much. I really appreciate it\, and I appreciate the recognition of the persistence because it took 2 years. And until I sort of threw down the gauntlet. In the last week\, before \nSenator John Laird: amendments I had to throw down the gauntlet to people that wanted to to move it on\, and I think the thing that really helped make a difference was the fact that we had the storms last year. \nSenator John Laird: Because that’s while this was going on\, and and the central coast really took an incredible hills wharves trashed see? Walls wiped out\, roads wiped out\, and I think it really made the case. And in one hearing I said\, this\, bill’s important\, because to have those conversations before these things happen and not after. And I just worry \nSenator John Laird: that we still won’t be having some of these discussions in time. And so \nSenator John Laird: it it also puts an onus on you and the Coastal Commission to work really hard to make this happen. And the collaboration with the cities and counties is gonna be really important. And I just stand ready \nSenator John Laird: to work together on that\, because this is just too important. And we got the money and for local assistance in the budget. And we’re gonna have to fight to hold that. So just thanks for this honor. And I just look forward to working together because some of the hardest work is still to come. \nBoardroom SX80: Amend that one. Thank you very much. With that I’m going to move to another resolution \nBoardroom SX80: which we have prepared for our now retired executive secretary\, Grace Gomez\, who needs no introduction to the Commissioners\, as you know\, or may remember. Grace retired at the end of last year\, after a long and illustrious career at VCDC. \nBoardroom SX80: She was\, when she retired\, the longest currently serving Staffer at BCDC. A little over 40 years\, and we have all enjoyed her friendly demeanour and get it done. Attitude! \nBoardroom SX80: I am going to read a couple of things from her resolution. \nBoardroom SX80: Whereas Gracie’s positive outlook\, quick smile\, and her ability to get work done well were always on display at BCDC. Allowing her to become BCD. C’s executive secretary. 11 years after she started. \nBoardroom SX80: just after high school as a seasonal clerk. Since there was a hiring freeze she has always been ready for any and all tasks with a team approach from the Friday evening mailings back in the day to supporting the Commission remotely during the Covid emergency. \nBoardroom SX80: and whereas it is widely known that VCD. C’s current Commissioners and alternates will always open an email from Gracie prior to one sent by the executive director\, vividly demonstrating who’s really more important in the big scheme of things. \nBoardroom SX80: She is our format queen\, she\, her smile and her winning ways have inspired all of us\, and she is missed. You may have poached the podium and make a few remarks if you would like. \nBoardroom SX80: Sorry! \nBoardroom SX80: Oh\, Larry wants me to vote on your resolution. First Cause\, you know\, if you talked first\, we might not approve it. \nBoardroom SX80: I would entertain a motion to\, and a second to approve the resolution. So moved Commissioner Randolph and Commissioner Eisen Seconds. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Any objections \nBoardroom SX80: approved unanimously. Thank you\, ma’am. \nBoardroom SX80: You can. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Wassaman Commissioners and Bcd staff\, and of course I can’t forget \nBoardroom SX80: our core reporters from one and her husband. \nBoardroom SX80: I can’t believe it’s been 40 years that I’ve worked at BCDC. \nBoardroom SX80: It feels like a lifetime. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s bittersweet moment embarking on a new chapter of my life\, but I’m ready to experience the new adventures of retirement will bring me. \nBoardroom SX80: Throughout my career. I’ve learned so much and worked alongside with many amazing and talented people. \nBoardroom SX80: I’ve also developed long time friendships. I will forever look back at my time \nBoardroom SX80: at BC. DC. And treasured the wonderful memories\, especially on mailing days in the mail room. We had so much fun back in the day when we had mailings we had to mail over 100 IP. Sometimes 300\, and\, thanks to Larry\, we cut those mailing lists down in half. And he said one day\, We’re gonna do emails instead of snail mail. \nBoardroom SX80: And thanks to him\, that’s all we’ve done now. And it’s cut down all that time\, but I do remember all our fun times in the mail room when it would be late. \nBoardroom SX80: But we would all have a ball of a time we would all get together and make it happen. Make sure that it was the mail was driven to the rink on center\, or trying to find out which mailing which post offices were open at that time\, and so I will remember those days \nBoardroom SX80: when I take my walks at the San Diego\, Marina. I see the public shore signs. I will always be reminded of the wonderful work Bcd. Has done so\, even though I’ve retired. I do see the public shore signs\, and it reminds me of all the wonderful work that Bcd. Has done and that I was part of. \nBoardroom SX80: and \nBoardroom SX80: some commissioners I’ve I’ve seen and known for a while in the background. I remember you\, Gilmore Peskin\, Randolph\, and I’m sure there’s some others\, Joya and I. \nBoardroom SX80: We’ll miss all of that\, sending you the quorum email. Blast and \nBoardroom SX80: I’ll still be. I’ll still be behind the scenes\, seeing what goes on and checking in with Raina\, who’s covering\, for until we fill the position\, and \nBoardroom SX80: I would treasure everything that I have learned. and take with me those beautiful memories that were created at BCDC. \nBoardroom SX80: It was my family. It’s hard to let go\, but \nBoardroom SX80: I’m gonna look over for now\, and I just thank you for for everything. \nBoardroom SX80: and I just can’t believe the 40 years is here. It’s like\, I remember back in the day\, I used to think\, oh\, it’s going to take forever to retire. But look\, it’s here. I was like\, Wow. \nBoardroom SX80: but yes\, thank you\, and take care\, and I’ll be in the background. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much\, Tracy. \nBoardroom SX80: Our we did have a meeting of our rising sea level working group on January eighteenth\, and normally I would ask for a report on that. However\, we’re going to have a staff report\, so I will defer to that. There was an article this morning in the New York Times. I commend to you nationally\, but including the West Coast\, on how coastal cities are and how they need to adapt. We get \nBoardroom SX80: a little bit of benefit from the fact that the east coast and the Gulf coast tends to be hit more by storms than we do\, but it is keeping the issues at a significant level. \nBoardroom SX80: Our next meeting will be held on February fifteenth\, under Bagley Keynes. New attendance rules at that meeting. We expect to take up the following matters\, a briefing on the draft. San Francisco waterfront coastal flood study a briefing on our 2023 Enforcement work and a briefing on our strategic plan. Progress \nBoardroom SX80: that brings us to X party reports. If any commissioner wishes to make an X party report on communications outside of commission meetings \nBoardroom SX80: on an adjudicatory matter\, they are welcome to do so now\, regardless of whether you do it orally. You do need to file a written report. \nBoardroom SX80: Any ex-party reports. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Commissioner. Yes\, I just like to report that I had a conversation with Gita Dev of this Year Club. I’ll submit the necessary report in writing as well. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: I see no others \nBoardroom SX80: that brings us to our the Executive director. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair washerman. On February first\, 1843\, \nthe Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York opened its doors for business\, and it remains the oldest continuous writer of insurance in the United States. Exactly 41 years later\, February first\, 1884\, the first volume of the Oxford English Dictionary was published. It included words starting from the beginning of the alphabet through those beginning with the letters\, a NT. \nBoardroom SX80: You’ll note that the word insurance was not included in the first volume. It took 44 more years for the final volume to be published in 1 28 \nfrom this music lover’s perspective\, perhaps nowhere and at no time\, was the absence of the word insurance felt more than February first\, 1\, 96. On that day\, 128 years ago. Today \nPuccini’s opera\, La Bohem\, premiered in Turin\, Italy\, and since then poor Mimi has died in the opera’s fourth and final act without ever having purchased a life insurance policy \nBoardroom SX80: with regard to staffing. I’m very pleased to let you know that we have 2 new hires coming into Bcd. C. This month. First\, Kate Lyons has accepted an offer for the environmental scientist position in the adapting to rising tides data and science unit. Kate is from the City of Brotherly Love\, and earned her Bachelor of Science in Geology at Temple University\, so she may be the first owl to be hired by Bcd. \nBoardroom SX80: After graduating\, she worked in the energy efficiency and renewable energy engineering field\, then joined the Civics Park Fellowship program where she worked for Mtc. And with Vcd. C. In preparing the technical analysis that was part of the funding and investment framework. She then became a planner in the Governor’s office of planning and research where she helped develop the regional resilience grant program guidelines and supported programs that provide regional resilience throughout the State of California. \nBoardroom SX80: Kate will work with our adapting to rising tide science team as it develops new and exciting products. \nBoardroom SX80: and you will soon meet Sierra Peters\, whom I have selected as Bcd’s new executive liaison a new position. When Gracie announced to us that she planned to retire\, we decided that we had to reimagine what a new role could bring to BCDC. Including acting as a commission secretary. \nSo starting in March\, Sierra will be sitting where you now see anew. And now also Raylena\, and before her Peggy Sharon\, Howard\, Russ\, and Grace. I don’t know who was before Russ\, but in any case the chair was. The chair has been\, has been sat in\, occupied\, but not \nBoardroom SX80: previously\, by what we would call a commission secretary. \nFor the past 2 years Sierra worked as a program manager\, managing the logistics and execution of multi-tiered events across the US. \nBoardroom SX80: She has led projects prepared internal and external correspondence\, and developed new processes for both her Alma Mater\, Rocky Mountain College\, in Billings\, Montana\, and for enacts U.S.A. A program for college students to develop leadership in business acumen. As I noted\, Sierra is a Batlin bear. Having earned her bachelor’s degree in business administration from Rocky Mountain with Minors Nikon and Small business. \nBoardroom SX80: I should also note that Bcd. C. Continues to search for great candidates\, to fill our open positions in the regulatory\, in the enforcement and in the planning sectors. And I’ll send you a list of those vacancies today\, and please send them to your networks also on a staffing note. Abag Ina inaugurated Napa County Supervisor\, Belia\, Ramos as its new president. \nBoardroom SX80: and Berkeley\, Mayor\, Jesse Aragine is Vp. In January\, as both serve on Bcd. C. We’re thrilled that we have even more of a direct link with that important agency. \nAnd with regard to the State’s budget situation\, Bcd. C. Is subject to a budget freeze along with all other state bodies. However\, this freeze can be categorized\, perhaps\, as somewhere between late autumn sweater weather and a major frost\, while our spending will be monitored by the Department of Finance\, we are allowed to continue expending funds\, unnecessary training expenses that actually save the State funds in the long term emergencies\, etc. We have instituted an internal process to ensure that \nwe don’t make any mistakes\, and I want to commend our financial services. Staff\, led by Sean Williamson for taking on this task so well. \nBoardroom SX80: this morning\, at a meeting of the Highway 37 Policy Committee\, led by local government representatives\, California\, State Transportation Agency\, Secretary Tokes\, omishaken and natural resources. Secretary Wade Crowfoot \nBoardroom SX80: jointly announced that Cal. State and C. Nra are launching the new partnership and leadership structure about which I spoke late last year. It is designed to improve transportation\, hasten natural resource\, restoration\, and public access strengthen equitable solutions and resolve. Climate change challenges in the North Bay along Highway 37. \nWe all know that 37 is essential to the entire bay region\, but its traffic jams are intolerable for workers trying to get to their jobs. It has no transit option. It’s already flooded during storms\, and it is at high risk from sea level rise. This new organizational structure will elevate environmental and equity goals alongside fundamental transportation goals. \nI think that it is important to recognize that this new approach is changing\, how the state of California views the rebuild\, that is\, from a series of connected projects with different timetables and outcomes to a larger scale integrated program of improvements whose outcome will be greater than the sum of its parts. \nThis is a once in a generation\, opportunity to re envision\, transportation\, infrastructure that will meet the many challenges of the century from increasing mobility to strengthening equity\, to restoring desperately needed natural habitat \nduring the next few months as Bcd’s representative on the new leadership structure. I’ll be working with my colleagues\, including David M. Buell\, who is here on the screen today to daylight a lot of information about Highway 37. And I really want to say publicly how much we appreciate David and Dina\, for all of their great work in helping us try to figure this one out. We’ll schedule a briefing for the Commission on the program’s progress this spring\, and please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. Meanwhile\, that you may have \nour sediment for Wetlands Adaptation project held day one of its 2 day stakeholder workshop last month. This was the first solely in person. Public workshop BCDC. Is held since the pandemic began\, and we think it was a success. We had over 50 attendees\, and Commissioner Gunther opened the break and opened the workshop with a stirring call to action. \nThe events included 6 breakout sessions\, in which participants engaged in conversations about barriers and challenges of beneficial reuse of sediments and soils\, and proposed actions to address them. Day 2 of the workshop is on February thirteenth\, and will focus on fine tuning proposed actions. It will also include additional breakout sections on governance\, Coalition Building and funding information on registering for the event can be found on the homepage of the Bcd. C. Website. \nAshley Tomerlin\, our Bay design analyst and senior landscape architect\, met a couple weeks ago with a group of students at Redwood City’s Design Tech High School to work through the students\, planting design and restoration project at the oracle campus. The proposal includes removing invasive species like ice plant fennel\, and black acacia\, and replanting the Slu bank with native species. \nAshley introduced the students to the principles of planting design and priorities\, and Ashley will continue to provide support as the design progresses. They’re hoping to complete the removal of the species this year\, and the group’s freshmen will continue with the project in upcoming years. \nSpeaking of freshmen or sophomores\, such as our son \nBoardroom SX80: Bcd. C. Is now live on Instagram. Please follow us and send us to your friends\, your colleagues\, your relatives\, your coworkers\, and anybody else. You know we’ve already received an awful lot of very\, very welcome messages to do that\, and we appreciate your support. \nFinally\, an announcement for our county supervisors. \nBoardroom SX80: I shall contact each of you next week with a request. We want you to arrange for you the 2 City Council members representing your county\, who sit on Bcd. C’s local elected task force and Bcd. C. Staff to brief the Mayor City Council members and planning directors in your county on Bcd. C’s plans to complete the guidelines\, they will use to begin work on their local rising. C-level \nadaptation plans as required by Sb. 272. We know that each county has regular meetings of their mayors and council members and other senior staff\, and we think it’s vital that you introduce us and join with us as we explain what we expect to occur during the remainder of the year as we develop and you all approve. Fingers crossed those guidelines. \nWe would prefer that these meetings occur sometime in March or April\, and I also want to mention that our staff and Mtca. Bag staff will be reaching out to your planning staffs and throughout your counties to update project information that’s already in our shoreline Project inventory map. \nSo all this leads me to report chair Wasserman\, that I’m happy to answer any questions. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Are there any questions for the executive director. \nBoardroom SX80: seeing none. There are no administrative listings before us today\, so we will move on to Item 8\, \nBoardroom SX80: which is a public hearing and vote on a recommended Enforcement decision \nBoardroom SX80: to resolve the enter into a center settlement agreement and resolve enforcement case number er 2\,000 point 0 0 4.0 0. \nRegarding the owner of the residential property located at 3 0 2 5 Marina drive in the city of Alameda. \nBoardroom SX80: I would like to ask Mister Roger Standridge\, the owner of that property\, to identify himself and make his presence known. \nBoardroom SX80: Is he on? Virtually \nBoardroom SX80: we were hopeful\, but we were not expecting him. All right\, that is his privilege. \nBoardroom SX80: BCDC. Enforcement staff will present the case and the proposed settlement agreement for our consideration. If Mister Standridge does appear\, you will have the opportunity to comment if you wish to do so. After all the presentations have been made\, public comment period will be open and will be limited to 3 min per person. \nBoardroom SX80: After that has been closed the floor will be opened to members of the Commission to ask\, follow up questions of ECDC. Staff\, and deliberate on the matter. All speakers must limit their presentations and comments to the evidence already made part of the Enforcement record which has been published online with this meeting’s agenda. \nBoardroom SX80: and or to the policy implications of such evidence. we will not allow the presentation of any oral testimony \nBoardroom SX80: before Adrian Klein gives her presentation. I want to do 2 things. First\, I want to open the public hearing on the matter. Second\, I invite Commissioner Gilmour\, the chair of the Enforcement Committee\, to give a brief summary of the committee’s hearing on the matter that took place on January eleventh \nBoardroom SX80: chair. Gilborn\, you have the floor. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair Wasserman. On January eleventh\, 2024\, the Enforcement Committee held a hearing and a vote on Staff’s recommendation to approve a settlement agreement between BCDC. And the respondent. Mister Standridge\, addressing an unauthorized boat dock at his home in Alameda\, Mister Standridge as of yet\, has chosen not to attend this hearing. \nBoardroom SX80: After the staff presentation\, the Enforcement Committee voted unanimously to adopt the Staff recommendation as the Enforcement Committee’s recommendation to the Full Commission \nat this time I will invite Miss Klein to make her presentation. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Good afternoon\, everyone. \nBoardroom SX80: Grace is gone. Alright\, next slide. That introduction was adequate. So\, as usual\, we’ll just have a quick outline. Or\, as you can see\, so next slide 2 location images one. This is the \nBoardroom SX80: Bay Bridge to the south\, Oakland and Alameda\, and the Red Arrow shows you 3025. Marina drive. Next slide is closer. This is an image of the residential neighborhood and the property in question next slide. \nBoardroom SX80: So just a quick timeline of events\, it’s slightly unusual. So on or before July 2\,000. A former owner of this property replaced an existing boat dock with a new boat dock \nBoardroom SX80: in roughly the same location\, but with smaller dimensions without a BCC. Permit. That same year that former owner submitted an incomplete application to replace a 336 square foot dock with a 44 square foot. Dock and staff responded\, indicating that the application was incomplete. \nBoardroom SX80: to which the former owner did not respond\, leaving it unfiled \nBoardroom SX80: between 2\,000 and the year 2\,022 Bcd. Staff did not pursue resolution of this violation\, and the former owner did not follow through several years before that in 2\,018\, Mr. Standrich purchased the property. \nBoardroom SX80: and we engaged with him. In the year 2022\, and 2023 to try and solicit an application or have the dock removed. We were unsuccessful\, despite having issued a letter commencing a standardized fine penalty clock. \nBoardroom SX80: so we terminated his opportunity to resolve using the standardized fines\, commenced a formal enforcement proceeding\, issued a violation report and complaint. And that was in October of 2023 that resulted in productive conversations. Mister Sandridge agreed to submit\, and after the fact\, application for the asbilt dock. \nand expressed interest in resolving the matter with a settlement agreement instead of an order. \nBoardroom SX80: So in November we agreed to order terms after conversation\, and during that time he submitted draft site plans and evidence that Regional Water Quality Board approval was not required for the 23 year old structure. \nBoardroom SX80: He informed us the flotation material was encased in plastic boxes which is promotes water quality protection. And he submitted site plans identifying the location of the bay and the Shirlin band. All of this is required as part of the application \nBoardroom SX80: he \nBoardroom SX80: did submit the penalty payment that the summit agreement would require if adopted\, although we do await his application\, fee and additional application materials. \nBoardroom SX80: Next slide\, please. So to resolve this single violation of a failure to obtain a permit to authorize a smaller replacement boat. Dock next slide\, please\, Angela\, thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Mister Standard has agreed to do the following\, which\, as Enforcement Committee chair\, Gilmour just mentioned as of the eleventh of January\, the Exec de \nBoardroom SX80: Enforcement Committee recommends that the Commission authorize the Executive director to execute the proposed settlement agreement which requires a respondent to remove the unauthorized Doc or submit an application by the middle of this month\, and pay an administrative penalty which has been paid. And that concludes the staff presentation. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Adrian. If Mister Sandridge is present\, I would invite him to comment if he so chooses. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, well\, I’m going to say thank you to Miss Klein for the presentation and chair. Wasserman\, would you please open public comment? Period? \nBoardroom SX80: Certainly. Do we have any public speakers? There are no public speakers. \nBoardroom SX80: Mister Standridge is not here\, but I assume he is not objected in any way. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m seeing the negative response from the chair of the committee. No\, I’m sorry to put it on the record. We have not heard any objections from Mr. Standridge. \nBoardroom SX80: public comment period is closed. Do commissioners have any questions or comments. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t see any \nBoardroom SX80: chair\, Gilmore\, would you like to move the? \nBoardroom SX80: I would like to entertain a motion\, and would offer Chair Gilmour. \nBoardroom SX80: to make the motion and seek a second closing \nBoardroom SX80: close the public hearing. Do I need to vote on a close? The public hearing voice vote the we have a little difference here. All those in favor of closing the public hearing say\, Aye\, aye\, any opposed public hearing is closed. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Now you can make the motion. Thank you. Chair Wasserman\, I would like to move the Enforcement Committee’s recommendation\, which is to accept the Settlement agreement. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: and I’ll second the motion. This is Commissioner Eklund. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Pat. \nBoardroom SX80: will you please call the roll on the motion \nBoardroom SX80: chair\, wasn’t you? Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Cheriasen\, Vice-chairizan? \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Adiego. Yes\, Commissioner on \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Burke. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Kimbo. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: Yes. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Commissioner Eklund. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Ambu. \nDavid Ambuehl\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Corin. \nSusan Gorin\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Gunther. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: Yes\, yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Haas. \nKarl Hasz\, Commissioner: Aye. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Shimoto. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Hi. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Pasquos \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: yes. \nStephanie Moulton-Peters\, Commissioner: Commissioner Malton Peters. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Prescott. Aye. Commissioner Pine\, Commissioner Gallagher. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Rancho. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Randolph\, Commissioner\, show Walter Commissioner Gilmore yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Zephyr yes. \nCommissioner Beech \nBoardroom SX80: abstain. \nBoardroom SX80: Did I miss anyone? \nBoardroom SX80: We have 22 years. no nose and one abstained. The action is approved. Thank you all for your efforts. \nBoardroom SX80: That brings us to item 9\, a public hearing and vote on a recommended enforcement decision to resolve enforcement case \nBoardroom SX80: ER. 2021.0 4 4.0 0 regarding a residential property located at 5 Landing Lane in Belvedere. \nBoardroom SX80: I would ask that Mr. Carl Johan Smyer\, or the attorney for Mr. Johan Smyr\, Mr. John Sharp to \nBoardroom SX80: make their presence known physically or virtually\, if they are here physically or virtually. I am here virtually. \n_John Sharp: Thank you very much. Sir \nBoardroom SX80: Bcd. C. Enforcement staff will present the case and the proposed settlement agreement for the Commission’s consideration\, after which time Mr. Sharp will be given an opportunity to comment\, if he wishes to do so\, after all of the public comment period. \nBoardroom SX80: After the presentations public comment \nBoardroom SX80: period will begin. The hearing will be opened\, public comments will be minutes limited to 3 min \nBoardroom SX80: after that has been closed\, the floor will be open to members of the Commission to ask follow up questions. \nBoardroom SX80: All speakers must limit their presentation and comments for the evidence already made. Part of the Enforcement record which has been published online with this meeting’s agenda and or the policy \nBoardroom SX80: implications of such evidence\, we will not allow presentation of oral testimony. \nBoardroom SX80: I will open the public hearing. And now invite Commissioner Gilmore\, the chair of the Enforcement Committee to make a presentation. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair Wasserman. \nBoardroom SX80: On January eleventh\, 2024\, the Enforcement Committee held a hearing and a vote on the Staff’s recommendation to approve a settlement agreement between BCDC. And the respondent\, Mister Joan Johansmeyer\, to resolve Enforcement case ER. 2021.0 0. \nBoardroom SX80: Excuse me point 0 4 4.0 0. Addressing an unauthorized fence at his home in the Belvedere. \nBoardroom SX80: The respondent’s attorney\, Mister Sharp attended the hearing on his behalf\, and affirmed for the committee that his client agrees to abide by the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement. \nBoardroom SX80: After hearing a presentation and comments by Staff and Mister Sharp. \nBoardroom SX80: the Enforcement Committee held deliberations and voted unanimously to adopt the staff recommendation as the Enforcement Committee’s recommendation to the full commission \nBoardroom SX80: at this time. I will invite Miss Cohen to make her presentation. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: Thank you\, Commissioner Gilmore. Just a moment while I share my screen. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: Hey? \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: Good afternoon\, sure\, Wasserman Commission members and all in attendance today I’ll present Enforcement case number er 202-14-4400\, for which the respondent is Mr. Carl H. Johansmeyer\, represented today by Attorney John Sharp. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: I’ll begin by familiarizing you with the location of the violation\, followed by a timeline of events\, and then end by summarizing the violation and finally presenting the staff’s recommendation. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: There are 2 images on this slide. The one on the left is a zoomed out vicinity map\, and the one on the right focuses in more closely on the location of the violation. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: There’s a red PIN on each image at 5 blending Lane\, Belvedere Island\, Marin County. The home is close to the southern tip of Belvedere Island\, and faces east. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: This is a photo of the property from the lower shoreline area taken facing west\, there’s a yellow oval outlining the specific location of the violation. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: This photo on the left of the screen. Is of the property from the lower shoreline area taken facing west\, there’s a yellow oval outlining the specific location of the violation. Oh\, I’m sorry it’s red to run slides or notes. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: This image on the left shows the violation more closely. The respondent has represented that there has been a fence surrounding this property for the past century\, that they needed to replace an 11 foot 2 inch long section of a 6 foot tall wire fence\, and approximately 2021. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: That 11 foot 2 inch long. Section is the section that the respondent needed. Vcdc authorization prior to placing. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: I’ll now review the timeline of events in this case. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: In starting in May of 2021 Bcd. Enforcement Staff received a report from City of Belvedere Staff\, alleging that unpermitted fencing had been installed on the property of 5 blending lane within DC. DC’s 100 foot shoreline ban jurisdiction. Bcd. Opened this Enforcement case and made initial contact with respondents authorized representative attorney\, John Sharp. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: between May and June\, of 2021\, respondent and Mr. Sharp inform staff that they were meeting with consultants in a survey\, and had hired an architect\, indicating that they were beginning to put together initial application materials to seek and obtain an after the fact permit for the fence replacement. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: In September of 2021\, city of Belvedere Staff\, and a surveyor conducted a site visit and reported their findings to BC. DC. Staff\, who were unavailable to attend \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: city staff\, confirmed that fencing had been placed on Mr. Johans Myers property without permits\, and with this information\, in October of 2021 Pcdc. Staff issued a notice of violations to the respondent\, initiating a standardized fine process which gave him 35 days to either remove the unpermitted fill\, or to seek and obtain a permit for the fence before standardized fines began accruing. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: In March of 2022\, Mister Sharp submitted an incomplete region. Wide permanent application on behalf of Mr. Johan’s Meyer seeking after the fact authorization for the fence. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: And then\, between October 2022 and October 2023\, Enforcement staff made several attempts to urge Mr. Johan’s mayor\, to complete his application. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: On October thirteenth\, 2023\, Staff notified the respondent that the executive director was rescinding the opportunity to resolve the violation using the standardized fine process. After determining that the respondent had not made a good faith effort to resolve the violation. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: Then\, on October thirtieth\, 2023\, Staff mailed a violation report and complaint for administrative civil penalties to the respondent\, and finally\, on November thirtieth\, 2023\, responded\, and Staff agreed to resolve this violation via the proposed settlement agreement. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: To briefly summarize the proposed settlement agreement. It would require Mr. Johan’s Meyer to one pay $2\,500 an administrative civil liability within 30 days of execution of the agreement\, and 2 by February 20\, eighth\, 2024. Either a remove the unauthorized fence and submit photographic evidence of the same\, or B submit a filed application seeking after the fact authorization for defense. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: When the Enforcement Committee heard this case at their meeting on January eleventh\, 2024\, committee members were curious about the Commission’s option to take action in the case of respondent noncompliance with the proposed settlement agreement due to the length of time the case has remained unresolved. So far. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: so first mentioned that Bcd. C. Can extend the deadlines in the settlement agreement. If causes beyond the respondents. Control prevent timely compliance. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: however\, in the event of failure by Mr. Johans Meyer to comply with the settlement agreement for causes within his control. BC. DC. Can recommence formal enforcement proceedings by issuing a new violation report and complaint with recalculated administrative civil penalties. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: Appendix J. Of the Commission’s regulations requires staff to consider certain characteristics of a violation when calculating the appropriate administrative civil penalty amount\, such as the cost of the state\, of pursuing the enforcement action\, and whether the violator has delayed compliance. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: using the original violation report and complaint penalty amount as a baseline. If staff issued a new violation report and complaint\, we would have the opportunity to factor in the additional days that the respondent has been out of compliance as well as the violators\, bad faith and reaching compliance. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: Lastly\, we do not expect Mr. Johans Meyer to fail to comply\, and we are entering into the settlement agreement with utmost confidence\, and Mr. Johan’s Meyers ability to comply. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: So to summarize the one violation for the failure to obtain A BC DC. Permit prior to placing fencing in BC. DC’s 100 foot shoreline ban jurisdiction in violation of the Macetier Petrus Act section 6\, 6\, 6\, 3\, 2\, a. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: And to resolve this case\, the Enforcement Committee recommends that the Commission vote to authorize the Executive director to execute the proposed settlement agreement\, which again requires respondent to one pay\, $2\,500\, an administrative civil liability within 30 days of execution of the agreement\, and 2 by February 2820 24. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: Either a remove the unauthorized fence and submit photographic evidence of the same\, or B submit a filed application\, seeking after the fact authorization for the fence. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: And that concludes the staff’s presentation. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Rachel. I now invite Mr. Sharp to comment if he so chooses. \n_John Sharp: Thank you. Members of the Commission and staff. I do not intend to go into granular detail about the timeline here unless you want me to. \n_John Sharp: I am authorized to enter into this agreement in Mr. Johan’s Myers behalf. \n_John Sharp: and I do want to emphasize that we are committed to complying with the terms of the agreement. I will say this is a complicated property\, where that fence is that you saw in. \n_John Sharp: I think it was slides one and 2 is the apex of \n_John Sharp: at least 3 properties\, one of which is on by my client\, another of which is on by the city of Belvedere\, and is open space. and another of which is owned by. \nI think it’s Sanitation. District 5. So the \n_John Sharp: the topography\, the geology. All of it is complicated. I won’t go into exhaustive detail about what led to the creation of that fence. But\, \n_John Sharp: There were some invitations by members of the public in Belvedere \n_John Sharp: and committee members for the public to \n_John Sharp: enter the open space\, which is very steep\, unimproved. \n_John Sharp: and dangerous. \n_John Sharp: and there were some events of those folks. \n_John Sharp: people entering that property\, falling off the rocks under my clients property\, and getting into the bay. \n_John Sharp: wandering out onto the dock and jumping in the water\, and that’s why the fence went in. So with that\, unless you have questions\, I will thank you\, and again commit to the terms of the agreement. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you for your comments and your affirmation of the contents of the agreement\, Mr. Sharp\, and\, thanks to Staff for the presentation chair. Wasserman\, would you please open the public comment period\, the comment period\, the public hearing is open \nBoardroom SX80: any one from the public wish to comment\, now is the time. \nBoardroom SX80: ano\, do we have any come? People who wish to comment? \nBoardroom SX80: We have Commissioner Eglin \nBoardroom SX80: any from the public before we get to Commissioner. None from the public. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Is there any objection to closing the public\, hearing. \nBoardroom SX80: hearing\, and seeing no objection? If the public hearing is closed\, I would recognize Commissioner Ekland. \nThank you very much. Chair\, Walterman. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Ii read this report a couple of times because I was really struck with the fact that the applicant was \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: non responsive to Bcd staff \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: for over a year and a half and then the what was submitted was\, that’s something that was not complete. And I do \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: thank Mr. Sharp\, for getting involved and helping to resolve this issue. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: My concern is that here\, almost 3 years later\, now\, we’re at a proposed settlement. but from what I read from the settlement agreement\, it doesn’t appear to deal with \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: the fact that if he is non-responsive and when I work for the Us. Environmental Protection Agency\, I was in charge of the Npds permitting program\, which is not only permitting but enforcement. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: When we dealt with applicants like this\, we actually\, if there was a settlement agreement\, we actually included a condition that if \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: the respondent\, or if the applicant was not responsive\, we actually included in there what would happen rather than having to issue another new violation report and and panel with penalties. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: So I guess my question for staff is that \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: has BC. DC\, tried to incorporate something like this in a settlement agreement in the past\, and \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: and if not\, why not? And then \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: you know. Just sort of like\, if if if there is not a response? \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Then\, and then just actually stating in there what what the consequences would be\, and that we will consider this to be another violation of which then we’ll be seeking penalties of such and such. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: So I’m kind of curious \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: about whether or not that’s something that’s possible\, or maybe not necessarily for this particular applicant. But \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: II am struck with the fact that what 3 years is this going on? And the city of Belvedere apparently has been dealing with this\, and probably complaints from the public for such a long time. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: So if Staff can help me to understand that I’d appreciate that \nBoardroom SX80: this is Michael Inge\, acting general counsel. We have had some internal discussions about that very topic \nBoardroom SX80: in relation to you know this case and just going forward. And it is certainly something that we can look into. I think\, you know\, if you look at various settle settlement agreements that we’ve used in the past. There may be slight deviations\, and so I think there’s an opportunity to figure out sort of a \nBoardroom SX80: you know what may be the best sort of drafting or provisions that proactively get at the concern that you just raised. So we’ll definitely take a look at that for future settlement agreements. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: II would really super really encourage folks to do that\, because when you get a recalcitrant in person or company\, or whatever it takes to have so much more time to do a new violation. And \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: and this way it’s sort of wrapped into the same in a way. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: So II did this not only when I was in charge of the Npds permitting program EPA\, but also the San Francisco pay program as well when I was working with the the regional board. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: So not not working as an employee\, but as a working as an EPA employee with the regional board and setting up the programs way back \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: in long time since I work for Eba for over 35 years. So anyway. So I just really want to encourage that. And I’d love an opportunity to talk with Staff in the future \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: if that’s something and I’d encourage the Commission to really support that idea cause. I found that it really helped facilitate compliance. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: and it also help facilitate and reduce the amount of staff time that’s devoted to it. Especially if you wait for 3 years. There’s staff turnover a lot. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: So this way\, it’s sort of like an automatic thing that happens. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: And I want to thank Mr. Sharp for getting involved. And I am hoping that you’re gonna make sure that your client does comply. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Because it is something that has adversely impacted from what I could tell. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: The public’s asset access to public waters. And the city of Belvedere has been able has had to. I don’t know this for sure\, because I haven’t talked with them\, but \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Has had to spend staff time on this\, and cities just don’t have the staff time to do this kind of stuff \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: given all the State mandates\, and that we have to comply with so comments in the panic gallery up in Nevada. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Vice chair\, eisen \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I echo everything that Commissioner Eklund\, said the Enforcement Committee was also concerned that so much staff time can be taken up with relatively small matters given the scope of what the BC. DC. Is charged with \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: doing. And that’s why we asked specifically to have the question address\, what happens if the settlement agreement is not abided by I think. Commissioner Eklins. Idea of placing something in settlement agreements that would have a kind of automaticness about it. If there’s a failure \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: to respond. I understand that there can be complications\, but would be a good idea\, and would hopefully get move some of these matters along a lot faster than they have been moved along. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: So thank you\, Pat\, for that comment. And\, believe me\, the Enforcement Committee is thinking along the exact same lines. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Molten Peters. \nStephanie Moulton-Peters\, Commissioner: Thank you. I wanna add to the 2 previous speakers and agree. And in addition to the staff time\, I wanna comment that I’m aware that \nStephanie Moulton-Peters\, Commissioner: there’s been a desire to create access to the water or the public on the publicly owned property\, and that has been held up for 3 years \nStephanie Moulton-Peters\, Commissioner: until this matter could get settled. So there’s there’s some additional issues that arise when we\, when we can’t get them to a a settlement more quickly. \nStephanie Moulton-Peters\, Commissioner: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: I see no other hands or comments from commissioners. \nBoardroom SX80: With that. \nBoardroom SX80: sure. Gilmour\, would you like to make a motion? \nBoardroom SX80: We have closed the public hearing just type. make a motion to accept the Enforcement Committee’s recommendation. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Thank you. Chair Wasserman. I make a motion that the Commission accepts the Enforcement Committee’s recommendation to approve the Settlement agreement\, and I’ll second the Motion \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Commissioner Ackland \nBoardroom SX80: Roll call\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Adiego. Yes. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Commissioner on Commissioner Berg. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Kimball. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Reclin. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Aye. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Goren. \nSusan Gorin\, Commissioner: Aye. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Gunther. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: Aye. \nKarl Hasz\, Commissioner: Commissioner Haas\, Hi. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Kishimoto. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Commissioner Raspberries. Yes. \nStephanie Moulton-Peters\, Commissioner: Commissioner Malton Peters\, yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Pesca all Right Commissioner Pine. Yes\, Commissioner Gallagher. Yes\, yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Rancho. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Randolph. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, Commissioner\, show Alder. \nBoardroom SX80: I still count that as one s. Commissioner Gilmore. Yes\, Commissioner Zephyr. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Beech abstain \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner eisen sorry\, wise chair. Eisen. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: chair Wasserman. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes. so we have 22. Yes\, no-no’s and one abstain \nBoardroom SX80: thank you the enforcement Committee’s recommendation is approved. \nBoardroom SX80: and hopefully will result in the follow up actions described. \nBoardroom SX80: That \nBoardroom SX80: brings us to Item 10\, which is a briefing on the California sea level Rise guidance issued by the Ocean Protection \nBoardroom SX80: counsel BCD. C’s planning Director Jeff Caffane will introduce the briefing. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair Wasserman. Good afternoon\, commissioners so shifting gears a little bit from enforcement to sea level Rise adaptation. So the next 3 briefings you’ll be hearing this afternoon. All have to do with sea level rise\, and it’s a particularly apt week to be thinking about this. We didn’t plan the weather\, but what we’re seeing this week is a glimpse into what we are going to be expecting to see a lot more of in the coming years and decades. So \nour first briefing that we’ll be hearing now is on the draft. California sea Level Rise guidance updates which present updated science on sea level rise across the State through the year 2\,150\, \nas well as policy guidance on how to incorporate those sea level rise scenarios into planning and projects. We’re grateful to the Ocean Protection Council for their leadership in bringing the best available science to California. And this is the guidance that Bcd uses and that we rely on as we plan for and permit projects around the bay shoreline. \nBoardroom SX80: So with that\, I’d love to turn it over to Commissioner and Dr. Justine Campbell\, senior scientists and lead for Opc’s climate change program. Who will present this item? \nBoardroom SX80: Justine. Africa? \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: Hmm. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: I’ve got some slides. Yep. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: great. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: I don’t know. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: Sancho. Right? \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: Great thank you. And good afternoon\, everyone \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: thanks for letting me present here today on the draft State of California civil rights guidance at 2024 science and policy update. It was released on January nineteenth for public comment. And so I’m here today to provide an overview flag opportunities for outreach and engagement and answer any questions. This is actually the first public presentation on the guidance. So it’s it’s exciting to be here. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: Next slide. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: So this is the fourth update since Opc released its first guidance back in 2\,010. The original and continuing purpose of this guidance is to support state and local action\, to assess vulnerability to rising seas and climate\, driven flood flooding\, and the creation of adaptation\, plans and projects that build resilience into the future. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: It was last updated in 2\,017 and 18\, and Opc. Has committed to updating approximately every 5 years in order to stay current with the most recent science. In the last iteration the Science and policy reports were separate. Rising sees. The science update was released in 2\,017\, followed by the policy guidance. The following year\, in 2\,018\, \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: the science was presented in tables for 12 noa tide gauge locations that included 3 probabilistic projections provided alongside an extreme sea level rise scenario that had an unknown probability that was referred to as H. It also included a stepwise process on how to select sea level Rise projections based on risk\, tolerance\, and recommendations for adaptation and planning. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: Since then there have been significant advances in scientific understanding and the ability to project future sea level rise which is captured in the 2024 update. And this update includes both the science and the policy reports package together next slide. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: So to leave this update\, we convened an independent Science task force in partnership with the California Ocean Science Trust. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: This is our all Star task force team here that we was assembled for the effort. And this is the format of the report. With the task force authorship clearly identified as focused on the science portions. Chapter 2 and 4. Where Opc. Was the author for the policy portions. We also closely coordinated with the State and Regional sea level rise collaborative\, which includes BC\, DC staff \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and provided them with multiple points of review and feedback during the process. Next slide \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: so\, chapter 2 is the tech technical methodology portion of how the new projections were developed. It’s a different methodology than the last guidance. Instead of the probabilistic projection approach we now use the scenario approach. This was based on the strong recommendation and decision from that science task force \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: to align with the 2022 national sea level Rise technical report shown here in the front\, the global and regional sea Level rise scenarios for the United States \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: the scenario approach relies on the Intergovernmental Panel\, on Climate Change\, 6. Assessment report\, or AR 6 projections. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: The Ipcc. Is the premier scientific body based through the United nations for assessing the science related to climate\, and the AR 6 represents the current consensus understanding on sea level rise modeling. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: So the Ipcc AR. 6 represents a step forward in scientific understanding of the IC contributions of sea level rise\, and in how this understanding should be incorporated into projections. This is the main factor in altered altering the projections. Of sea level rise. In this updated report\, compared to the previous report. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: In addition to being an important source of future sea level rise projections of future I. Sheet change represents the largest source of uncertainty in estimating sea level rise towards the end of century and beyond\, and even with this new understanding in AR 6 I see\, change is still\, still represents the largest source of uncertainty. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: so using the AR 6 framework\, a set of reduced sea level rise scenarios were developed. This methodology was used in that that 2022 National Report which underwent extensive peer review for our guidance. These scenarios were localized to California and underwent a additional peer review at that time. As well. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and then to help with interpretation. Story lines were created for each of the scenarios. Which I will cover in more detail next\, and the scenarios are available as a statewide table\, and then including local vertical land motion at 13 tide gauges\, including an additional tide gauge and Alameda that was not included in the the previous report. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: But next slide. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: So to provide a bit more conceptual understanding of the scenarios. These are the story lines\, but there’s much more information in the document. on on the storyline. So please see the full descriptions there \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and then\, just to note when I refer to low confidence processes. That is a term that is used to denote a low level of agreement on how the models represent key processes\, such as rapid and partial ice sheet disintegration. And then\, in addition\, there’s limited evidence supporting those model output. So so that’s what I mean when I \ntalk about low confidence processes. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: So the low scenario relies on the assumption that current\, the current rate of sea level rise will continue on into the future. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: This assumption is is very inconsistent with the the understanding of of acceleration\, of sea level rise and and current observation\, showing that but could still be considered plausible if there was \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: very aggressive. Emissions reduction in in the future global emission reductions the intermediate low scenario includes a range of of warming and emission pathways and can be considered a reasonable lower bound of the most likely sea level rise \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: in 2\,100. The intermediate scenario includes a range of warming and emission pathways as well. But also includes contributions from some of those low confidence processes that I mentioned\, and this could be considered a reasonable estimate of the upper bound of what is most likely to be seen in 2\,100. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: The intermediate high scenario includes intermediate to high futures\, initi emissions\, and a high warming assumptions. This scenario is heavily reflective of a world where rapid ice sheet loss processes are contributing to sea level rise. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and then the high scenario includes high future emissions and high warming with large potential contributions from rapid ice sheet loss \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: next slide. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: So with that orientation\, hopefully helpful to understand what what those 5 scenarios are. Here are the the new numbers you can see the low to high scenarios at time. Steps of decadal time steps from 2020 to 2150 \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and this is the statewide table again\, with also\, in addition those 13 tag age tables that include the the localized vertical land motion component\, and then this probability on the on the up next to it as table 2.2 in the report. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and this is to help create some understanding of probabilities. Of for the different scenarios. So this table only looks at. It’s a snapshot of 2\,100. And with global surface temperatures currently on track to reach 3°C above pre industrial levels by 2\,100. That’s why the 3°C box is\, II put there. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: And so the way to read this is to look at the 2\,100 numbers in the in the state wide table of scenarios there and then\, save for the low scenario\, you can see 2\,100 at the low scenario is one foot\, and then\, if you look at the red box. You see that there is a \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: 99% chance that sea level rise will exceed one foot in 2\,100. Again assuming 3°C of warming. And then for intermediate low\, there’s an 82% chance that that in the intermediate low is 1.6 feet that that would be exceeded. And then intermediate is is 3.1 feet\, and there’s only a 5% chance that that would \nwill be ex exceeded. So that’s how that likely range is is defined for 2\,100\, with roughly 77 chance that sea level rise would be between \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: 1.6 and 3.1 at 2\,100 \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: So \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: that\, it’s it’s a little bit hard. It’s a little bit complicated. But hopefully\, that helps provide a little bit more understanding of how to how to think about the numbers \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: next slide. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: So in terms of key takeaways\, the new science shows much greater certainty\, and the amount of sea level rise in the next 30 years. Statewide sea levels are most likely to rise 0 point 8 feet by 2050\, \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and then by 2\,100 sea levels are most likely to rise between 1.6 and 3.1 feet\, and that’s what I just covered. In that probability table. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: And then\, beyond 2\,100\, the range of sea level rise becomes increasingly large\, due to uncertainties associated with physical processes\, such as the the low confidence processes that I mentioned that earlier than expected\, I sheet lost. So by 2150\, you know\, there’s really a large range between 2.6 and 11 feet that are. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: that’s there and then. That extreme sea level rise scenario\, the h plus plus from rising fees is now considered much higher than best available science suggests\, based on that that scientific the advances in scientific understanding around modeling of ice sheet. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: And then again\, that vertical land motion component is is where you get the local numbers from next line. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: A few additional things to flag here is that similar to the last iteration. Those numbers do not include episodic events. Such as storms\, King tides El Nino and then\, unfortunately\, a direct comparison between the 2\,018 guidance and this new guidance. Oh\, sorry. Let’s say 2024 you’re hoping to release in December. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: 2024. Guidance is not possible. It’s really apples to oranges\, because the methodologies change so from a scientific point of view\, and looking at probabilities\, you you really can’t do it. A comparison to to say\, you know this change from this to this. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: but from a policy application point of view\, you\, you can take that perspective and do a comparison\, and you can see here from the tables that there is a lot of consistency\, with the exception of that h plus plus scenario at the end. So \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: if if you\, there’s that shows tables comparing the different probabilistic projections in the scenarios that (205) 021-2150. And so. Yeah\, you can see that. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: there’s still very. There’s a lot of consistency there to work with. And then\, if you were using the h plus plus numbers\, like thinking about a 2\,100 application. For instance\, you could shift that to 2150 when there’s\, you know\, roughly\, 4 to 10% chance of reaching the 2\,100 H plus plus values at 2150 for the high scenario. So \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: you know\, basically\, you can do a crosswalk from a policy application. And and that’s that’s the takeaway. With that next slide. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: So that’s the summary of the new science. There isn’t expected to be any adjustments to those scenario values\, those projections in the Co. Public comment period. They are also very consistent\, of course\, with the 2022 National report where\, you know they cheered off of so the numbers really weren’t a surprise. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: And then so chapter 3 is where the policy recommendations come in. How do you apply these numbers in planning and projects? \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: So similar to 2\,018 guidance? We’ve taken a step\, wise process to go through. And so those are the steps you can see there. But instead of going one by one through the steps\, I’m just going to flag a few takeaways \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: that for most planning and projects we’re recommending evaluation of the intermediate\, the intermediate high and the high scenarios at the you know\, at the lifespan of the project that you’re considering and then consideration of storm conditions in combination with those scenario numbers is also recommended to look at extreme water levels at appropriate. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: And then\, you know\, we’re really encouraging. You know that that existing vulnerability assessments should be used and leverage whatever pro possible. We’re not trying to keep people in a never ending\, you know\, planning process for those that already have vulnerability assessments. You should be able to use those with a crosswalk\, and will likely result in sort of shifting of time horizons back from the on the expected impacts \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: rather than having to analyze with new numbers. And that’s where I was trying to go with that table. Comparison. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: And then step 5 is is new in the stepwise process. We really tried to mirror these steps with the real world as much as possible. And we heard that there’s a really important step focused on exploring adaptation options and feasibility that occurs before the decisions are actually made. And so we added that step there to reflect that. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and then\, same as the 2\,018 guidance we are recommending that selection of sea level rise\, be guided by a risk assessment. But we also added that selection\, particularly at the project level\, is often a multi factor process. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and I have a quick example of that. If you advance one slide\, I have some photos here. These are photos from the Cardiff State Beach Living Shoreline project. Sorry I didn’t have an example in the in the bay. This is an Encinitas and the pictures a here the before and B are the after this was a first of its kind project\, a prototype \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: to use a living dune with engineered components for protection of hard infrastructure\, specifically highway 101. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: This project was many years in the making and then\, when it came time to do design final design and construction. Sea level rise was off\, obviously a very critical consideration as part of that process. But it was also one of many other factors\, including the visual impacts of of the doing construction\, the adjacent freeway engineering feasibility that all factored into the final design \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: design decision. So in the end selection of the final design specification was really a compromise and negotiation of trade offs. And so that last step in in the process. We really tried to reflect that those real world situations next slide. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and then chapter 4\, all also authored by the the task force\, includes a synthesis of of much more information on the combined impacts of sea level rise and other coastal hazards include\, including projected flood frequency\, which is expected to increase significantly in the 2030 s. Groundwater erosion and extreme coastal storms \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: next slide \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: so that’s the summary of the guidance. I wanted to end here with highlighting that the State has prioritized and continues to prioritize funding for coastal resilience. This includes the Senate Bill\, one Sea Level Rise adaptation \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: program released by Opc to support the development of sea level Rise adaptation plans. It has\, 71.4 million available for funding right now. In addition to 660 \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: 1 million maintained in the Fy. 2425 budget for critical coastal resilience programs and projects. We also have worked closely with the Bcd C. Staff to align that grant program with Bcd shoreline\, regional shoreline adaptation plan efforts\, and it also directly implements. You heard about the beginning of this meeting from Senator Laird. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and then Opc. Continues to convene the State and regional sea level rise collaborative through both an executive team and a working group. Next slide. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and then just to flag the the public comment and outreach opportunities. We have a website that includes all this information as well as registration links and instructions for how to submit public comment. We’re really excited to see what we get during public comment period. We have a webinar coming up this coming Monday\, February fifth\, that one to 2\, the science portion of that webinar will be \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: presented by Dr. Ben Hamilton\, at Jpl\, who was really the the lead in in the scenario development. And so any really nitty\, gritty technical questions on on the methodology\, you know\, I would probably pass to him. And you know\, if you’re interested in that would suggest joining for that webinar\, it’ll go into really more more detail of the modeling approach. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: And then we have regional workshops that are really meant to focus more on the application piece and really understanding how this guidance can be adjusted to be more useful. You know\, more reflective of the work on the ground. And so the San Francisco workshop. Just a flag is is February sixteenth and then any questions you can send to me\, and and then public comment \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: to our C. Grant\, fellow. But again\, there’s instructions on our website and that next slide. That’s it. Thank you. \nExcellent \nCount. \nBoardroom SX80: That concludes that presentation\, I think back to you\, Chair Wasserman\, for public comment. \nBoardroom SX80: Are there any? I have no cards? Are there any virtual \nBoardroom SX80: public speakers? \nBoardroom SX80: There is one public comment. \nBoardroom SX80: Speaker Sarah. you have 3 min to state your public comment. \nSara Greenwald: Hello\, I’m Sarah Greenwald with 3 50 Bay area\, which represents several Bay area shoreline communities around the bay. I have a brief comment \nSara Greenwald: our concern is that this document\, of course\, has to set the foundation for measures to protect shoreline communities from sea level rise\, and you know the adaptation plan is to be submitted to the State in 2034\, and I want to emphasize that you will have wanted to do all you can to protect the communities starting long before then\, because the Senator Laird mentioned. The recent floods show that sea level is rising now. Not later. \nSara Greenwald: Dr. Kibble explained that estimates are changing as research continues. Of course in general the expected rise is probably increasing. \nSara Greenwald: and therefore \nSara Greenwald: you will need to be prepared to implement measures \nSara Greenwald: sooner than expected. This is been your experience\, I’m sure. And \nSara Greenwald: build in a lot of flexibility. \nSara Greenwald: that’s all. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Comments or questions from Commissioners. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Ekland. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Thank you very much. Chair Wasserman. I’m just seeing a fantastic presentation. And I just thought an aside. I \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: happened to be in Terre Linda this morning. Which is a suburb of Santa Fe. But it’s a suburb that was developed in the sixties. and during that time the developments had\, like an open ditch \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: for drainage\, and when I saw the open ditch this morning it was almost full \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: of water\, which just really just reinforces in my mind that cities and counties really need to speed up \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: their discussions about how to deal with sea level rise\, which brings me to \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: a. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: The fact that to to what degree are you working with? Like the League of California Cities which I was past? I am past president of that organization. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: To really help to work with cities. About their plans\, especially those cities that have some coastal waters. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: of of how to incorporate some of these techniques that you’re talking about into their local plans that they have to develop? \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: So I’m kinda curious what kind of outreach are you doing with cities? And if you’re not doing too much outreach\, I’d sure love to talk with you. Offline \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: to \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: to help you\, because II have a lot of contacts and cities throughout the State because of my leadership role that I played there for many years. And II know cities are just grabbling for data and information and guidance on on how to approach this issue? \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: Can I answer the question now? \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: Okay\, we. I will say\, we don’t have any specific contact at a League of Cities. I’d love to get one if if you have one. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: okay\, great our\, the grant program that I mentioned\, is focused on specifically supporting local and regional government entities\, on their\, on incorporating sea level rise into their land use planning efforts. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and so that has been the the focus of that program. It was recently launched a couple of weeks ago. And \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: so that is\, I would say\, our sort of our main connection. Right now\, as part of that program\, we are also standing up a technical assistance program. That should be launched in the next in in March\, I believe\, which is going to be going to provide there will be a sort of an eligibility portion of the technical assistance. But we’ll \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: be providing under served communities with specific technical assistance on how to apply to the Grant program which which supports and funds\, like all stages of of planning\, and then will eventually find projects as well. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: One thing to note\, though\, is\, we don’t really want to\, you know\, BC DC. And on the Coast the Coastal Commission are really the experts in\, like the the local post coast coastal program and the the sub regional resiliency plans. And so as a staff\, we don’t really have the expertise to play guide in updating those specific plans. And we don’t want to fund something that would then not be aligned with that later on down the road. So \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: in a lot of discussions with BC. DC. And Coastal Commission Staff\, we\, we have a path forward now\, or we’re really supporting a lot of the work around that. And then. But we’re leaving the actual updating of the plans to being routed through Ecdc. And Coastal Commission. So that can be a really clean process. And we’ve developed letters of alignment as well for the other parts of the project to make sure we’re not getting out of \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: step there. And then\, you know the regional workshops that are coming up. I really\, you know we’re trying to get the word out on those to get as many you know\, representatives of local government to come to that\, and we’d be very open to hearing about other ways that we can \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: be connected and be engaged and and be providing information. We definitely see that as part of the role of the Ocean Protection Council and our convening of the the State Collaborative. As well. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Yeah\, so not not happening. I don’t know what your local experience is but based on the fact that I’ve been on the city Council since 1\,995 city staff. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Has so much to so much responsibility. And there’s not enough because we’re a poor property tech city in the bottom. So we don’t have that much staff. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: So they’re they’re really taxed to the Max. I mean in terms of the amount of work. So this kind of pre planning is very difficult for them to attend a workshop like this. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: They don’t have the necessary staff. And so I do have contacts at the League. There’s an environmental Policy Committee which I served on for decades. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: And and I know a briefing 2 elected officials. At the League of California Cities Conferences would just really help to \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: make elected officials aware of of the it. They they know it. But having your presentation just reinforces the fact that you need elected leadership \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: to really locally elected leaders. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: not only cities\, but counties\, because they’re Csac as well\, which definitely\, I’m sure can talk about. But you know\, we we need more elected officials that hear this\, the more you’re gonna get local governments wanting to get involved. And I think \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: the leadership you know\, there’s funding available. So elected officials can help lobby for more if they hear from their staff saying\, Hey\, look at! We’re not getting enough money to help do this right? So II will. Offline. I’ll get your contact information\, I guess\, from Larry. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: And so I’ll be definitely in in touch with you \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: and give you the contact information so that you can play more leadership role. In cities across the State. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: and it’ll attract a lot of people that live around the coastal waters\, I think to learn more about sea level rise. So thank you very much for your presentation. And I’m actually gonna be telling the cities\, at least in county \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: about this report. Because II think it’s something that everybody needs to know about. So thank you very much. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: Appreciate that. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Gunther. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: Thank you\, Mr. Chairman. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: Doctor Kimball. Thank you for the presentation I was. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: II found your revision of the projections for H. Plus plus to be rather good news. and I don’t want to get into the scientific weeds. But I was wondering if you might be able to provide just a little more explanation. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: I hear frequently that you know ice sheet dynamics\, or the things we know least about. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: and the highest present the highest risk \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: for extraordinarily accelerated sea level rise. So how is it that we’re able to push that that a a scenario further into the future. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: This might be a question for one of the modelers\, because my my understanding is sort of limited to what I presented on is that that h plus plus was always a \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: a\, an unknown probability\, a a speculative scenario. It was sort of like a worst case\, like\, if if all the things that you know we ha! We don’t. That modelers\, not we. The modelers\, didn’t understand very well all the worst case sort of happened at the same time. That was sort of what h plus plus was. And so in those intervening years\, you know that that AR 6 \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: framework. Basically they there was better understanding. They had higher\, you know. They gained confidence in some of the understanding around the ice sheet dynamics. And so some of those worst case scenarios with that better understanding were no longer considered plausible. And so \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: without those those really extreme things happening\, you can’t get to h plus plus. So if you understand them better to know that they’re not gonna happen\, then you’re not gonna get there. And that’s my layman’s understanding of \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: of why the H plus plus scenario. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: It’s it’s just not plausible\, based on the the advances and understanding of of the High Sheets. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Showalter. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Yes\, I wanted to. I’m sorry about. Maybe I can just turn this on \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: no. Can you hear me? \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Excellent! Okay\, great. Alright\, I just wanted to suggest another outreach opportunity which\, hopefully\, you’re already doing giving a presentation at the state of the Estuary Conference that’s coming up in March \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: that gets to get to \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: together many practitioners of flood protection in the Bay area. So it’d be great opportunity to share information about this report. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: And then I have a question. One of the things you mentioned was that storm intensity is going to increase in the 2030 s. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: And that\, of course\, is a major source of flooding as well as sea level rise. So can you talk about that a little more. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: So actually\, the new guidance doesn’t include projections for storm frequency. What I said with flood frequency. And so the projections of flood frequency are expected to increase in the coming decades. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and that is essentially a function of sea level rise and in an acceleration of sea level rise. And so \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: so essentially you can the no one. NASA\, has a flood projection viewer that you can look at for each of the tide gauges and based on the number of of flooding events. And there’s a definition\, for how a flooding event is. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: it is captured\, and then\, if they model sea level\, rise on top of that\, they can predict. You know how many flooding events are expected in the coming decades. And so that is what that is speaking to. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: Obviously\, it’s very hard to. It’s only those projections\, though\, are only for the tag gauge locations. It’s it’s very hard to localize that\, because it’s\, you know\, like flooding is so specific to a a very specific location and and shoreline. So that is what that is referring to. But \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: it the the sort of take away that the conditions that you see now\, during storm events\, you know\, can be used as an analog. For what sea level rise will be expected in the future is is sort of a takeaway as well\, but \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: in terms of just like projecting like numbers and intensities of storms. This this group didn’t didn’t do that. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Okay\, thank you. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t see any other hands or microphones. \nBoardroom SX80: That concludes the matter\, but I am sure we will be discussing it at future meetings. Thank you very\, very much\, Doctor Kimball. \nBoardroom SX80: That brings us sorry. \nBoardroom SX80: That brings us to item 11\, a briefing on the regional shoreline adaptation\, plan\, progress. The briefing will be presented by senior climate adaptation. Planner Jackie Menduski. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay. Hello and good afternoon. Chair. Wasserman Commissioners and Senator Laird\, who I don’t\, who may no longer be here\, but it was a pleasure to have him join today\, and I also wanna thank him for his important work which this project is advancing. As Commissioner Washerman said\, my name is Jacqueline Mendoskey. I’m a senior climate adaptation planner at Bcd. C. And the project manager of the regional Shoreline adaptation plan \nBoardroom SX80: last time I spoke to this group was back in October of last year\, when we were in the middle of conducting outreach to create a regional vision for the bay shoreline\, and I’m excited to share the results of that effort with all of you which we are now calling the one bay vision for a resilient future shoreline. This vision will serve as the foundation to shape our work on the Rsap throughout this year\, and our broader regional work over the coming years \nBoardroom SX80: for commissioners who attended the rising sea Level working group meeting 2 weeks ago. I want to thank you for your time and comments on the draft. One bay vision\, as you’ll see. We made a few small adjustments to these statements to incorporate your comments and feedback \nBoardroom SX80: the rsap. So regional. Sri Lankaptation Plan abbreviated is intended to serve the region\, to reduce shared flood risk for the Bay area and ensure that adaptation. Plans\, projects\, and land use decisions are coordinated and consistent to protect the values we care about protecting people\, particularly our most vulnerable populations\, ensuring healthy environments over the long term and being strategic in how we prioritize and fund projects to help us achieve our goals. \nBoardroom SX80: And through the Rsap. I want to reiterate that BCDC. Is meeting the requirements of Sb. 2\, 72\, and providing the necessary support to local jurisdictions to advance local adaptation plans and projects that work together to achieve our shared goals. \nBoardroom SX80: So what are these shared goals? And what do we mean by achieving successful adaptation for the region? This is where the one bay vision comes into play. \nBoardroom SX80: The Rsaf is implementing 4 actions in the bay\, adapt joint platform\, and the need for a regional vision was identified as the very first action which states collaborate on a one bay vision to adapt to rising sea levels. And the task below this States to create a long term regional vision rooted in communities\, Bay habitats and the economy. There are also additional actions that the Rsap is advancing which you might recognize in our approach. But I won’t elaborate on today \nBoardroom SX80: the foundations for the one bay vision were also laid in Bayadaf’s guiding principles\, which remain the North Star for all projects being implemented through Bayadapt\, including the Rsap. \nBoardroom SX80: What you’ll see to day through the one bay vision is how these principles are applied across 8 key issue areas in ways that add targeted and concrete long term adaptation outcomes in the Bay Area. \nBoardroom SX80: The one bay vision describes what successful adaptation should look like along our shorelines and reflects both our values today\, while also acknowledging that future shorelines will look different\, and that adaptation itself will be an iterative process. The one bay vision brings the guiding principles to life as it adds detail to where and how these principles apply across topic areas across society and guides the development of our remaining work. \nBoardroom SX80: How does the vision flow throughout the aspects of the Rsap to inform real on the ground adaptation. The one bay vision sets the outcomes for the region and paints the picture of the future that we’re all working to achieve. \nBoardroom SX80: The vision will guide the region’s strategic priorities which will identify key adaptation areas. The big regional moves that lay out where certain types of adaptation are most appropriate and beneficial for the region. This also informs the development of local plan guidelines which will lay out consistent regional standards for how local jurisdictions create subregional plans and develop adaptation strategies that meet minimum criteria and advance the region’s priorities. \nBoardroom SX80: And within these plans will be specific projects and land use changes with an implementation strategy to get adaptation projects in the ground \nBoardroom SX80: together. These individual projects across the region add up to our shared one bay vision. \nBoardroom SX80: Now\, how does this actually work? In practice? I’d like to provide an example. One of our vision statements includes the topic of ecosystem health and resilience\, and this statement includes language about protecting\, restoring\, and enhancing valence. Ecosystems. \nBoardroom SX80: An example strategic priority might include geographic identification of priority habitats around the region. An example. Guideline might require local jurisdictions to evaluate those habitats and plan for the long term health of those ecosystems. \nBoardroom SX80: and an example project within a plan might be the identification of a strategy such as an ecotone levy and its associated land use and implementation next steps. This example of an ecolotone levy is a piece of the puzzle that helps us advance our regional vision for ecosystem health and resilience. \nBoardroom SX80: This one bay vision that you are about to see was developed through a variety of inputs. In addition to building upon the guiding principles\, we reviewed existing regional visions\, such as planned Bay area to ensure our efforts are aligned and linked. We also conducted a series of outreach in the fall\, which you heard from me back in October\, where we spoke with over 500 people at local community events\, a public workshop\, online survey\, and expert practitioners who shared their values and visions for the future of the shoreline. \nBoardroom SX80: The one bay vision represents the distillation of that feedback\, and reflects what we heard and learned from these stakeholders about what they want. The future of the bay to look like for themselves and for future generations\, as sea levels rise. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, now we are here at the main part of the event\, where I’ll be sharing the draft one bay vision for a resilient future shoreline. \nBoardroom SX80: First\, I want to acknowledge that the one bay vision is made up of multiple parts. There’s a statement for the region as a whole and statements for each of the 8 topic areas. These topic areas reflect the categories of key issues in society that are impacted by rising sea level\, and will require adaptation\, planning\, and actions to support both local and regional long-term resilience. \nBoardroom SX80: I will go through all of the vision statements and then open the floor to discussion. I ask that as I go through each of these slides\, please keep the following questions in mind. What do you like most about the one bay vision? Is there anything missing or unclear? And are you in favor of using this draft? One bay vision as a basis for our next steps in the project. \nBoardroom SX80: As you’re listening to these\, please keep in mind that we’re hoping to get your support on the main concepts within this vision. We’re looking forward to getting your feedback today. And if you have specific comments on the wording\, please let me know in a following email. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, I’ll go ahead and read out the regional vision statement which encapsulates all of the topic areas. Our one-day vision for a resilient future shoreline. \nBoardroom SX80: As sea levels rise\, the Bay area’s diverse communities come together to transform how we live\, work\, plan\, and adapt along our changing shorelines. In this future communities are healthy\, safe\, and have greater access to the shoreline\, where they can feel connected to the bay’s edge and experience the beauty and wonder of thriving habitats that sustain our quality of life. \nBoardroom SX80: Our region remains connected so that networks of people and goods can move with ease and get to the places they need to go. \nBoardroom SX80: The services we rely upon keep our communities and economies running\, and are designed for the long term \nBoardroom SX80: achieving. This future will require governments\, the private sector and communities to make a commitment to equity\, address past harms and take on complex interrelated challenges together a resilient future for the San Francisco Bay Area starts now and continues for generations to come \nBoardroom SX80: for each of the 8 statements. I will skim through them. You have the full text in your meeting package. And these slides are also available on our website \nBoardroom SX80: as part of our one bay vision for community health and well being\, as sea levels rise\, communities are healthy and vibrant. To achieve this\, we will need to adapt our communities to safeguard them from the public health consequences of flooding and support healthy environments\, safety and quality of life \nBoardroom SX80: meaningfully engage and empower communities in adaptation\, decision making address risks to essential community assets and prioritize economic development opportunities such as workforce development in disadvantaged communities \nBoardroom SX80: for critical infrastructure and services as sea levels rise\, critical services are reliable. \nBoardroom SX80: To achieve this\, we need to adapt local and regional critical infrastructure\, to maintain service and minimize future vulnerabilities\, to flooding. integrate flooding hazards into emergency management and prioritize adaptation that addresses service deficiencies in underserved communities. \nBoardroom SX80: for ecosystem health and resilience. As sea levels rise\, healthy Baland’s ecosystems thrive. To achieve this we need to protect\, restore\, and enhance balance ecosystems to improve their function\, scale. Biodiversity and services \nBoardroom SX80: prioritize nature based adaptation where possible and incorporate habitat connectivity\, sediment\, management\, and whole watershed approaches \nand identify and facilitate opportunities for ecosystem migration to support natural adaptation processes \nBoardroom SX80: for governance\, collaboration and finance. As sea levels rise\, regional collaboration drives efficient and effective adaptation. To achieve this\, we need to ensure local and regional governments collaborate to address\, shared flood\, risk\, and identify multi benefit adaptation\, opportunities\, while avoiding harm to their neighbors\, identify and engage with indigenous partners to plan\, implement and manage adaptation projects. \nBoardroom SX80: support the range of multi-stakeholder collaborations that are equipped to plan fund and adaptively manage adaptation over time and improve funding and regulatory processes to expedite innovative and transformative projects that provide regional benefits \nBoardroom SX80: for housing\, development and land use. As sea levels rise. Places are designed for a changing shoreline. To achieve this\, we need to adapt existing development equitably and plan new and redevelopment for community safety\, equity and bay ecological health. \nBoardroom SX80: align land use\, planning with risk mitigation that considers long term economic vitality for all. and support\, affordable housing and state housing goals while preserving public trust uses of the bay and reducing populations at risk of flooding \nBoardroom SX80: for public access and recreation. As sea levels rise\, the bay shoreline is accessible to all. To achieve this\, we need to expand and improve shoreline public access\, including recreation\, opportunities and other water dependent uses \nBoardroom SX80: prioritize connecting disadvantaged neighborhoods to a healthy bay and balance the needs for human enjoyment\, sustenance\, and cultural connection to the bay with healthy ecosystems \nBoardroom SX80: for shoreline contamination. As sea levels rise\, people and ecosystems are safe from contamination risks to achieve this\, we need to collaborate with communities\, scientists\, industries and government to identify and remediate shoreline contamination \nBoardroom SX80: prioritize remediation in environmental justice communities while minimizing transfer and contamination\, burden and integrate emerging science on shallow ground water rise with planning and adaptation decisions. \nBoardroom SX80: and the last topic area for transportation and transit. As sea levels rise safe and reliable transportation connects the region. To achieve this\, we need to adapt local and regional transportation systems to ensure safe and reliable connectivity. \nBoardroom SX80: ensure continuity and equitable service in transit. Dependent communities identify and integrate multi benefit opportunities into transportation projects such as ecological health\, green infrastructure\, and public access and promote active low emissions\, mobility options for environmental and economic benefit. \nBoardroom SX80: In closing\, I want to remind you all about how the one bay vision relates to our broader work on regional adaptation. \nBoardroom SX80: Before the end of this year we will be coming back to this commission and asking asking you to adopt the final one bay vision strategic priorities and plan guidelines everything to the left of this dotted line. This timeline is in compliance with Sb. 2\, 72. Throughout the spring and summer we will continue to come back to you with updates on our progress. \nBoardroom SX80: Once this phase is complete\, there are other components that we we will need to integrate to create a truly regional adaptation strategy as called for in your plan Bay plan\, climate change policies. We’re still figuring this part out. But we know the big pieces. We’ll need an investment strategy to figure out how to pay for adaptation\, to help close the 105 billion dollar funding gap which you’ll hear about more in the next presentation. \nBoardroom SX80: We’ll need to make changes to our Bay plan policies and regulatory processes to facilitate the types of projects we need. We’ll need to support local adaptation\, to develop and submit these plans to meet the guidelines. And we’re working closely with Opc. As you’ve just heard on their SB. One grants as well as working with other regional agencies. \nBoardroom SX80: and all of this will help us develop land use changes and adaptation projects that help us strategically meet the challenges of our region in ways that provide the most benefit and make the one bay vision a reality. \nBoardroom SX80: This work is organic and iterative\, and will continue coming to the Commission with updates. As we continue on this journey \nBoardroom SX80: in terms of our next steps to day\, we are not asking for a formal vote on the one day vision. But instead\, we’re asking for your support. That these should form the basis for our work ahead. \nBoardroom SX80: We will then be transitioning into developing guidelines for local plans and strategic priorities that flow from this vision. \nBoardroom SX80: And although we didn’t talk about it today\, we’ve been hard at work to define subregional adaptation plans through meetings with stakeholders and practitioners. We’ll be holding a series of focus groups in the coming weeks to get additional feedback on what these plans should look like\, and how they can best meet the needs of our region for adaptation. Please reach out if you’re interested in having you or your staff attend one of these. \nBoardroom SX80: We’ll also be hosting a second public workshop in the spring to launch into the guidelines. Work with more stakeholders. And we’re underway in planning for a series of up to 5 local workshops centered in vulnerable shoreline communities and hosted in partnership with community based organizations. We’ll provide more information on that in the coming months. And lastly\, as our executive director mentioned in his Ed report\, we’ll be reaching out to commissioners who are currently supervisors. \nBoardroom SX80: County supervisors to set up briefings in each of your counties about all of this work. \nBoardroom SX80: With that I wanna thank you for your time\, and I’ll pass it back over to Chair washerman to facilitate the conversation about the vision statements and the questions we posed earlier\, and I’m happy to answer any questions you may have. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Jackie. Before turning to the Commission. Do we have any \nBoardroom SX80: of virtual public speakers? We have 2 \nBoardroom SX80: virtual speakers. \nBoardroom SX80: Mister Arthur Feinstein. Please go ahead and unmute yourself and stay to comment. \nMichael. \nArthur Feinstein: Hi! \nArthur Feinstein: Chair was so many Commissioners. I’m Martha Feinstein. I’m chair of the Sierra Club\, Sea Level Rise Committee. We call it Bay alive. \nArthur Feinstein: and I’m also on the Advisory Committee for the Rsap. Working with Jacqueline and Dana\, your staff people. \nArthur Feinstein: and \nArthur Feinstein: somewhat unusually for me\, but quite happily\, I’m here to say Thank you to Staff. I’m often\, you know\, looking for more\, and I am looking for a little more today. But Steph has really come along from where we began this process more a year ago. \nArthur Feinstein: And \nArthur Feinstein: we are pretty pleased with what’s come out from this process? Not totally. And myself. And did Deb was gonna follow\, is going to. Also comment on this\, we have a few \nArthur Feinstein: editorials amendments that we’d like to put into. I’m gonna do the vision statement. \nArthur Feinstein: And while the vision statement originally started out with just saying\, people should experience the beauty and wonder of thriving habitats\, wetlands\, and others. \nArthur Feinstein: We’ve been pushing for them to recognize that wetlands aren’t just pretty\, and people don’t go to the shoreline. Well\, they do go the shoreline to get recreation and and a peaceful feeling from being in a wetland habitats. But \nArthur Feinstein: wetlands actually provide services that benefit us. Aside from that in our communities\, they clean our water\, they clean our air\, they help influence the temperatures that we are \nArthur Feinstein: experiencing\, keeping the air cooler than it would be. And with global warming\, that’s gonna be real important. They help reduce storm surges. They perform\, perform a lot of services \nArthur Feinstein: to our community\, and we’ve been urging \nArthur Feinstein: Staff to recognize that in \nArthur Feinstein: all of the vision statements. And so we were quite \nArthur Feinstein: pleased to see them say. experience the beauty and wonder of thriving habitats to sustain our quality of life. \nArthur Feinstein: And so we’ve sent a letter. I guess you didn’t get a chance to see it. We sent it Monday. \nArthur Feinstein: we’re hoping that you would take one phrase and emphasize the services they provide by changing that one sentence to say. \nArthur Feinstein: experience the beauty and wonder of thriving habitats that we depend on to sustain our quality of life. \nArthur Feinstein: so that the average person reading this who’s not. \nArthur Feinstein: you know\, invest in this whole process will realize that we actually do depend on our wetlands\, not just for beauty and wonder\, but for the services that they provide us. \nArthur Feinstein: That’s my statement. I want to again thank Staff for really making this a vision statement that’s getting us towards where we need to go. If we’re gonna have \nArthur Feinstein: a healthy bay as well as healthy communities\, and our communities won’t be healthy if we don’t have a healthy bay. \nArthur Feinstein: So thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Our second speaker\, Miss Janet S. Johnson\, please unmute yourself and state your comment. \nJanet S Johnson: Thank you. Can you hear me? \nJanet S Johnson: Oh. \nJanet S Johnson: can you hear me? Okay\, great thanks. \nJanet S Johnson: Good afternoon. \nJanet S Johnson: I’ve lived in Richmond for 42 years\, and I’m representing \nJanet S Johnson: today the Richmond Shoreline Alliance and Sunflower Alliance. Both are environmental justice organizations based in the East Bay. We first want to support the comment submitted by this year Club. And then we want to take them a little bit further. \nJanet S Johnson: Richmond has 32 miles of shoreline. The most of any Bay area city. \nJanet S Johnson: Like many bay communities\, much of our shoreline bears a heavy burden of toxic waste the legacy of more than a century of industrial contamination. We’re home to 2 superfund sites on the shoreline\, plus an 86 acre Super fund qualified site that already is\, seeing the effects of sea level rise. \nJanet S Johnson: That site. The so-called Astrazeneca\, or Campus Bay site is under the jurisdiction of the Dtsc. \nJanet S Johnson: For over a century. The site was a chemical manufacturing complex that dumped its hazardous and radioactive waste out the back door\, filling in the bay with more than a hundred lethal chemicals and heavy metal\, the most abundant of which is arson \nJanet S Johnson: because of redlining and other discriminatory housing policies. \nJanet S Johnson: low income\, vulnerable communities near sites like Campus Bay will be the first to suffer health effects from the spread of contamination resulting from sea level rise and groundwater intrusion. \nJanet S Johnson: So we see an urgent need to focus \nJanet S Johnson: on your in your focus on in your deliberations to prioritize and fully address shoreline contamination. \nJanet S Johnson: we need you to oppose the present trajectory of partial clean ups and capping of unlined sites. followed by so-called mixed use housing developments on the shoreline. \nJanet S Johnson: which is Dtsc. Solution for Campus Bay. We also hope that you will advocate on a State level for bonds to be posted by contaminating industry. \nJanet S Johnson: So when and if they leave taxpayers and city governments are not left to cope with the message they’ve left behind. \nJanet S Johnson: Thank you so much. \nBoardroom SX80: Our next public comment is from Gita Day\, from Sierra club. Please go ahead and unmute yourself. \nSure. \nGita Dev SIerra Club: Thank you. Thank you\, Commissioner Wasserman\, and the entire commission \nGita Dev SIerra Club: I’m following on Arthur Feinstein’s comments. \nGita Dev SIerra Club: I want to tell you the stuff that we are so appreciative and astounded at how well you’ve been able to integrate \nGita Dev SIerra Club: important comments from public comments. And we really appreciate that in talking about some of the things that we still \nGita Dev SIerra Club: hope too cheap \nGita Dev SIerra Club: in conversation with others. I’ve noticed that \nGita Dev SIerra Club: we all over here today are all very aware of \nGita Dev SIerra Club: using nature based adaptation. Putting nature first\, however\, as an architect\, I can tell you that pragmatics overtake us when we are in the throes of projects \nGita Dev SIerra Club: as time goes by. And in 2030\, when someone’s looking at this vision statement\, if those ideas are not front and center. \nGita Dev SIerra Club: I’m afraid they will get put. Second\, nature is put second so often \nGita Dev SIerra Club: when you look at flooding and say\, Let’s put up a wall 7 feet tall. And then the second thought is\, and and and how can we put something into it? So \nGita Dev SIerra Club: I ask you to ask Staff to humor us and ask you\, as a commission to humor me as I go through \nGita Dev SIerra Club: a few very minor modifications that would bring thus ecosystem services that the bay provides into focus in all of the 8 items\, and I recognize that Staff has put it into 4 of them already. \nGita Dev SIerra Club: So please humor me. \nGita Dev SIerra Club: And I will go to them \nGita Dev SIerra Club: in the community\, health and well being \nGita Dev SIerra Club: in the port bullet\, it says\, address risks to essential community assets\, services \nGita Dev SIerra Club: and cultural resources. And \nGita Dev SIerra Club: I suggest we include after the word services\, including bay ecosystem services. \nGita Dev SIerra Club: because it’s so easy to forget that community health is based on ecosystem services as well in the critical infrastructure. Where people think of roads\, culverts. \nGita Dev SIerra Club: sewer systems \nGita Dev SIerra Club: in the second one\, where we adapt existing local and regional critical infrastructure systems. \nGita Dev SIerra Club: including natural infrastructure\, would ask that you insert those words in the governance\, one where we never think about nature. \nGita Dev SIerra Club: When in this first bullet\, multi-benefit adaptation\, app opportunities\, putting nature first whenever possible. That’s wording from. They adapt \nGita Dev SIerra Club: putting nature first wherever possible. and in the last one the shoreline contamination in the last bullet. integrating emergence. integrate emerging science on shallow ground water rise. \nGita Dev SIerra Club: and I would insert prioritizing nature based solutions because a lot of the science is on chemistry \nand \nGita Dev SIerra Club: prioritizing nature-based solutions \nGita Dev SIerra Club: brings that back into focus that there’s a lot that nature has to offer. I’m sorry I’ve run over time. I just wanted to add that the iterative processes that we’ve talked about\, involve phased projects. \nGita Dev SIerra Club: and nature takes time to keep up with our changes. and therefore. \nGita Dev SIerra Club: first is a different way of thinking than most public workspeople are used to. \nGita Dev SIerra Club: That’s the reason why \nGita Dev SIerra Club: we’re taking your time to bring up these 4 items in these 4 issues. Thank you so much. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Our next commenter is Miss Karen High. Please go ahead and unmute yourself. \nCarin High: Hi\, good afternoon\, Karen. High Citizens Committee to complete the Refuge. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. Hope you’re all staying dry. I wanted to begin by\, as others have already expressing my deep appreciation to BCD. C’s staff \nCarin High: and to the Commission members on the sea Level Rise working group for providing the opportunity to the public to comment on the draft vision goals and objectives. During the January eighteenth working group meeting\, and for incorporating some of the comments and suggestions into meaningful changes into the language we see to day. We have just a few others as Gita had mentioned\, and we’ll hope that you take those into consideration. \nCarin High: I wanted to echo the sentiment of others regarding the need to put nature first. \nCarin High: But what does that mean? So I thought I’d share some select comments from an April the Twentieth\, 23\, April the twentieth\, 23 scientific American staff editorial that reinforced why it is so important that this is reflected in all of the vision goals and objectives. \nCarin High: Those of us who are here already know. Wetlands\, coastal plains\, sand\, dunes\, forests\, and many other permeable surfaces\, do cheaply\, or even for free what engineered levee seawalls and pumps do at a cost of billions of dollars. \nCarin High: They protect the land around them from storm surge\, flooding\, flooding rains\, erosion and pollution. They are vital infrastructure \nCarin High: that makes us more resilient against climate change\, and the cost of destroying them or weakening their ability to function\, must be factored into the decisions we make to build and grow. \nCarin High: Another excerpt\, failing to measure the benefits of ecosystem services in policy and management decisions is a major reason. \nCarin High: Many of those ecosystems disappeared. \nCarin High: and lastly\, climate change makes the undervaluation of ecosystem services more dangerous. The example they provide is wetlands that mitigate flooding in a community during rare deluges will have far more economic value \nCarin High: in 2\,050\, when damaging storms arrive more frequently\, the same could be said for our tidal wetlands. The Rsap document that will be viewed and used by many. \nCarin High: may those who view it may not have been exposed to the concept of ecosystem services and the important role natural infrastructure plays in providing climate change\, resilience for the natural and built environments. \nCarin High: It is therefore important that this crucial function of the bay’s habitats is clearly identified in beginning with the vision goals and objectives of the Rsap. \nCarin High: Once again. Thank you very much. We look forward to continued participation in this very important complex regional process. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Our next public comment is from Mr. Paul Sager. Please go ahead and unmute yourself. \nMy name is Paul. See here\, I’m also from Sierra Club and \npaul seger: a member of the Bay live committee. And but I’m going to speaking from a position of basic contract pasta shoreline from straight to to Pittsburgh. And then possibly even for bay into this area. \npaul seger: so \npaul seger: regarding the regional overarching goal. \npaul seger: As sea levels rise \npaul seger: and the bay areas\, diverse communities unite to transform how we live\, work\, plan\, and adapt along our changing shore lines. \npaul seger: In this\, in this\, in view\, in this envisioned future communities\, prioritize interconnectedness \npaul seger: and recognize our dependence on the health and vitality of thriving habitats along the bay\, Delta’s edge. \npaul seger: In this future communities are not only healthy\, safe\, and equitable. \npaul seger: but also actively acknowledge the interconnectedness that binds us to the intricate web of thriving habitats along the Bay delta. \npaul seger: All residents have access to our shorelines \npaul seger: where they can immerse themselves in beauty and wonder. There’s of these vital ecosystems\, the pulse of indigenous communities within their deep understanding of interconnectedness\, guides us in preserving and benefiting from the critical ecosystem services provided by base the deltas\, natural habitats. \npaul seger: When we speak of networks of people and goods\, services and economies\, we are essentially addressing the backbone of our infrastructure. This includes transportation systems\, economic services\, and essential goods that form the foundation of our communities. \npaul seger: Let’s call it what it is\, the vital infrastructure that sustains our way of life. Recognizing this\, our future \npaul seger: are recognizing this\, our vision commits to \npaul seger: addressing infrastructure\, related items transparently. \npaul seger: we will appropriately identify and tackle issues while honoring co equal goals of environmental sustainability and economic prosperity. \npaul seger: This comprehensive approach ensures that our infrastructure not only facilitates the movement of people and goods\, but does so in harmony with the environment. By embracing co equal goals. We safeguard the resilience of the San Francisco Bay Area and Delta \npaul seger: for current generations. And thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Our final public commenter\, Ms. Caroline. please go ahead and unmute yourself. \nBoardroom SX80: Commenter. Ms. Carolyn\, please go ahead and unmute yourself and state your public comment. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, I guess. \nBoardroom SX80: we are moving on. \nBoardroom SX80: That concludes our public speaking comments and questions from Commissioners. Commissioner Eklund. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Thank you very much. I don’t have any questions but fantastic presentation. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: As I’m very much interested in being intimately involved in this when II was not only in charge of the for permitting program EPA\, but also the oceans industry’s program I worked with \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: not only in California but Hawaii in the outer islands\, America\, small Guam and Cni \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: on developing guidelines and obviously regulatory \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: programs as well. And so I’m very much interested in being engaged in this and being a new Commissioner\, I’m not exactly sure how to put my name in the \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: in in the \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: in the\, in the in the list\, but I just wanted to make sure that Staff knows that I’m very interested in would like to be it more intimately engaged. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: So thank you. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: I Hi! \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you for the great report. Thank you for the great report. I’m not sure if this is the right time to ask this particular question. But are there any guidance that’s coming out on how to work with the individuals that have property alongside the shoreline. There’s one in particular you might have heard about it. It’s pretty large oil company in Richmond. \nBoardroom SX80: They. They may or may not believe in global warming\, and they may or may not want to participate in trying to do something with our shoreline. \nBoardroom SX80: So anything that we can do to help them out? \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, if you having the answer\, I will love an answer. I want them to participate. Yeah\, I mean\, what I can say is that so? The intent of this vision is to really inform the guidelines that we create. And one of the vision statements on collaboration is really encouraging that informal to formal shoreline coalition work that needs to happen to both plan\, build\, and really maintain these types of projects over time. \nAnd so the intent is that we’ll have guidelines that flow from that vision statement and plans that are\, you know\, reviewed and approved by Bcd. C. Are eligible for funding. So I think that there’s an incentive in that sense of following these guidelines and having approved plans\, can hopefully encourage that type of work\, and having the statement here allows us to then have guidelines that we really we can encourage or require that type of collaborative work \nBoardroom SX80: so that we could do more on the require versus encouragement. I don’t think they’re going to be encouraged enough\, because if they go along with it\, from what I hear is\, if they go along with Richmond \nBoardroom SX80: to work on the shoreline\, then they might be admitting to global warming that they potentially caused. So I think we need more than just a little nudge. We need to actually force them to participate. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair\, can I? Can I venture an answer as well. I mean it. All I can think of is\, is you described? The company is\, you know\, he who will not be named \nBoardroom SX80: One of the things that happened at the first part of this meeting was that John Coleman announced his resignation in his retirement\, which is\, I think\, and I think a lot of us think is a really \nBoardroom SX80: as good as his staff is\, gonna be? It’s a really\, it’s a sad day\, because John has really brought the Bay pund and coalition really forward with regard to climate change. And with regard to working with all of us\, what I’m going to do is I want to make sure that John\, before he leaves. Here’s what you said\, because the Bay Planning coalition has been very active with us\, with the regional shoreline\, adaptation\, plan\, and bay adapt. \nBoardroom SX80: They are very\, you know\, in addition to the building Industry Association and and and a number of other private sector concerns\, and I want to make sure that we \nBoardroom SX80: talk with John\, so that he then ensures that whoever follows him understands the importance and connects those dots. I can’t promise you that they’re going to play ball. But I can promise you that we’ll make sure. Bpc. Knows of what you said\, and they’re playing ball with us that. Okay. \nBoardroom SX80: cool. Yes. Okay. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Kishimoto. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Yes. Hi\, yes\, I’m yodiko Kishimoto. Alternate to Supervisor elderly. But II also serve on the Board of Midpoints and open space\, and I just wanted to support \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: express my support for the excellent one day vision for the resilient future shoreline and also to the comments made by Sierra Club. Obviously\, II believe very strongly that nature is \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: the ultimate infrastructure. You know\, it’s it’s gonna be here when we’re we’re we’re not\, and and it’s always good to keep reminding ourselves of of that that priority. When push comes to stuff. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: To put put nature first. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Commissioner Gunther. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: Thank you. Mr. Chairman\, so I just wanna Jackie\, you and the staff. I want to congratulate you. The kinds of comments we’re hearing today shows that you guys have done a really great job of outreach and I \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: know that you’re gonna keep it up\, which is good because the questions are\, gonna get diceier and more difficult to deal with\, including a couple. I’m gonna ask you now. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: I also really liked that. You didn’t just list goals. But you then said\, to achieve this\, we have to do the following things cause. That’s a real way of forwarding the conversation. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: First. My question. First question\, I have 2 questions. First\, one is about the sub regional plans. And I have been very \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: I’m persuaded by presentations that I have seen here and in other places and in listening to people talk about how valuable \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: the the regional plan that splits our region into what are called the currently operational landscape units. But the idea of removing the political boundaries from the landscape\, putting down the physical ecological boundaries \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: and then and and that’s what we see. And then putting the political boundaries back down so that we can then see who needs to collaborate because you’re within this same sort of geophysical environment. So I wanted to first ask\, you \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: are. The is the idea of operational landscape units being being included. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: or maybe even prioritized or championed\, as we think about how to develop our sub regional plans. \nBoardroom SX80: I can go ahead and start with the answer\, and then I might pass off to Dana Breckwold\, who is leading the work that we’re doing on developing sub-regional plans. I will say we are absolutely talking about operational landscape units and the value that they bring along with the some of those other jurisdictional lines. So it is absolutely part of the conversation in in many of the conversations that we’ve had. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah. The only thing I’ll add is\, as as you correctly stated\, operational landscape unit boundaries are not same as jurisdictional boundaries. Plans occur within jurisdictional boundaries. So we’re trying to reconcile the fact that. We have these scales of planning that we don’t want to create. We don’t need to\, or want to create all new planning scales. \nBut we are also aware of the fact that operational landscape units bring a lot of value in analyzing sea level rise risk as well as identifying the appropriate adaptation strategies. \nBoardroom SX80: So we’re trying to reconcile that at the moment we do plan to come back to you all with a proposal for what those sub regional adaptation. Plans are in March\, ish or \nBoardroom SX80: soonish in the next few months. And then we’ll get your feedback there to make sure that we’ve incorporated those concepts successfully \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: great. Yeah\, I don’t mean to say that we need to get rid of counties in the Bay Area. But that that I’ve been very impressed with how\, when you think about an operational landscape unit\, who is then convened around that table. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: and and those people all need to talk to each other and share their experiences and their ideas. The second thing I just wanted to ask is about the investment strategy. And I remain convinced that our excellently developed estimate for the cost of adaptation is unfortunately it \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: painful underestimate\, and it’s going to get more expensive\, and I think that \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: the sooner we begin to engage in the discussion about \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: what gets funded first \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: the better off will be\, and I don’t have an answer to that question. Obviously\, I think we’re going to be trying to catch a lot of different balls as they appear. Maybe a little Federal money here\, a little transportation money here a little\, this a little that but I think that there is \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: going to be a need to understand that. If we’re gonna be opportunistic about obtaining funding that \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: some people are gonna get it and some people aren’t \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: and how that would then reverberate through our implementation of the plan. So it’s it is. These are the kind of things that I think we do much better on if we think about them \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: in advance\, when the winners and losers are not yet \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: fully fully formed. And so I hope that that as we move forward with the investment strategy\, you’ll be able to think about some of these tough questions\, and it and just help tee up all the stakeholders to be aware that you know these. These are these are coming down the pipe\, and we’re gonna have to deal with them as best we can. \nBoardroom SX80: I will just say that we are. We are thinking about that right now. It’s definitely on our minds as we’re preparing for all of those other buckets of work ahead\, and how we can kind of do the work. Now to make sure that we’re setting ourselves up to be able to have those conversations and make those decisions. And also note that the next presentation will talk a bit more about the investment strategy and the work happening there. \nBoardroom SX80: I see no other. No\, it’s Commissioner Kishimoto. Your hand is still up\, but I assume it’s oh\, it’s Pat show. Walter Pat’s hand is still up. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Hi\, yeah\, we’re sharing the screen now. Hopefully\, we won’t get reverberation that way. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Yeah\, I just wanted to again compliment the staff on this work and this presentation. It’s just vital. To get this going and moving and and make sure that we include the right people. I would really like to be included in the sub regional plan development for the South Bay. So I’m putting my hand up for that \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: But also I wanted to. Just ditto. The comments that in particular Gita Dev made about the importance of nature based solutions. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: I really think it is important to have that concept explicitly stated in the vision statement and sort of underlying \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: language here. So I just wanted to to support that as well. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: I see no others. I have a request. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s actually not a staff apologies. We just got an email from the public commenter who was unable to speak before. Maybe we could try again for her\, Carolyn\, she\, the Star 6\, I think\, wasn’t working\, but if she’s still on\, she might be able to try that one more time. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay. \nBoardroom SX80: so public commenter\, Ms. Carolyn\, are you on the line? \nBoardroom SX80: Are you able to hear us? \n5102354562: Hi! Now\, it just said it was unmuted. Can you hear me now? Okay\, fantastic. Thank you so much. I appreciate you recognizing the email license. Since the chat is disabled. \nI’ll start my public comment. Now then. I just wanted to point out that in the last week\, with the NASA findings that about the hottest year on record being last year. \nthere have been a number of scientists revisiting Jim Hansen’s work on climate Change. A number of scientists had had previously discounted his work because his models were showing \nmuch higher rate of climate change. And now that’s being revisited. And I just wanted to call out that the sea level rise \nused by Opc. And which BC. DC. Also factors into their work probably need to greatly relook at their work as well because of this new. These new findings. \nI also wanted to call out about the contaminated sites that are in the guidelines. I live in Richmond. Along the shoreline we have a 86 acre site that’s qualified very high as a super fun site. \nIt’s right on the shoreline. So sea level rise is a big concern. It’s there are already plumes affecting off site locations. The site is under Dts administration. It’s basically a test case\, for what could go wrong with sea level rise. So I’ll leave it at that. I greatly appreciate you\, giving me the opportunity to speak. Thank you. \n5102354562: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: So my request is for the Commissioners. I want to thank Staff for for the work and for this presentation. but my request is that you actually take a bit of time over this next \nBoardroom SX80: week. I don’t want to interfere on your weekend too much. But \nBoardroom SX80: please look at these slides. and if you have questions or comments. submit them to staff. \nBoardroom SX80: because this has been worked on a lot\, and I think it is good. \nBoardroom SX80: but that doesn’t mean it can’t be improved. And as we move \nBoardroom SX80: to what this is going to become some of these pieces of language may be very important\, so if you can\, please do that\, send in. Comments \nBoardroom SX80: could just be wonderful. I don’t think there are any changes needed. But if you do see some things that you’ve got questions about or suggestions\, please do make those. Thank you very much for the presentation. There is no action on this that brings us to item 12\, a briefing on Plan Bay area 2050 \nBoardroom SX80: sorry 2050 plus 2050 plus \nBoardroom SX80: Jessica Fane\, our planning director will introduce the briefing. Thank you. Chair Wasserman. So next\, our last agenda item is on Plan Bay Area\, and you’re probably wondering why are we talking about Plan Bay Area\, of a Bcdc. Meeting? Well\, with so many regional planning efforts going on\, we think it’s pretty important for you to be aware about what’s going on with other agencies and to the extent we can\, we really try to align our efforts to help move \nBoardroom SX80: the region forward in a sustainable and cohesive manner. So while Plan Bay area covers a broad set of topic areas or a few key areas where those policy areas intersect with what we do at Bcdc. And sea level Rise adaptation and how to fund it is a major one of those. \nBoardroom SX80: you might not know that our staff collaborate regularly with Mtc. And Abag. Staff on sea level rise adaptation work through biweekly meetings\, joint projects\, developing data and methodology and outreach. We’re grateful to have a long term funding agreement between our agencies that provide support for this work and our planning staff are now supporting Mtc. And Abag and integrating the work we’ve done together on the sea level rise funding and investment framework into Plan Bay Area 2050 plus. \nBoardroom SX80: and we anticipate continuing to work closely after 2050 plus. And after the regional shoreline adaptation plan work that Jackie was describing \nBoardroom SX80: to really think about how to develop a regional funding strategy. That grapples with key questions about how we are gonna fund the sizable adaptation needs. So with that\, I’ll turn it over to Matt Maloney\, director of regional Plans at Mtc. Aback. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Good afternoon\, Commissioners\, Jessica said a lot of what I was going to say. \nBoardroom SX80: Which is fine. I will just say that we are also at Mtc. And abag very appreciative. Of all the collaboration with with BC. DC. Staff\, and as the months. Go on. We just find ourselves working more and more closely. At a staff level with with Bcd C plan Bay Area\, which I’ll talk about\, and I’ll be brief. In in my comments. \nBoardroom SX80: Is not a plan that is statutorily required. To do a lot of consideration with sea level rise. But part of what I wanted to get across today is that although it focuses a lot on transportation and and housing and has statutory requirements with Ghg mitigation. \nBoardroom SX80: Sea level rise is definitely inter woven into how we think about the plan. And we just obviously we must have it as a high priority and consideration as we do all this work on on housing and transportation. Let’s go to the next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, we call this the Galaxy slide or kind of a a\, an ocean with waves? So II think what we wanna get across here is that we are \nBoardroom SX80: interweaving all of these efforts together. The Bay adap joint platforms\, of course\, A\, a product of BCDC. And you all just heard a a bit about the regional shoreline adaptation plan the estuary blueprint\, which is focused on the health and resilience of the San Francisco estuary\, is governed by abag. \nBoardroom SX80: And then there in the middle is Plan Bay Area 2050 plus\, which is led by Abag and Mtc. Together\, and it’s quite comprehensive in scope dealing with housing\, transportation\, the environment and the economy\, and and more and more\, as these plans roll along\, we’re doing more and more work on the climate adaptation space next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: We at Mtc. And Abac have been doing regional plans for a very long time. But on the State level. Really kind of changed a lot of this dynamic back in the 2\,008\, 2\,009 period. \nBoardroom SX80: And essentially what Sb. 3\, 75 did is it set a statutory requirement for these plans to reduce per capita. GHG. From cars and light duty vehicles. \nBoardroom SX80: And the way that the plan accomplishes that is\, via a land use pattern focused around high quality transit areas\, places where people can not rely necessarily on single occupant vehicles\, and we also develop a fiscally constrained set of transportation investments. As part of the plan. And that is essentially what we’re doing via the plan is required to be adopted every 4 years. \nBoardroom SX80: We the the plan that we’re living under today is Plan Bay Area 2050. That was adopted in 2021\, and we are now in the middle of Plan Bay area 2050 plus adopted in 2025. Why is it? Plus \nBoardroom SX80: I think\, what we’re trying to signal there is that it’s a limited and focused update Planbury 2050 has a lot in it. It was 4 straight years of pretty intense work and robust outreach \nBoardroom SX80: and 2050 plus is meant to do a few things on the margins\, but not be a. It’s not a dramatic redo of the plan \nBoardroom SX80: next slide. \nBoardroom SX80: So\, as I mentioned\, we do cover a lot of ground in the plan. This is sort of a snapshot of the 11 themes. It covers transportation and the transit network. \nBoardroom SX80: They’re in yellow. Those are some of the themes. We deal a lot with the affordable housing conundrum that is facing the Bay area. That’s sort of the red themes. \nBoardroom SX80: improving economic mobility and jobs in blue. And then the environmental strategies are the themes are shown there in green. So we have 11 themes and 35 strategies. Let’s go to the next slide. \nBoardroom SX80: And what I wanted to focus on just briefly\, today are some of the strategies in the so called environment elements. So we have 9 strategies in all \nBoardroom SX80: in that part of the plan you’ll see adapt to sea level rise is number one on that list. I’ll also mention briefly\, strategies 5 and 6 that have to do with conservation lands and urban greening. So next slide. \nBoardroom SX80: okay\, so after plan barrier 2050 Bcd. C. And Mtc. And a bag collaborated on this sea level rise\, funding and investment framework. And I know the Commission has seen. This work recently. Where this work ended up is an estimated cost of sea level rise adaptation through 2050. The estimate we came up with is 110 1 billion dollars. \nBoardroom SX80: There are some things known out there about the projects to adapt to sea level rise. So where we knew and sort of had good cost estimates\, we used those \nBoardroom SX80: but for some of these other areas which are shown in green these are really more placeholder costs. So these are places that really haven’t quite gone through all of the planning yet. So the staff work to create cost estimates for those \nBoardroom SX80: the cost is high. But I think it always makes sense to couch it against the fact that we also estimate 230 billion in assets are at risk. If the Re region does not adapt to sea level rise next slide. \nBoardroom SX80: So after that work. I wanna talk just briefly about what we’re doing in the current plan to sort of update the C-level rise\, investment work that we’ve been doing and sort of where we’re going. And I think one of your previous one of your commissioners did allude to this ultimate regional funding strategy \nBoardroom SX80: which is shown on the right hand of the slide so I mentioned the sea Level rise\, editation funding and investment framework. I will note that it was based on an estimate of 4.9 feet of inundation by 2050 \nBoardroom SX80: that was using the best available work by the Ocean Protection Council. You heard from those folks earlier today? They are still updating. Those as the years go on we will continue in the DC. DC. Staff. I’m sure we’ll continue to use the best estimates. \nBoardroom SX80: This includes sort of an estimate of the rise\, but also a hundred year storm. So that’s all kind of built into the 4.9 number. In this current plan\, cycle plan bary 2050 plus\, II think the objective that we have at this point is to work on updating what we did in that funding and investment framework\, working with local jurisdictions across the region. Making sure we get the best available information updating project costs where we can. \nAnd hopefully beginning the process of what? Of what? On the slide. We mentioned sorting projects\, as we call them\, bins where we’re trying to work towards sort of an organizational structure. \nBoardroom SX80: For some of these projects. Right now we have a fairly long list but they are not necessarily prioritized in any kind of way. So the staff are gonna begin to looking. We’re gonna begin looking at some things like project readiness. \nBoardroom SX80: Obviously\, the cost of the projects and what other kinds of funding might be committed to these types of projects just to sort of get us toward a bit of an organizational scheme\, the idea being that when we get to a regional funding strategy. We could engage in a further categorization of those projects \nBoardroom SX80: potentially updating the project inventory\, looking at updating the future revenue sources and getting a little bit towards more of organizing these sort of by year\, so that when funding opportunities do come our way we’re ready with sort of a near term list that we can draw from you know\, to start funding these projects and sort of do that necessary work. To get this done. So that is where we are headed \nBoardroom SX80: next slide. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, really\, quickly\, on the priority conservation areas. These are geographic areas. In the bay area. They they came about around the same time as the priority development areas or Pda’s. If you work in local government\, you’re probably somewhat familiar with those \nBoardroom SX80: Established back in 2\,000 7. These are you know\, lands around the region that are important to protect conservation lands\, natural lands ag lands working lands. \nBoardroom SX80: We we are engaged in a in an update or refresh of the Pca framework. And the reason why I wanted to talk to the Commission about this today is that we are adding integrating climate adaptation into the mix with the Pcas so we are the new type of Pca intended to be paired with the existing types that we’ve got \nBoardroom SX80: already. Underway. So we’re not really reinventing the wheel with this. We are looking at sort of that same map that you saw before\, with 110 billion looking at those areas. But sort of looking at these areas that are more tidal habitats and places like that. Those will also be part of the Pca geographies. It’s more than a map. We also do have a funding program associated with with Pcas that Mtc \nBoardroom SX80: funds so historically\, over the last 15 or 20 years. \nBoardroom SX80: We do a call for projects for these and we do fund improvements and enhancements. To these lands either to provide better access or to work on conserving these areas. \nBoardroom SX80: Next slide. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, final slide just next steps on the plan \nBoardroom SX80: in in terms of the this strategy en one and adapting to to sea level rise staff is working to update this data. We are working with local staff. We’re putting on webinars \nBoardroom SX80: and doing sort of robust engagement. There\, in order to identify new projects and just sort of update the inventory that we currently have. You want more information on that? You can contact Rachel Hart and Phyllis. She’s here in the audience. You can contact her directly. Also\, just in terms of where we’re going on the final blueprint. Looking into this summer\, we will be doing more engagements. With the public \nBoardroom SX80: and with local jurisdictions to kind of talk about all the strategies that are in the plan. Shrug Rabari is the guy that is the project manager. Of the plan. Ultimately we will approve a final blueprint later this year in the fall. We do have to do sequa on this plan that takes about a year. \nBoardroom SX80: And so ultimately we would adopt this plan in the fall of 2025. So that concludes my presentation for today\, and happy to take any questions from the Commissioners. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Any public comment on this matter. There are no public comments. \nBoardroom SX80: questions\, or comments from commissioners. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Gunther. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: yeah\, very quickly. Thank you for the presentation. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: I was critical about the \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: whether the number is correct. But I wanna make sure you know that I’m that’s offered just in the frame that we just need to keep. Go\, keep\, keep keep going as we iterate this to get get it more accurate. I really really appreciate that you and your colleagues are doing this\, and I encourage you to keep doing it. If someone like me says you need to improve the number\, then you can just ask me\, how should we do it? And one of the ways that I think we need to do it is to \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: try and integrate as I. As I understand it\, the the cost now does not have any. The the cost of dealing with the rising groundwater that will be part of sea level rise is not included in the 109 billion. Do I have that right? \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: Yes\, you have that right? Okay? And is W. Will 2050 plus \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: make a stab at that? Is that part of the plan. \nBoardroom SX80: II don’t believe that we’re gonna get there in this in this planning round. II don’t believe that we’re gonna be able to bring in the groundwater estimates into this. There’s also a lot of information out there with riverine flooding around the region that we don’t quite have the best data for we are working on that to do more comprehensive assessment. But I think in this period\, what we’re mostly focused on \nBoardroom SX80: are\, is that existing project inventory we have\, and and sort of seeing what kinds of updates are out there to the costs or to the scopes of those projects. To make sure we have the best information. That’s kind of where we \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: thanks. Yeah\, II recognize this is a very difficult question I’m asking. But I think that it’s important\, because \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: it could have a pretty significant influence on this number. And I and I I hope that that as soon as you guys are ready to throw a number out there just as a even as a placeholder. That you that\, you make an effort to do it. Because\, it’s going to be a really important addition \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: to our future. Need \nBoardroom SX80: any other \nBoardroom SX80: comments for questions from commissioners \nBoardroom SX80: again\, thank you for the presentation and the work\, we will continue the dialogue. \nBoardroom SX80: There is no further action on this item. \nBoardroom SX80: This brings us to adjournment\, and I would ask for a motion to adjourn in \nBoardroom SX80: recognition \nBoardroom SX80: of Graciela Gomez. Recognizing that we’ve done 2 very lovely things at this meeting we’ve passed 2 resolutions\, \nBoardroom SX80: for people who are still with us. We don’t always do that. So I would entertain a motion. \nBoardroom SX80: A Commissioner Gilmore makes the motion\, and \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner on seconds the motion. Thank you. No opposition. no exemptions. We are adjourned. Thank you very much. \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/february-1-2024-commission-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240205T080000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240205T170000
DTSTAMP:20260525T222126
CREATED:20240127T083233Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240127T083712Z
UID:10000114-1707120000-1707152400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:February 5\, 2024 Design Review Board Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/february-5-2024-design-review-board-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Design Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240208T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240208T120000
DTSTAMP:20260525T222126
CREATED:20240130T041232Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240130T041232Z
UID:10000127-1707384600-1707393600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:February 8\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/february-8-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240215T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240215T170000
DTSTAMP:20260525T222126
CREATED:20240118T072225Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240220T182314Z
UID:10000091-1708002000-1708016400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:February 15\, 2024 Commission Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Commissioners are located at the primary physical location and may be located at the teleconference locations specified below\, all of which are publicly accessible. The Zoom videoconference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually is also specified below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nPrimary Physical Meeting Location \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nTeleconference Locations \n\n\nSonoma County Administration Building575 Administration Drive\, Room 100ASanta Rosa\, CA 95405 \n715 P Street\, 20th FloorTrestles Conference RoomSacramento\, CA 95814 \n11780 San Pablo Avenue\, Suite DEl Cerrito\, CA 94530 \nVTA Administrative Offices\, Building B3331 N First StreetSan José\, CA 95134 \n\n\nOffice of Santa Clara County\, COB Conference Room70 W Hedding Street East Wing\, 10th FloorSan Jose\, CA 95110 \nMountain View City Council Chambers500 Castro Street\, Second FloorMountain View\, CA 94041 \nSolano County Administration Center675 Texas Street\, Conference Room 6002Fairfield\, CA 94533 \n\n\nCaltrans Building111 Grand Avenue\, 15th FloorMountain View RoomOakland\, CA 94612 \nCity Council Chambers Office440 Civic Center PlazaRichmond\, CA 94806 \n116 W 23rd Street\, 5th FloorNew York\, NY 10011 \nMargaret Todd Senior Center1560 Hill RoadNovato\, CA 94947\n\n\nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/82557391023?pwd=TwTLPTiueHMXiUK3SeSsOH3acpAS3w.oivswZ_6CPmxDWEa \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID825 5739 1023 \nPasscode407711 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\n\n\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period (Each speaker is limited to three minutes) A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting. (Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nApproval of Minutes for February 1\, 2024 Meeting (Reylina Ruiz) [415/352-3638; reylina.ruiz@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters There is no administrative listing (Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nCommission Strategic Plan Progress Report Senior staff will present an update on the progress associated with the Commission’s 2023-2025 Strategic Plan. (Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3653; larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov\n2023 Enforcement Program Annual Progress Report The Commission will receive a progress report on the program improvements and developments in 2023. (Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov] Presentation\nBriefing on the San Francisco Waterfront Coastal Flood Study Draft Plan The Commission will receive a briefing from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Port of San Francisco on the Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the San Francisco Waterfront Flood Study\, which was recently released for public comment. The draft plan addresses coastal flood risk and effects of sea level rise for the 7.5 miles of waterfront within the Port of San Francisco’s jurisdiction from Aquatic Park to Heron’s Head Park. (Jessica Fain) [415/352-3652; jessica.fain@bcdc.ca.gov]Draft Plan: https://www.swt.usace.army.mil/Portals/41/SFWCFS_DIFR_EIS_Main%20Report_1.pdf Presentation\nAdjournment\n\n\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				This report lists the administrative permit applications that have been filed and are pending with the Commission. The Executive Director will take the action indicated on the matters unless the Commission determines that it is necessary to hold a public hearing. The staff members to whom the matters have been assigned are indicated at the end of the project descriptions. Inquiries should be directed to the assigned staff member prior to the Commission meeting. \n \nAdministrative Permit Applications \n \n\nApplicants\n\n\n\nTreasure Island Development Authority1 Avenue of the PalmsSan Francisco\, CA 94130 \nAnsanelli Productions\, Inc.176 Wild Horse Valley DriveNovato\, CA 94947 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.027.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\nNovember 12\, 2023\n\n\n90 Day\nFebruary 12\, 2024\, extended to February 23\, 2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Commission’s 100-foot shoreline band jurisdiction\, along Avenue N between California Avenue and 10th Street\, on Treasure Island\, in the City and County of San Francisco. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nOperate the market event known as TreasureFest\, recurring from 8:00 AM on Saturday to 7:00 PM on Sunday of the last weekend of each month\, from February 24\, 2024\, through December 31\, 2024\, involving: \n\nClosure of Avenue N between California Avenue and 10th Street to traffic and the general public;\nUse of Avenue N for market activities\, including the temporary installation of market stalls and related temporary facilities in the roadway;\nUse of an approximately 7\,000-square-foot area between 8th Street and the former 5th Street for food trucks and visitor seating and vendor parking; and\nPlacement of temporary signage at entrances and pass-throughs to direct the public to the shoreline public access area.\n\nStated hours include all market-related activities\, including set-up and break-down. The event area will be open to attendees from 11:00 AM to 5:00 PM each day. Event attendees will be required to pay an admission fee\, but members of the public wishing to access the shoreline will be allowed access through the event space. Sidewalks along Avenue N will remain open to the public during the event. \n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position:\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Katharine Pan; 415/352-3650 or katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Articles about the Bay and BCDC \nS.F. boat harbor relocation scrapped after opponents fight Marina project \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				Audio Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2024/01/2024-02-15-audio-recording.mp3 \nAudio Transcrispt \nOF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: GOOD AFTERNOON AND WELCOME. I’M GOING TO START AGAIN. GOOD AFTERNOON\, ALL. AND WELCOME TO OUR ONCE AGAIN HYBRID BCDC COMMISSION MEETING. \nI AM ZACH WASSERMAN AND I AM THE CHAIR OF BCDC. OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS AS ALWAYS IS TO CALL THE ROLL. COMMISSIONERS\, IF YOU ARE PARTICIPATING REMOTELY\, PLEASE TURN YOUR MICROPHONE ON TO ANSWER AND THEN TURN IT OFF. \nREYLINA\, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: CHAIR WASSERMAN. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nHERE. OOIGS EAST — \nIMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS \nENFORCEMENT H \n>>REBECCA EISEN: HERE. \n>>EDDIE AHN: HERE. \n>>JOHN GIOIA: HERE. \n>>SUSAN GORIN: HERE. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: HERE. \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: HERE. \n>>BARRY NELSON: HERE \n>>AARON PESKIN: HERE. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: HERE. \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: COMMISSIONER PEMBERTON. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER PEMBERTON. AND COMMISSIONER JOHN-BAPTISTE. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE HAVE A QUORUM SO WE CAN DULY CONDUCT OUR BUSINESS. THE NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS IS PUBLIC \nCOMMENT. IF ANYONE WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY MATTER THAT IS NOT ON OUR AGENDA TODAY OR ON WHICH WE HAVE NOT HELD A PUBLIC HEARING\, NOW IS THE TIME TO DO SO AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO DO SO. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKERS? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO PUBLIC \nCOMMENT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: NO \nPUBLIC COMMENT EITHER IN THE \nROOM OR REMOTE. \nTHAT BRINGS US TO ITEM 4\, WHICH \nIS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF \nOUR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 1. WE \nHAVE BEEN FURNISHED DRAFT \nMINUTES OF THAT MEETING. AND I \nWOULD APPRECIATE A MOTION AND \nSECOND TO APPROVE THE \nMINUTES. \n>>MARIE GILMORE: MOVE. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER GILMORE MOVES. \nCOMMISSIONER RAN — RANDOLPH \nSECONDS. IS THERE ANY \nCONNECTIONS? SEEING NONE\, THE \nMINUTES ARE APPROVED. THAT \nBRINGS US TO MY REPORT. \nBEFORE OUR EXECUTIVE \nDIRECTOR BEGINS HIS ANNUAL \nCAMPAIGN OF BADGERING US — \nTHOSE ARE HIS WORDS\, NOT MINE \n— I WANT TO REMIND ALL \nALTERNATES THAT THE FINANCIAL \nDISCLOSURE FORM\, FORM 700\, IS \nDUE APRIL 2. PLEASE LET REGGIE \nKNOW IF YOU HAVE NOT RECEIVED \nTHE FORM OR NEED OTHER FORM OF \nASSISTANCE IN ORDER TO COMPLETE \nTHE REQUIREMENTS. I’D LIKE TO \nRECOGNIZE PAT SHOWALTER TO GIVE \nUS THE BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE \nSEDIMENT BENEFICIAL REUSE \nCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: HELLO\, \nEVERYBODY\, CAN YOU HEAR ME? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: GREAT. ON \nTUESDAY WE HAD A SEDIMENT \nSTAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP. IT WAS \nACTUALLY DAY TWO. WE HAD THE \nFIRST ONE ON JANUARY 13\, AND I \nPERSONALLY WAS ASTOUNDED AT THE \nTURNOUT. WE HAD\, I THINK\, 35 OR \nSO PEOPLE THE FIRST TIME\, AND WE \nHAD 50 THIS TIME WHICH TELLS YOU \nTHAT THIS IS A SUBJECT THAT GETS \nPEOPLE INTERESTED. SO THIS IS \nPART OF BCDC’S WETLAND \nADAPTATION PROGRAM\, WHICH IS A \nJOINT REGULATORY PLANNING AND \nSTAFF EFFORT WITH BCDC AND ITS \nPARTNERS. U.S. E.P.A.\, THE \nCOASTAL CONSERVANCY\, THE \nREGIONAL BOARD\, SFEI AND SAN \nFRANCISCO JOINT BAY VENTURE. IT \nWAS TO DEVELOP AN \nIMPLEMENTATION ROAD MAP OF \nACTIONS TO INCREASE BENEFICIAL \nREUSE OF SOIL AND SEDIMENT IN \nTHE BAY AREA. ON THE FIRST \nWORKSHOP\, WE DID A LOT OF \nBRAINSTORMING ABOUT WHAT WERE \nTHE POLICY ISSUES AND OUR STAFF \nAND THE FACILITATORS HAD DONE AN \nAMAZING EFFORT OF SIFTING \nTHROUGH OVER 17 PAGES OF\, YOU \nKNOW\, SINGLE-LINED COMMENTS TO \nPUT IT TOGETHER INTO A — I \nTHINK IT WAS EIGHT INTEREST \nAREAS. AT THE EVENT\, THERE WERE \n50 ATTENDEES FROM A VARIETY OF \nSTAKEHOLDER GROUPS THAT ARE \nACTIVELY INVOLVED IN AND \nIMPACTED BY SEDIMENT \nMANAGEMENT. \nTHIS WORKSHOP FOCUSED ON SETTING \nTHE PRIORITIES FOR ACTIONS AND \nFOR DEVELOPING A GOVERNANCE \nMODEL TO IMPLEMENT THE ROAD \nMAP. \nWE ALSO HAD A PANEL DISCUSSION \nOF FUNDING CHALLENGES AND \nRESOURCES WITH OUR PARTNERS AT \nTHE ARMY CORPS\, THE CONSERVANCY\, \nSAN FRANCISCO BAY JOINT VENTURE \nAND E.P.A. WE ARE GRATEFUL FOR \nTHE PARTICIPANTS FOR THEIR \nINVALUABLE INPUT THROUGHOUT BOTH \nDAYS OF THE WORKSHOP. AND I \nWANTED TO ALSO ADD TO OUR \nCURRENT WORK PLAN\, WHICH MAY GET \nREVISED\, IS TO INITIATE THE BAY \nPLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS SOMETIME \nTHIS SUMMER. AND TO DO THE \nPRELIMINARY STAFF RECOMMENDATION \nAND PUBLIC HEARING IN THE SPRING \nOF 2025\, WHICH IS WHEN THE DRAFT \nPOLICIES WILL BE READY FOR \nCOMMISSIONERS TO REVIEW. AS A \nHEADS UP\, WE PLAN TO DO A \nBRIEFING FOR THE COMMISSION \nABOUT THE WORKSHOP AND FINDINGS \nAT THE COMMISSION MEETING ON \nMARCH 21. I’D BE DELIGHTED TO \nTAKE ANY QUESTIONS AND ALSO\, I \nJUST WANT TO THANK\, AGAIN\, THE \nSTAFF\, BRENDA AND MAYA AND ERIC\, \nFOR THE EXCELLENT JOB THAT THEY \nDID. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU\, PAT. ANY QUESTIONS \nFROM COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER \nEKLUND. \n>>PAT EKLUND: THANK YOU. IN THE \nFUTURE\, CAN THE NOTICES OF THE \nMEETING OR THE INFORMATION BE \nPOSTED UP ON THE BCDC WEBSITE? \n>>SPEAKER: WE’LL MAKE SURE. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: OKAY\, \nYEAH. \n>>PAT EKLUND: WHEN IS THE NEXT \nMEETING\, IT’S MARCH\, WHAT? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: MARCH 21\, \nWE’RE GOING TO HAVE A BRIEFING \nAT THE COMMISSION MEETING ABOUT \nIT. \n>>PAT EKLUND: WHEN IS THE NEXT \nMEETING OF THE SEDIMENT \nCOMMITTEE? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: MAYA\, DO \nYOU KNOW THAT? I DON’T KNOW IT \nOFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD? \n>>SPEAKER: I DON’T KNOW BUT \nWE’LL FIND IT OUT AND GET IT TO \nEVERYBODY. \n>>PAT EKLUND: AND ARE YOU GOING \nTO BE PRODUCING MINUTES OR \nSUMMARY? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: \nABSOLUTELY. AND IF YOU LOOK ON \nTHE WEBSITE UNDER MEETINGS UNDER \nSEDIMENT — UNDER MEETINGS\, \nUNDER SEDIMENT\, YOU WILL SEE\, \nYOU KNOW\, THE AGENDA AND \nINFORMATION FROM THESE \nMEETINGS. \n>>PAT EKLUND: WHAT ABOUT A \nSUMMARY OF THE MEETINGS\, WILL \nTHEY BE POSTED AS WELL? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: THAT’S MY \nUNDERSTANDING\, THERE ARE \nSUMMARIES. ONE THING THAT’S \nINTERESTED ON BEING ON THIS \nWORKING GROUP\, THE FIRST YEAR \nWAS DEVOTED TO A SEDIMENT 101. \nSO WE HAD A SERIOUS OF PROGRAMS \nTHAT TAUGHT US ABOUT DIFFERENCE \nSEDIMENT ISSUES AROUND THE BAY \nAND NOW WE’RE WORKING ON \nWORKSHOPS TO TACKLE THE POLICY \nCHANGES. SO THERE REALLY IS A \nPLETHORA OF INFORMATION UNDER \nTHAT SEDIMENT HEADING. UNDER \nMEETINGS\, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO \nLOOK AT IT\, ABOUT\, YOU KNOW\, \nTHESE ISSUES. \n>>PAT EKLUND: I AM VERY FAMILIAR \nWITH IT BECAUSE OF MY WORK WITH \nTHE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION \nAGENCY. SO I LOOK FORWARD TO \nATTENDING THE NEXT MEETING. \nTHANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nBEFORE I RECOGNIZE COMMISSIONER \nGUNTHER\, JESSICA\, DO YOU HAVE A \nCOMMENT? \n>>JESSICA FAIN: I WANT TO \nRESPOND TO COMMISSIONER EKLUND’S \nQUESTION ON WHEN THE NEXT \nWORKING GROUP WILL BE. WE’LL BE \nMEETING ON MARCH 15. ALL OF \nTHOSE ARE PUBLICLY NOTICED \nMEETINGS. EVERYONE IS WELCOMED \nTO ATTEND. WE WILL WILL BE \nDEBRIEFING FROM THE TWO \nWORKSHOPS WITH THE \nCOMMISSIONERS\, REALLY KIND OF \nREPORTING ON WHAT WE HEARD\, SOME \nOF THE THEMES\, AND THEN THE TEAM \nIS GOING TO BE DEVELOPING A ROAD \nMAP FOR THE REGION FOR SEDIMENT \nAND BENEFICIAL REUSE. THAT’S \nREALLY THE OUTCOME OF THIS \nPHASE\, AND THAT’S SOMETHING WE \nWILL BE DISCUSSING BEFORE THE \nFULL COMMISSION AS WELL. \n>>PAT EKLUND: I APPRECIATE \nTHAT. \nI THINK ALSO IN THE FUTURE WE \nSHOULD IN THE\, PUT UP ON THE \nWEBSITE WHERE THE WORKSHOPS ARE \nOR HOW PEOPLE CAN PARTICIPATE. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \nBELIEVE THEY ARE ALWAYS POSTED\, \nPAT\, BUT WE’LL DOUBLE CHECK. \nTHANK YOU. \n>>PAT EKLUND: IT WAS NOT \nPOSTED. \nANYWAY\, THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER. \nNO\, COMMISSIONER PASS — I \nDON’T HAVE MANY REMARKS THIS \nAFTERNOON. WE CONTINUE TO \nPARTICIPATE IN THE EFFORT TO \nDEVELOP A REGIONAL M.O.U. ON \nCOOPERATION\, BOTH OF FUNDING AND \nIMPLEMENTATION OF MEASURES TO \nADAPT TO SEA LEVEL RISE\, THE \nFUNDING PIECE IS PARTICULARLY \nIMPORTANT AS WE TRY TO \nRATIONALIZE THAT PROCESS AND \nMAKE IT MORE EFFICIENT AND EVEN \nMORE IMPORTANTLY\, MORE \nEFFECTIVE. THERE WILL BE A \nMEETING IN MARCH OF THE \nAGENCIES AND HOPEFULLY BY LATE \nSPRING WE CAN HAVE AN M.O.U. TO \nPRESENT TO THE VARIOUS AGENCIES. \nWE WILL NOT HOLD A MEETING ON \nMARCH 7. \nOUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE ON \nMARCH 21 UNDER THE BAGLEY-KEENE \nATTENDANCE RULES. AT THAT \nMEETING WE EXPECT WE WILL TAKE \nUP THE FOLLOWING MATTERS — A \nPERMIT APPLICATION FOR PG&E’S \nAPPLICATION BAY AREAWIDE — FOR \nTHE BAY\, NOT THE ENTIRE BAY. I \nSHOULD BE CLEAR. WE ARE NOT \nTRYING TO EXPAND OUR \nJURISDICTION IN THAT MATTER AT \nALL. A PERMIT APPLICATION FOR \nTHE MARCH RESTORATION IN SAN \nRAFAEL\, AND A BRIEFING FROM NASA \nON THE CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE \nTHAT UNDERPINS THE DRAFT\, STATE \nOF CALIFORNIA RISING SEA LEVEL \nGUIDANCE THAT WE HEARD ABOUT AT \nOUR LAST MEETING. THAT BRINGS US \nTO EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS. IF \nANY COMMISSIONER HAS HAD A \nCOMMUNICATION\, WHICH HAS NOT \nBEEN PREVIOUSLY REPORTED IN \nWRITING CONCERNING A MATTER OF \nAN ADJUDICATORY NATURE THAT \nWILL COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION\, \nNOW IS THE TIME TO DO THAT. YOU \nNEED TO MAKE IT IN WRITING UNDER \nANY CIRCUMSTANCES. I SEE NONE. \nTHAT BRINGS US TO THE REPORT OF \nTHE EXECUTIVE \nDIRECTOR. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: I KNOW YOU \nMAY BE TIRED OF HEARING ABOUT \nTAYLOR SWIFT. HER UPCOMING \nALBUM WILL BE TITLED “CLARA \nBO.” \nSHE TRANSITIONED SUCCESSFULLY \nINTO TALKIES. HER SUCCESS HELPED \nDEFINE THAT DECADE AS THE RURG \n20’S. SHE WAS A PRETTY PARTY \nGIRL. LIKE TAYLOR SWIFT\, THERE \nWAS MORE TO CLARA THAN GOOD \nLOOKS AND TALENT. SHE UNDERSTOOD \nHERSELF BETTER THAN ANYBODY ELSE \nAND SHE RECOGNIZED WHAT MADE HER \nSO APPEALING AS AN ARTIST. AND \nON THIS DAY IN 1927\, FEBRUARY \n15\, CLARA BEAU \nBECAME THE IT GIRL\, THE SEXY\, \nVIVACIOUS\, TALENTED STAR THAT \nDOMINATED THE MOVIE SIMPLY MADE \n“IT” WHICH TOLD OF A CINDERELLA \nSTORY OF A POOR SHOP GIRL THAT \nMADE IT BIG. \nAS THE IT GIRL SAID OF HER \nSUCCESS\, I’M A CURIOSITY IN \nHOLLYWOOD. I AM A FREAK BECAUSE \nI AM MYSELF. WE CAN ALL AGREE \nTHAT TAYLOR SWIFT CONTINUES TO \nDEFINE HERSELF. SHE’S NOT \nLETTING ANYBODY ELSE DO THAT \nJUST LIKE CLARA DID. IT’S JUST \nTOO BAD THAT SHE ROOTS FOR THE \nWRONG TEAM. \n[LAUGHTER] \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: I WANT YOU TO \nMEET SIERRA PETERSON WHO STARTED \nOUT AS THE BCDC EXECUTIVE \nLIAISON. EVERYBODY SEE SIERRA. \nOKAY. STARTING AT INSURE NEXT \nMEETING\, SHE WILL SIT WHERE \nREYLINA IS SITTING. GO AHEAD AND \nSAY GOODBYE. YOU ALREADY \nRECEIVED ONE EMAIL FROM SIERRA \nINTRODUCING HERSELF. PLEASE FEEL \nFREE TO COMMUNICATE ABOUT ANY \nCOMMISSION LODGE CYCLE OR \nPROCEDURES ISSUE WITH HER OR ME \nAND WE WILL BE SURE THEY WILL \nGET IT REQUESTED. THE SMALL \nPERMITTING STAFF HAS BECOME EVEN \nSMALLER. ONE HAS LOST FOR \nWASHINGTON\, D.C. AND WE LOST \nDOMINIC TO THE FEDERAL \nGOVERNMENT. OUR SHORELINE TEAM \nLED BY \nCATHERINE \nA.T.M. LINA TAM. AND WE NEED TO \nREPLACE DOMINIC SO WE DON’T NEED \nTO NOT — WHILE WE HAVE POSTED \nOUR VACANT POSITIONS AS I TOLD \nYOU TWO WEEKS AGO\, THE \nCOMBINATION OF RELATIVELY LOW \nSTATE SALARIES DO NOT ATTRACT \nMANY QUALIFIED CANDIDATES WHO \nFITS BCDC’S NEEDS. I’LL KEEP YOU \nPOSTED REGARDING HOW WE WILL \nMAKE OURSELVES WHOLE AGAIN. \nMEANWHILE\, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF \nYOU NEED ANOTHER COPY OF OUR \nVACANT POSITIONS LIST TO \nDISTRIBUTE TO YOUR NETWORKS. AS \nCOMMISSIONER SHOWALTER WAS KIND \nENOUGH TO NOTE\, BCDC’S SECOND \nACT OF OUR TWO-PART BENEFICIAL \nREUSE OF SEDIMENT PUBLIC \nWORKSHOP APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN A \nSUCCESS. OUR STAFF WILL GIVE YOU \nA FULL WRAP-UP DURING THE NEXT \nMEETING AND I KNOW THAT JESSICA \nFAIN WILL TALK TO SOME EXTENT \nABOUT IT. I DO WANT TO SAY \nBEFORE JESSICA DOES THAT \nDEVELOPING AND HOLDING THE \nWORKSHOP WAS A TRUE TEAM EFFORT \nBY OUR REGULATORY\, PLANNING\, AND \nADMIN TEAMS AND IT WAS GREAT TO \nSEE AND WE CAN’T SAY THAT \nENOUGH. I ALSO WANT TO THANK OUR \nCOMMISSIONERS AND ALTERNATES ON \nTHE ONE BAY VISION COMMISSION \nTHAT JACKIE PRESENTENT WERED TWO \nWEEKS AGO. STAFF ARE FINISHING \nWHAT WE SHALL CALL OUR WORKING \nVISION WHICH INCLUDES MANY OF \nYOUR SUGGESTIONS. WE’LL SEND A \nCLEAN COPY FOR YOU TO READ AND \nWE’LL POST IT THROUGH OUR \nREGULAR BAY ADAPT AND REGIONAL \nSHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN \nPROCESS. I’M ALSO PLEASED TO LET \nYOU KNOW AS PART OF THE NATURAL \nRESOURCE AGENCY’S BLACK HISTORY \nMONTH OBSERVATION\, OUR \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE PROGRAM \nMANAGER\, PHOENIX\, WILL BE \nSPEAKING NEXT WEEK ON A \nSTATEWIDE PANEL ON CAREER \nPATHWAYS FOR AFRICAN-AMERICANS \nIN STATE SERVICE. THE SECRETARY \nHAS MADE WORKING WITH CAL H.R. \nAND OTHER STATE ORGANIZATIONS TO \nATTRACT A MORE DIVERSE AND \nPROFESSIONALLY DIVERSE WORK \nFORTS\, A — WORKFORCE\, A MAJOR \nGOAL. AND WE ARE HONORED THAT \nPHOENIX HAS BEEN ASKED TO BE \nPART OF THE WORKSHOP. I SHOULD \nALSO REMIND YOU THAT ONE OF \nBCDC’S NEWEST STAFF MEMBERS\, \nROSIE VELASQUEZ\, HAS COME TO US \nFROM THE CALIFORNIA CONSERVATION \nCORPS TO BOLSTER OUR PROGRAM AND \nTHAT REFLECTS THE SECRETARY’S \nADVOCACY. FINALLY\, I WANT TO \nTHANK SUPERVISORS VAZQUEZ\, PINE\, \nGORIN\, GIOIA\, \nMOULTON-PETERS AND PAM. I WILL \nSAY IT AGAIN. THEY RESPONDED SO \nQUICKLY TO OUR REQUEST FOR EACH \nOF OUR COUNTY SUPERVISOR \nCOMMISSIONERS TO ARRANGE FOR A \nSHORT BRIEFING ON THE \nDEVELOPMENT OF THE REGIONAL \nSHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN AND \nTHE GUIDELINES TO BE PROMULGATED \nTHIS YEAR WITH THE MAYORS IN \nEACH OF THE COUNTIES IN BCDC’S \nJURISDICTION. I’M HOPING I SHALL \nHEAR FROM THE REMAINDER OF THE \nCOUNTY SUPERVISORS WITHIN A WEEK \nOR SO BEFORE I AGAIN TO QUOTE \nCHAIR WASSERMAN\, TO HECKLE\, \nBADGER THOSE WHO HAVE NOT \nRESPONDED. SO ALL THIS LEADS ME \nTO SAY CHAIR WASSERMAN\, I’M GLAD \nTHE UNIVERSE IS BACK IN ORDER \nBECAUSE PITCHERS AND CATCHERS \nARE REPORTING TO SPRING TRAINING \nCAMPS THROUGHOUT ARIZONA AND \nFLORIDA THIS WEEK AND I AM HAPPY \nTO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ARE \nTHERE QUESTIONS FOR THE \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR? SEEING NONE\, \nTHAT BRINGS US TO ITEM 7\, \nCONSIDERATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE \nMATTERS. WE HAVE BEEN — \nPROVIDED A LIST OF THOSE. DOES \nANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT \nTHEM? HARRIET ROSS IS HERE TO \nANSWER THAT. AND IT APPEARS SHE \nGETS OFF THE HOOK. THAT BRINGS \nUS TO ITEM 8\, WHICH IS A \nBRIEFING ON THE PROGRESS \nASSOCIATED WITH THE COMMISSION’S \n2023 TO 2025 STRATEGIC PLAN. \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR GOLDZBAND \nWILL INTRODUCE THE BRIEFING. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: THANK YOU\, \nCHAIR WASSERMAN. AS WE PROMISED\, \nWE ARE TRYING TO BRING YOU THREE \nTIMES EACH YEAR A PROGRESS \nREPORT ON THE STRATEGIC PLAN. WE \nCOULD NOT DO IT IN DECEMBER AS \nWE HAD PLANNED BECAUSE OF THE \nPRESS OF BUSINESS ON THE \nCOMMISSION’S AGENDA\, AND THEN WE \nDIDN’T HAVE A MEETING IN \nJANUARY. AND SO AS A RESULT\, \nWE’RE DOING IT IN FEBRUARY. AND \nSO WE’LL ASK\, I BELIEVE ANGELA\, \nTO START THE PROGRAM AND HERE IT \nCOMES. AND SO YOU’VE SEEN THIS \nBEFORE. THIS IS OUR SEPTEMBER\, \n2023\, THROUGH JANUARY\, 2024 \nUPDATE. NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. \nYOU’LL RECOGNIZE OUR VISION AND \nOUR GOALS AND OUR ANTICIPATED \nOUTCOMES. THOSE HAVE NOT \nCHANGED. NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. I \nDO WANT TO REMIND YOU OF THE \nCORE VALUES THAT YOU ALL HAVE \nPUT INTO THE STRATEGIC PLAN. \nTHAT IS THAT BCDC IS EQUITABLE \nAND INCLUSIVE. THAT WE ARE \nSCIENCE-BASED AND DATA-DRIVEN. \nTHAT WE CERTAIN ATTEMPT TO BE \nAGILE AND PROACTIVE. WE TRY TO \nBE COLLABORATIVE AND \nSERVICE-ORIENTED\, AND WE \nCERTAINLY HOPE TO BE TRUSTED AND \nACCOUNTABLE. NEXT SLIDE\, \nPLEASE. \nWE HAVE HAD SOME GOOD \nSTRATEGIC PLAN PROGRESS\, AS YOU \nCAN SEE. \nWE HAVE DIVIDED THE ACTIONS THAT \nYOU ALL HAVE TAKEN A LOOK AT \nINTO FOUR DIFFERENT CATEGORIES. \nTHOSE THAT ARE ON TRACK\, THOSE \nTHAT WE HAVE HAD DELAYS OR THAT \n— THAT ARE SUBJECT TO VARIOUS \nISSUES. SOME THAT WE’VE ACTUALLY \nCOMPLETED. AND SOME THAT WE HAVE \nNOT STARTED. BUT WHAT I WANT TO \nDO NOW IS GET INTO EACH OF THE \nGOALS. SO NEXT SLIDE\, \nPLEASE. YAY\, GOOD\, WE’RE SET. \nWE’LL START WITH JESSICA ON THE \nPLANNING SIDE. \n>>JESSICA FAIN: THANKS\, LARRY. \nGOOD AFTERNOON\, COMMISSIONERS. \nJESSICA FAIN\, PLANNING \nDIRECTOR. \nI WILL GO OVER A FEW UPDATES \nTHAT ARE ON SEVERAL DIFFERENT \nGOALS AND WE SHARED WITH YOU \nBEFORE RELATED TO OUR REGIONAL \nPLANNING WORK. SO ONE OF OUR \nSTRATEGIC OBJECTIVES IS ABOUT \nIMPROVING OUR REGIONAL SEDIMENT \nMANAGEMENT SYSTEM. AND WE’RE \nREALLY EXCITED\, AS COMMISSIONER \nSHOWALTER DESCRIBED EARLIER\, TO \nHAVE REALLY TAKEN SOME MAJOR \nSTEPS TO ADVANCE THIS WORK. WE \nCALL IT THE SWAP PROJECT\, THE \nSEDIMENT FOR WETLAND ADAPTATION \nPROJECT\, WHICH WAS FUNDED AND \nLAUNCHED THIS YEAR. SO FAR WE’VE \nHOSTED SIX SEDIMENT AND \nBENEFICIAL REUSE COMMISSIONER \nWORKING GROUP MEETINGS. AS PART \nOF THIS EFFORT\, REALLY BRINGING \nALONG THE COMMISSION AS WE START \nTO EXPLORE THE CHALLENGES AROUND \nBENEFICIAL REUSE. WE’VE \nCONDUCTED STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS \nAND BRIEFINGS. COLLABORATED WITH \nMANY PARTNER AGENCIES. AND AS \nWAS DESCRIBED EARLIER\, JUST \nCOMPLETED HOSTING TWO \nSTAKEHOLDER WORKSHOPS ON JANUARY \n23 AND FEBRUARY 13. AND SO UP \nNEXT IS TO FINALIZE WHAT WE’RE \nCALLING THE ROAD MAP FOR \nBENEFICIAL REUSE IN THE REGION. \nREALLY\, THIS MULTI-PURPOSE\, \nMULTI-AGENCY MAP OF THE THINGS \nWE NEED TO DO REGIONALLY TO \nADDRESS IMPROVING OUR SEDIMENT \nAND BENEFICIAL REUSE SYSTEM. AND \nTHEN AFTER THAT\, WE’LL BE \nSTARTING A POLICY PROCESS\, \nBRINGING TO YOU IDEAS FOR HOW WE \nCAN UPDATE OUR BAY PLAN TO \nADDRESS THESE ISSUES AS WELL AS \nDEVELOPING A FUNDING STRATEGY. \nAND AS LARRY MENTIONED\, JUST \nREALLY WANT TO GIVE A SHOUT OUT \nTO THE COLLABORATIVE EFFORT OF \nTHIS. THIS IS BOTH A PLANNING \nEFFORT BUT REALLY INTO THE DEEP \nEXPERTISE AND LEADERSHIP OF OUR \nSEDIMENT TEAM WHO IS REALLY \nCO-LEADING THIS PROJECT WITH \nUS. \nNEXT SLIDE. OUR NEXT GOAL THAT \nI’LL — OUR STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE \nI’LL UPDATE YOU ON IS REGULARLY \nUPDATING THE BAY PLAN. AS YOU \nALL KNOW\, IN NOVEMBER\, YOU \nADOPTED A NEW SEAPORT PLAN. FOR \nTHE FIRST TIME IN OVER 20 \nYEARS. \nSO ONE OF THOSE CHANGES THAT YOU \nSAW IN LARRY’S PROGRESS SLIDE \nTHAT WENT FROM IN PROGRESS TO \nCOMPLETED WAS THIS ONE. THIS IS \nNOW FINISHED WHICH IS A VERY \nEXCITING MILESTONE FOR US TO \nREACH. WE’VE ALSO BEEN MAKING \nPROGRESS ON AMENDING OUR — THE \nSAN FRANCISCO WATERFRONT SPECIAL \nAREA PLAN. WE’VE BEEN WORKING \nCLOSELY WITH THE PORT OF SAN \nFRANCISCO TO REALLY REBOOT THIS \nEFFORT AND REFOCUS IT\, INCLUDING \nBRINGING TO YOU A MEMORANDUM OF \nUNDERSTANDING AND A SLIGHTLY \nREVISED SCOPE FOR THIS YEAR. WE \nPROVIDED RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE \nFALL FOR — ON THE SUIS UNMARSH \nPROTECTION PLAN AND HOW THAT \nPLAN CAN START TO ADDRESS THE \nCHALLENGES FACING THE SUISUN \nMARSH TODAY. AND WE’VE ALSO \nBEGUN SOME EARLY RESEARCH ON OUR \nPUBLIC ACCESS POLICIES AND HOW \nTHEY RELATE TO ISSUES RELATED TO \nWILDLIFE AND SEA LEVEL RISE\, \nINTERVIEWING STAKEHOLDERS ACROSS \nTHE REGION AS WELL AS OUR OWN \nSTAFF. COMING UP NEXT\, WE WILL \nBE BRINGING TO YOU A MODIFIED \nVERSION OF A SPECIAL — SAN \nFRANCISCO WATERFRONT SPECIAL \nAREA PLAN. YOU’LL BE HEARING \nTODAY FROM THE PORT OF SAN \nFRANCISCO WITH BIG PLANS ON THE \nWATERFRONT. WE’RE TAKING A MORE \nTARGETED APPROACH RIGHT NOW ON A \nSPECIAL AREA PLAN UPDATE TO \nALLOW FOR SOME OF THOSE BIGGER \nRESILIENCY PLANS TO BE \nDEVELOPED. AS WELL AS THINKING \nABOUT AS WE DEVELOP OUR REGIONAL \nSHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN\, HOW \nWE’RE REALLY GOING TO CODIFY \nTHAT AND BRING THAT INTO OUR \nFORMAL POLICIES WITHIN THE BAY \nPLAN\, SO THOSE ARE THINGS ON THE \nLIST OF TO-DOS. I WANT TO GIVE A \nSHOUT OUT TO OUR LONG RANGE \nPLANNING TEAM LED BY ERIC\, WHO \nARE LEADING THE CHARGE ON ALL OF \nTHESE EFFORTS AND I THINK I’LL \nPASS IT TO HARRIET. \n>>HARRIET ROSS: GOOD AFTERNOON\, \nCOMMISSIONERS. I’M HARRIET ROSS\, \nTHE REGULATORY DIRECTOR. I WILL \nBE REPORTING ON — OH\, NEXT \nSLIDE\, PLEASE. I’LL BE REPORTING \nON STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES 2.2 AND \n2.3 WHICH REALLY AIM TO UPDATE \nOUR OPERATIONS\, IMPLEMENT OUR \nLAWS AND POLICIES MORE \nCONSISTENTLY\, TRANSPARENTLY\, AND \nEFFICIENTLY AS WELL AS INCREASE \nTHE CAPACITY OF THE REGULATORY \nDIVISION TO OPERATE MORE \nEFFICIENTLY. SO WE’VE BEEN \nPRETTY BUSY SINCE WE LAST \nPRESENTED TO YOU ALL. WE HAVE \nDRAFTED WHAT WE ARE CALLING A \nREGULATORY ROAD MAP\, AND THAT \nROAD MAP IDENTIFIES IMPROVEMENTS \nTO OUR CURRENT PROCESSES\, \nREGULATIONS AND POLICIES. THE \nEXISTS REGULATIONS AND \nPROCESSES\, AS YOU ALL KNOW\, WERE \nFOR THE MOST PART ESTABLISHED \nMANY YEARS AGO AND THEY REALLY \nNEED TO BE UPDATED TO REFLECT \nTHE WORK WE’VE BEEN DOING \nESPECIALLY IN THE RESILIENCY AND \nEQUITY SPACE. THE ROAD MAP \nINCLUDES UPDATING OUR \nREGULATIONS AND PLANS\, INCREASE \nCLARITY AND EFFICIENCY. WE ALSO \nWANT TO UPDATE OUR PUBLIC ACCESS \nDESIGN GUIDELINES. AND SOME OF \nTHE WORK HAS ALREADY BEGUN\, AS \nJESSICA MENTIONED\, AND THAT \nDOCUMENT WAS CREATED BACK IN \n2005 AND 2007\, SO SOME UPDATE IS \nDEFINITELY NEEDED. AND WE’RE \nLOOKING TO ISSUE MORE PERMITS \nMORE QUICKLY FOR CERTAIN TYPES \nOF PROJECTS THAT REALLY \nPRESENT — WE ARE LOOKING TO \nIMPROVE SMALLER RESTORATION \nPROJECTS. WE HEARD A LOT FROM \nOUR STAKEHOLDERS ON THAT AND \nPROJECTS THAT REALLY INVOLVE \nNATURE-BASED ADAPTATION \nTECHNIQUES. THE ROAD MAP ALSO \nINCLUDES MORE UPFRONT \nDISCUSSION\, RECOMMENDATION WITH\, \nYOU KNOW\, TALKING APPLICANTS \nEARLY\, ESTABLISHING A MORE \nFORMAL PREAPPLICATION PROCESS SO \nWE CAN GET THE BIG ISSUES ON THE \nTABLE AND PERHAPS — PERHAPS \nCOME TO A GOOD SOLUTION PRIOR TO \nTHE BEGINNING OF THE REGULATORY \nSCHEDULE AND MANDATES FOR IRAQ A \nPERMIT — FOR ISSUING A PERMIT. \nOUR REGULATORY ROAD MAP INCLUDES \nTHOSE INITIAL RECOMMENDATIONS \nDETERMINED AND DEVELOPED BY THE \nDEPARTMENT OF FINANCE’S \nMISSION-BASED REVIEW. REALLY \nTHAT DOCUMENT LOOKS AT FINDING \nPERMIT EFFICIENCIES. AND SO \nWE’RE WORKING WITH THE \nDEPARTMENT OF FINANCE STAFF \nRIGHT NOW TO TIMIZE THAT — TO \nFINALIZE THAT. THE NEXT \nCHALLENGE WE HAVE\, WE’VE \nIDENTIFIED A BIG LIST OF \nREGULATORY IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE \nREALLY LIKE TO MAKE. AND WE \nREALLY NEED TO PRIORITIZE WHAT \nWE’LL BE DOING FIRST AND NEXT \nAFTER THAT POINT AND WE’LL NEED \nTO CREATE A TIMELINE AND HOLD \nOURSELVES ACCOUNTABLE TO KEEPING \nTRACK ON THESE TASKS. AND I ALSO \nWANTED TO GIVE A SHOUT OUT TO \nETHAN\, HE’S VACATIONING NOW IN \nSOUTH AMERICA\, I BELIEVE\, BUT \nHE’S REALLY LEADING THE \nREGULATORY IMPROVEMENTS UNIT AND \nRESPONSIBLE FOR MUCH OF THE WORK \nTHAT’S BEEN DONE. AND I THINK \nTHAT’S IT FOR ME. \n>>SPEAKER: MR. CHAIR. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>SPEAKER: I KNOW WE HAD LOTS OF \nDISCUSSION ON EQUITY — ON — IN \nOUR — IN THIS PLAN. I JUST \nTHINK — AND I FAILED TO MENTION \nI THINK WHEN THIS CAME UP IN OUR \n— WHAT WAS THE MEETING WE HAD\, \nTHE WORKSHOP ON THIS? THE \nWORKSHOP\, SOMETHING LIKE THAT\, \nI THINK WE NEED TO INCORPORATE \nTHAT LANGUAGE THROUGHOUT. AND \nWHERE IT SAYS UPDATE EXISTING \nREGULATORY LAWS AND POLICIES \nMORE CONSISTENTLY\, TRANSPARENTLY \nAND EFFICIENTLY\, I THINK IT \nWOULD BE GOOD TO SAY \nCONSISTENTLY\, TRANSPARENTLY\, \nEQUITABLY AND EFFICIENTLY. I \nKNOW WE HAVE THE EQUITY POLICIES \nTHROUGHOUT BUT IT WOULD — I \nTHINK IT’S WELL PLACED HERE. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nSECOND THAT NONMOTION. ANY OTHER \nCOMMENTS? BACK TO \nYOU. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: IF THAT’S \nALREADY\, CHAIR WASSERMAN. I WANT \nTO BRING ONE THING INTO FOCUS. I \nWANT TO SORT OF STEP BACK FROM \nWHAT HARRIET SAID. IN 2011\, THIS \nCOMMISSION APPROVED THE \nGROUNDBREAKING CLIMATE CHANGE \nAMENDMENTS\, WHICH ESSENTIALLY \nCHANGED IN MANY RESPECTS HOW WE \nDO PERMITTING IN TERMS OF \nSCIENCE-BASED\, VULNERABILITY \nSTUDIES. I MEAN\, YOU NAME IT. \nAND BCDC WAS REALLY THE FIRST \nREGULATORY AGENCY IN THE UNITED \nSTATES TO DO THAT. SINCE THEN\, \nWE HAVE LEARNED A LOT ABOUT HOW \nTO DO THAT AND HOW TO DO THAT \nWELL. AND THE REGULATORY TEAM \nHAS TAKEN\, YOU KNOW\, GREAT PAINS \nTO TAKE GREAT STRIDES TO DO SO \nAND THEY’VE BEEN VERY \nSUCCESSFUL. HOWEVER\, WE HAVE \nNOT CHANGED\, REALLY\, SINCE THEN \nTHE WAY WE \nACTUALLY PROCESS PERMITS OR HOW \nWE DO REGULATORY ACTIONS. \nSO THE ANALOGY I USE\, ADOPTING \nTHE CLIMATE CHANGE AMENDMENTS IS \nSORT OF LIKE BUYING A TESLA \nENGINE FOR A CAR. SOMETHING VERY \nNEW. SOMETHING MARVELOUS. \nSOMETHING THAT WILL BE HELPFUL. \nSOMETHING WE ALL WANT TO DO IN \nSOME WAY\, SHAPE\, OR FORM. BUT \nUNFORTUNATELY\, WE PUT THAT TESLA \nENGINE INTO A 1997 ACCORD. AND \nWE HAVEN’T BEEN ABLE TO REALLY \nMAKE THE CAR MOVE AS WELL AS IT \nSHOULD AND BE AS EFFECTIVE AS IT \nSHOULD BECAUSE THE TIRES DON’T \nWORK WITH THE ENGINE. THE \nTRANSMISSION IS STILL THERE. \nTHE — YOU KNOW\, AND THE BODY \nSIMPLY DOESN’T CONFORM TO WHAT \nTHE ENGINE NEEDS\, ETC. SO THE \nREGULATORY ROAD MAP THAT ETHAN \nHAS STARTED AND DOMINIC REALLY \nHAS STARTED WORKING ON WILL\, IF \nWE CAN GET IT DONE WELL\, BE ABLE \nTO TRANSFORM THAT 1997 ACCORD \nINTO SOMETHING WE CAN REALLY BE \nPROUD OF DRIVING. AND THAT WILL \nREALLY\, I THINK\, WORK WELL WITH \nTHE WAY WE DO OUR VULNERABILITY \nANALYSES AND EVERYTHING ELSE \nRELATED TO PERMITS THAT WE NEED \nTO DO. SO I WANTED TO STEP BACK \nAND GIVE YOU THAT ANALOGY AND \nHELPS YOU UNDERSTAND WHY AND \nWHERE WE’RE \nGOING. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: AND \nLET’S GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. I’M \nPHOENIX. I’M STARTING OUT \nTALKING ABOUT STRATEGIC \nOBJECTIVE 3.1 WHICH FOCUSES ON \nPRIORITIZING THE PROGRAM BY \nADENTFYING BCDC’S SPECIFIC \nPOLICIES\, PROGRAMS\, AND \nPRACTICES THAT HAVE LED OR \nCURRENTLY LEAD TO INEQUITABLE \nOUTCOMES AND WORK TO RESOLVE \nTHEM. SO SINCE WE LAST TALK\, WE \nCONTRACTED WITH M.I.G. AND \nBENCHMARK CONSULTING FOR — TO \nWORK WITH THE E.J. ADVISORS ON \nTHE ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT \nASSESSMENT OF THEIR PROGRAM WITH \nTHE GOAL OF STRENGTHENING THAT \nPROGRAM. WE ALSO APPLIED AND \nHAVE BEEN SELECTED FOR A NOAA \nCOASTAL FELLOW TO ANALYZE OUR \nPERMITTING PRACTICES WITH AN \nEQUITY LENS. OUR NEXT CHALLENGES \nARE TO COMPLETE THE \nORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT \nASSESSMENT. AS OF RIGHT NOW\, \nTHEY’VE DONE SOME FOCUS GROUPS \nWITH STAFF AND COMPLETED ONE \nWORKSHOP WITH THE E.J. ADVISORS \nAND THEY’RE PLANNING TWO MORE \nWORKSHOPS WITH THE E.J. ADVISORS \nAND ALSO GOING TO BE COMING TO \nTHE NEXT E.J. — ENVIRONMENTAL \nJUSTICE WORKING GROUP ON MARCH \n21. AND WITH THE NOAA COASTAL \nFELLOW\, OUR NEXT STEPS ARE \nDEVELOPING A METHODOLOGY TO \nEVALUATE EQUITY IN THE \nPERMITTING PROCESS. NEXT SLIDE\, \nPLEASE. SO FOR STRATEGIC \nOBJECTIVE 3.5\, WE ARE LOOKING TO \nDEVELOP A LONG-TERM \nRELATIONSHIPS AND PARTNERSHIPS \nBETWEEN AND AMONG BCDC AND THE \nBAY AREA’S TRIBAL COMMUNITIES TO \nINCREASE AUTHENTIC AND LASTING \nENGAGEMENT. TO THAT END\, OUR \nSENIOR STAFF ENGAGED WITH THE \nTRAINING CALLED “BEYOND LAND \nACKNOWLEDGMENT\, WHICH WAS HOSTED \nFROM THE REDBUD RESOURCE GROUP. \nTHEY WERE TESTING OUT THAT \nTRAINING TO SEE IF WE COULD \nBRING THAT TO ALL STAFF. AND OUR \nE.J. MANAGER HAS BEEN INVOLVED \nIN ASSEMBLING A TEAM TO WORK ON \nDEVELOPING OUR TRIBAL ENGAGEMENT \nPOLICY. AND LAST MONTH I MET \nWITH THE CONFEDERATED VILLAGES \nOF LISJAN TO DISCUSS PARTNERSHIP \nON SHORELINE LEADERSHIP \nACADEMY. \nOUR NEXT CHALLENGES IS TO DRAFT \nA TRIBAL ENGAGEMENT POLICY AND \nSCHEDULE A TRIBAL ENGAGEMENT \nTRAINING FOR ALL STAFF. THANK \nYOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \nHAVE A QUESTION AND I DON’T KNOW \nWHETHER THIS IS FOR YOU\, \nPHOENIX\, OR FOR YOU\, \nPERMITTING. \nONE OF THE THINGS WE DID IN \nADOPTING THE AMENDMENT\, THE BAY \nPLAN\, TO ADDRESS EQUITY ISSUES\, \nWAS TO REQUIRE OUTREACH TO \nIMPACTED COMMUNITIES IN A WAY \nTHAT IS DIFFERENT \nTHAN THE \nCEQA OUTREACH. AND I WONDER IF \nTHAT IS HAVING ANY IMPACT\, \nBLOWBACK\, OR HE THIS JUST \nHAVEN’T WOKEN UP YET? \n>>PHOENIX: WE’VE BEEN WORKING TO \nTRY TO UNDERSTAND ON OUR \nCOMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT. SO I’VE \nACTUALLY WORKED WITH A COUPLE OF \nPERMITS\, ALONG THE LINE\, MOST \nRECENT THE OAKLAND HARBOR BASIN \nTO GET OUTREACH FROM THE \nCOMMUNITY. WE DID GET FEEDBACK \nFROM THAT. THE COMMUNITY — \nDIDN’T THINK IT WAS SUFFICIENT \nBUT I THINK WE DID A LOT MORE \nTHAN WAS NORMALLY DONE. PART OF \nTHIS NOAA FELLOW\, THEY WILL BE \nWORKING WITH EACH PERMIT AND \nWORKING WITH C.B.O.’S SO WE CAN \nHAVE A MORE ROBUST COMMUNITY \nENGAGEMENT PROCESS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. AND THANK YOU FOR \nMENTIONING THE TURNING CIRCLE \nAND I THINK THAT’S A GOOD \nILLUSTRATION WHERE WE HAVE \nACHIEVED SUCCESS. THE MEASURE OF \nSUCCESS IS\, UNFORTUNATELY\, NOT \nTHAT THE IMPACTED COMMUNITIES \nARE THRILLED WITH WHAT’S BEING \nDONE. WE DON’T DO VERY MUCH \nTHAT THRILLS A LOT OF PEOPLE. \n[LAUGHTER] \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nBUT — BUT I DO THINK THE FACT \nTHAT WE GOT THAT HIGHER LEVEL OF \nINTEREST AND INPUT IS A MEASURE \nOF SUCCESS. COMMISSIONER \nNELSON. \n>>BARRY NELSON: JUST TO COMMENT \nABOUT TRIBAL ENGAGEMENT. IN THE \nLAST COUPLE OF YEARS HAS BEEN A \nREAL EXPLOSION OF INTEREST IN \nISSUES — WATER ISSUES UPSTREAM \nFROM THE BAY\, THE DELTA\, AND ALL \nTHE RIVERS UPSTREAM FROM THAT. I \nAM HOPEFUL WE CAN GET THE SAME \nENGAGEMENT ON TRIBAL AND BAY \nADAPTATION ISSUES. THAT WILL BE \nGREAT. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: I HAVE GOAL \nFOUR. STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 4.1 IS \nTO LISTEN TO\, COMMUNICATE WITH\, \nAND ENGAGE STAKEHOLDERS IN WAYS \nTHAT ARE MORE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL\, \nINCREASE AWARENESS OF BCDC AND \nITS ROLES AND PROCESSES\, AND \nFOSTER SUCCESSFUL COMMUNITY DIE \nLOGS. I THINK WE HAD SUCCESS \nDURING THE PAST FEW MONTHS. \nFIRST OF ALL\, OUR NEW WEBSITE IS \nNOT ONLY BEING CONSTRUCTED. IT’S \nBEING CONTEXTUALIZED\, IF YOU \nDON’T MIND THE TERM. THE \nINFRASTRUCTURE IS PRETTY MUCH \nDONE\, AND THE CONTENT IS BEING \nWORKED ON. I WANT TO THANK ETHAN \nAND COREY. COREY MANN\, FOR \nREALLY TAKING THE LEAD ON \nCONTENT. AND WE HAD A REALLY \nGOOD TEAM THAT DEALT WITH THE \nCONSTRUCTION. AND REYLINA HAS \nBEEN PUSHING US ALL TO MAKE SURE \nIT GETS DONE. WE ARE HOPEFUL WE \nWILL BE ABLE TO RELEASE IT AND \nPUT IT ONLINE LATER — I SHOULD \nSAY EARLY THIS SPRING. WE WERE \nABLE TO HIRE\, AS I MENTIONED \nEARLIER\, ROSIE VELASQUEZ\, WHO IS \nA CONSERVATION CORPS INTERN. AND \nWE DID SO NOT ONLY COULD ROSIE \nHELP THE E.J. — OUR E.J. \nPRACTICES\, BUT ALSO TO HELP GET \nUS A LITTLE BIT MORE UP TO DATE \nON SOCIAL MEDIA. BCDC IS NOW ON \nINSTAGRAM. AND I CAN TELL YOU \nTHAT I KNOW WE’RE ON INSTAGRAM \nBECAUSE OUR SON\, WHO IS AN \nINSTAGRAM FOLLOWER\, KEEPS \nSENDING ME THINGS ABOUT HOW GOOD \nOUR REELS ARE. WHATEVER THE HECK \nTHAT MEANS. AND SO WE HAVE \nDEFINITELY INCREASED OUR USE OF \nSOCIAL MEDIA AND WE HAVE \nINITIATED — ANNIE HAS DONE A \nTREMENDOUS JOB ON THIS — BCDC’S \nFIRST-EVER MEDIA PLAN. IT \nHASN’T BEEN CERTAINLY PUT INTO \nPRACTICE YET BUT WE ARE WORKING \nON IT AND I THINK IT WILL END UP \nBEING VERY\, VERY SUCCESSFUL. OUR \nNEXT CHALLENGES IS TO FINISH UP \nTHE WEBSITE AND PUT IT UP. AND \nAS I SAID IN MY REPORT\, USE ALL \nOF OUR COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE \nCOUNTY SUPERVISORS TO ENABLE \nRSAP GUIDELINES BRIEFINGS\, THE \nREGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION \nPROGRAM GUIDELINES FOR THEIR \nMAYORS AND KEY STAFF THROUGHOUT \nTHEIR JURISDICTIONS IN ORDER TO \nMAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE MORE \nAWARE OF WHAT BCDC IS DOING. THE \nNEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. YOU \nCAN’T — \nYOU CAN’T WALK THROUGH BCDC \nTHESE DAYS WITHOUT SOMEBODY \nASKING\, WHEN ARE WE GETTING A \nP.I.O.? WELL\, WE’RE GETTING \nTHERE. WE HAVE ACTUALLY — WE’RE \nIN THE MIDST OF REQUESTING\, I \nSHOULD SAY\, CAL HR TO APPROVE A \nSENIOR LEVEL POSITION CALLED THE \nDIRECTOR OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS. \nTHAT INCLUDES A PART-TIME \nP.I.O.\, A PART-TIME LEGISLATIVE \nLIAISON\, A LOCAL GOVERNMENTALLY \nASSON\, AND A PERSON WHO HAS SOME \nEXPERIENCE\, KNOCK ON WOOD\, WITH \nCZMA. AND SO THE NEXT CHALLENGE\, \nOF COURSE\, WILL BE GETTING IT \nAPPROVED BY CALHR\, WHICH I THINK \nTHEY WILL DO\, BUT THEN\, OF \nCOURSE\, GETTING IT FUNDED DURING \nTHIS TIME OF STATE FISCAL \nDISREPAIR. EVEN WITH THAT\, I \nHAVE SOME HOPE. IF THERE ARE NO \nQUESTIONS ON THAT\, WE’LL GO TO \nGOAL FIVE. \n>>SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON\, \nCOMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS \nREYLINA RUIZ AND DIRECTOR OF \nADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNOLOGY \nSERVICES. I’LL BE TALKING TO YOU \nTODAY ABOUT GOAL FIVE WHICH IS \nTO ADEQUATELY MEET THE GROWING \nNEEDS MORE EFFECTIVELY AND \nSUSTAINABLY. ONE OF THE \nOBJECTIVES FOR GOAL FIVE IS TO \nHAVE STAFF REFLECT THE BAY \nAREA. \nWE REGRUTED GREAT TALENTED FIELD \nPOSITIONS. IT’S BEEN DIFFICULT \nBUT WITH THE PERSEVERANCE OF OUR \nHIRING MANAGERS\, WE’VE BEEN ABLE \nTO FILL SOME VACANCIES IN THIS \nLAST QUARTER. WE EXPANDED OUR \nOUTREACH LIST TO NOTIFY CONTACTS \nOF JOB OPPORTUNITIES AND WE’VE \nENHANCED THE JOB POSTING PROCESS \nTO INCLUDE SENDING ANNOUNCEMENT \nLINKS TO ALL STAFF SO THEY CAN \nDISTRIBUTE TO THEIR NETWORKS\, \nPOSTING EVERY VACANCY ON \nLINKEDIN AND ALSO PUBLICIZING \nTHE OPPORTUNITIES IN BCDC ON THE \nINSTAGRAM AND X\, FORMERLY KNOWN \nAS TWITTER\, ACCOUNTS. IN THIS \nNEXT QUARTER\, WE’RE WORKING ON \nCONDUCTING AN ORGANIZATIONAL \nHELP SURVEY\, INCLUDING A \nSEPARATE SURVEY ON RACIAL EQUITY \nAND WE’LL ALSO BE COMPLETING A \nWORKFORCE ANALYSIS AND \nSUCCESSION PLANNING TO BETTER \nINFORM OUR STAFFING STRATEGIES \nMOVING FORWARD. NEXT SLIDE\, \nPLEASE. SO ANOTHER OF OUR \nOBJECTIVES FOR GOAL 5 IS TO \nIMPLEMENT TECHNOLOGICAL UPGRADES \nTO IMPROVE OUR PROCESSES. AND \nNOW WE’RE ONBOARDED TO THE \nNATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY \nSECURITY OPERATION SERVICE\, OUR \nC.I.O. HAS IMPLEMENTED SYSTEMS \nTO MONITOR SECURITY\, ENCRYPT OUR \nDEVICES AND COLLECT SECURITY \nCOMPLIANCE AND VULNERABILITY \nDATA ON ALL OF OUR DEVICES. AND \nIN ADDITION TO IDENTIFYING THE \nISSUES\, WE HAVE END-POINT \nSOFTWARE BEING IMPLEMENTED TO \nALLOW ANDREW TO IDENTIFY THOSE \nIMMEDIATE THREATS AND MANAGE OUR \nSOFTWARE DEPLOYMENTS AND TRACK \nCOMPLIANCE ACROSS OUR ENTIRE \nNETWORK. THAT’S A BIG \nACCOMPLISHMENT THERE. \nADDITIONALLY\, WE RECEIVED THE \nFINDINGS FROM THE I.T. \nASSESSMENT I SPOKE TO YOU ABOUT \nLAST TIME. WE RECEIVED A PASSING \nSCORE\, BUT THERE ARE \nOPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT. \nSO WE’LL BE WORKING ON THOSE. WE \nCOMPLETED THE MIGRATION\, AS \nLARRY SAID\, OF THE EXISTING \nCONTENT ON THE WEBSITE INTO THE \nHOSTING SERVICE. AND WE DID \nCONTRACT WITH AN EDITOR TO \nENSURE OUR WEBSITE CONTENT IS \nUSER-FRIENDLY ON THE NEW WEBSITE \nWHEN THAT GOES UP. SO NOW THAT \nWE’VE IMPLEMENTED THESE SYSTEMS \nTO IDENTIFY THE SECURITY ISSUES\, \nTHIS NEXT QUARTER\, WE’LL BE \nWORKING ON IMPLEMENTING A \nSOLUTION FOR ATTACK \nDETECTION\, THREAT VISIBILITY\, \nAND THREAT RESPONSE — THREAT \nRESPONSE. SO WE’LL ALSO \nPRIORITIZE THE FINDINGS FROM THE \nI.T. \nASSESSMENT\, BECAUSE WE DO WANT \nTO ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS\, AND \nWE’LL FINALIZE THE CONTENT WITH \nTHE EDITOR FOR THE WEBSITE. \nTHANK YOU. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: WITH THAT\, \nCHAIR WASSERMAN\, I THINK YOU CAN \nSEE WE’VE BEEN PRETTY BUSY. \nTHERE’S A LONG WAY TO GO. I \nTHINK THAT IT IS FAIR TO SAY \nTHAT STAFF WHO HAVE DAY JOBS TO \nGET THE PERMITS OUT OR TO DO \nWHATEVER THEY’RE DOING ARE ALSO\, \nYOU KNOW\, PART OF THIS WHOLE \nPROCESS TO GET THE STRATEGIC \nPLAN DONE. SO IT IS TO EXTENT \nFITS IN STARTS\, BUT THERE’S \nDEFINITE PROGRESS\, AND WE LOOK \nFORWARD TO HAVING A HIGHER \nHISTOGRAM BARF COMPLETION BY THE \nEND OF THE YEAR. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY \nQUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM \nCOMMISSIONERS? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: YES. \nALTERNATE COMMISSIONER. I JUST \nHAVE A THOUGHT TALKING ABOUT \nTHIS — THE PUBLIC OUTREACH AND \nTHE P.I.O.\, WHICH IS BADLY \nNEEDED\, I AGREE. AND I’M JUST \nREFLECTING\, ONE OF THE PROBLEMS \nIS\, OF COURSE\, THERE’S SO FEW \nJOURNALISTS AROUND IN THE BAY \nAREA THESE DAYS. SO THEY ARE \nBADLY MISSED. BUT WHEN I THINK \nBACK ON ARTICLES THAT I USED TO \n— PLACES I USED TO GO TO TO \nKIND OF UNDERSTAND TRENDS AND \nSOME ANALYSIS\, BAY NATURE IS \nACTUALLY A GREAT MAGAZINE WHICH \nKIND OF TALKS ABOUT THE \nSCIENCE. \nTHE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF \nTHE BAY AREA USED TO PUT OUT A \nREGULAR NEWSLETTER THAT TALKED \nABOUT — \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: MONITOR. \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: DO THEY \nSTILL DO THAT? YEAH\, THERE’S A \nFEW SOURCES. THERE’S SO FEW OF \nTHEM. THE OTHER ONE IS THE \nCOMMITTEE TO COMPLETE THE \nREFUGE. THEY ACTUALLY HAVE AN \nEXCELLENT NEWSLETTER THAT COMES \nOUT QUARTERLY THAT I READ \nRELIGIOUSLY. SO I — I DON’T \nKNOW WHAT WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT \nEXCEPT\, YOU KNOW\, MAYBE GET SOME \nMORE ARTICLES OUT IN THE BAY \nNATURE WOULD BE GREAT OR I DON’T \nKNOW WHAT — YOU KNOW\, IT’S — \nEXCEPT TO LAMENT THE — YOU \nKNOW\, I WISH THERE WERE MORE \nSCIENCE AND REGULATORY \nJOURNALISTS IN THE BAY AREA. \nJUST WANTED TO SHARE THAT. THANK \nYOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nOKAY. VICE CHAIR EISEN. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK \nYOU. AND THANK YOU FOR THE \nSTRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE. MY \nEXPERIENCE WITH STRATEGIC PLANS \nIS THEY SOMETIMES COLLECT A LOT \nOF DUST ON SHELVES AND I’M \nTUFLLY GLAD TO SEE THAT’S \nNOT — \nAND I’M GLAD TO SEE THAT’S NOT \nOURS. AS FAR AS THE INSTAGRAM \nACCOUNT IS\, I KNOW WHAT A REEL \nIS. IT REALLY IS A FANTASTIC \nINSTAGRAM ACCOUNT THAT’S BEEN \nSET UP FOR THE BCDC. FOR ANYBODY \nTHAT’S NOT YET GOTTEN ON \nINSTAGRAM\, MY NAME IS CALLED ONE \nSTONE TWO BIRDS IF YOU’RE \nLOOKING FOR ME. THAT IS REALLY \nFANTASTIC\, FANTASTIC STUFF ON \nTHERE\, AND THE BCDC’S ACCOUNT IS \nEXCELLENT. I WANTED TO — LARRY \nSTARTED OFF BY SAYING WE HAVE \nACCOMPLISHED SOME OF OUR \nSTRATEGIC GOALS. AND IT OCCURRED \nTO ME THAT SOME OF THEM ARE HARD \nTO KNOW WHETHER WE HAVE IN FACT \nACCOMPLISHED THEM. AND THE FIRST \nONE WE TALKED ABOUT\, 1.4\, THE \nSWAP BENEFICIAL REUSE PROGRAM. \nI’M WONDERING IF WE HAVE IN MIND \nWHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE WHEN WE \nHAVE ACCOMPLISHED THAT \nPARTICULAR GOAL\, WHICH IS TO \nINCREASE THE BENEFICIAL REUSE OF \nSEDIMENT. HOW ARE WE GOING TO \nKNOW WHEN WE’VE ACCOMPLISHED \nTHAT ONE? \n>>JESSICA FAIN: I THINK THERE IS \nA MORE PHILOSOPHICAL ANSWER. \nI WOULD DEFER TO THE \nPHILOSOPHICAL ANSWER WHICH IS \nHOW MUCH SEDIMENT IS GETTING PUT \nINTO WETLAND AND BENEFICIAL \nREUSE PURPOSES RATHER THAN BEING \nDUMPED OFF INTO THE OCEAN. BUT \nWE DO ALSO ACCOMPANYING OUR \nSTRATEGIC PLAN HAVE SPECIFIC \nSTRATEGIES THAT ACCOMPANY EACH \nOF THE OBJECTIVES AND SO THE \nPRACTICAL ANSWER WOULD BE\, YOU \nKNOW\, WE HAVE A GRANT THAT IS \nHELPING US IMPLEMENT THIS AND \nTHERE’S TASKS ASSOCIATED WITH \nIT. THE FIRST THING IS TO \nDEVELOP THIS ROAD MAP WHICH IS \nSORT OF THIS REGIONAL ACTION \nPLAN AROUND SEDIMENT AND \nBENEFICIAL REUSE WHICH I THINK \nWILL REALLY LAY OUT A LOT OF \nTHOSE METRICS WE WANT TO GET TO \nAS A REGION. AND WE HOPE TO \nAMEND THE BAY PLAN WITH YOUR \nAPPROVAL TO HELP AMEND OUR \nPOLICIES TO GET THERE AS WELL AS \nDEVELOP A FUNDING STRATEGY THAT \nWILL ACCOMPANY THIS THAT IS A \nSORELY NECESSARY PIECE TO \nACTUALLY GET THE WORK DONE. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: IF I CAN \nFOLLOW UP ON THAT. ONE OF THE \nREALLY GREAT PIECES OF NEWS THAT \nWE RECEIVED IN THE PAST MONTH OR \nTWO IS THAT DUE TO THE INCREASE \nIN FUNDING ON THE FEDERAL SIDE \nTHROUGH THE WATER RESOURCES \nDEVELOPMENT ACT WORK WE’VE DONE \nON\, MORE THIS YEAR OF THE \nSEDIMENT HAS ACTUALLY GONE TO \nBENEFICIAL REUSE THAN EVER \nBEFORE. AND SO\, AGAIN\, SO MUCH \nOF IT DEPENDS UPON FUNDING. BUT \nWE WILL CONTINUE TO MAKE — WE \nCONTINUE TO MAKE PROGRESS ON \nTHAT SO LONG AS THE STARS \nALIGN. \nAND FROM MY PERSPECTIVE\, THE \nREALLY INTERESTING BIT\, AS \nJESSICA SAID\, IS THE \nCOMMISSION’S ROLE IN HELPING US \nFIGURE OUT HOW BEST TO AMEND THE \nBAY PLAN TO ENSURE THAT \nBENEFICIAL REUSE ACTUALLY \nHAPPENS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: AND \nI WOULD NOTE THAT IN THIS AREA\, \nAS IN MANY AREAS\, WE DON’T ACT \nALONE. WE ACT IN CONJUNCTION \nWITH OTHER PARTNERS. AND ONE OF \nTHE STRONGEST PIECES OF NEWS WE \nHEARD ON THIS WAS WHEN WE GOT \nTHE REPORT TWO MEETINGS AGO THAT \nTHE ARMY CORPS WAS INCLUDING\, \nREALLY ON THEIR INITIATIVE\, \nBENEFICIAL REUSE AS PART OF THE \nPROJECT. THAT’S A HUGE — \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: HUGE. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: HUGE \nAPPROACH. ARE THERE OTHER \nQUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SEEING \nNONE\, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR \nTHE EFFORT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH \nFOR THE CONTINUED EFFORT ON \nPROGRESS ON THIS. AND THAT WILL \nBRING US TO ITEM 9\, A BRIEFING \nON THE 2023 PROGRESS THE \nCOMMISSION’S ENFORCEMENT \nPROGRAM. OUR ENFORCEMENT POLICY \nMANAGER\, MATTHEW TRUJILLO\, WILL \nPROVIDE THE BRIEFING. \n>>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: GOOD \nAFTERNOON. I’M GOING TO GET SET \nUP HERE. I AM GOING TO SHARE MY \nPOWERPOINT. \nSORRY. \nOKAY. I CAN’T SEE MY NOTES AND \nSHARE THIS AT THE SAME TIME SO I \nAM GOING TO DO MY BEST HERE. MY \nNAME IS MATTHEW TRUJILLO\, \nENFORCEMENT POLICY MANAGER. AND \nTODAY I’M GOING TO TALK ABOUT \nBASICALLY OUR 2023 \nACCOMPLISHMENTS IN THE \nENFORCEMENT PROGRAM. I AM GOING \nTO START BY A REVIEW OF OUR \nENFORCEMENT PROGRAM THAT’S BEEN \nPUT IN PLACE AROUND 2019/2020. I \nWILL TALK ABOUT SOME CASE \nMANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS WE’VE \nDONE IN THE YEAR. GO OVER SOME \nCASE MANAGEMENT DATA. GIVE US \nPROGRESS ON THE OLD AND OLDEST \nCASES IN THE QUEUE. REVIEW SOME \nOF OUR AVAILABLE RESOURCES. AND \nTHEN FINISH ON A HIGH NOTE WITH \nPROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS AND KIND OF \nGO OVER SOME OF MY IDEAS AND \nDESIRES OR GOALS FOR THIS \nUPCOMING 2024. AND ONCE AGAIN\, \nSO OUR PROGRAM GOALS ARE TO THE \nDEFENDANT\, DETERRENCE\, \nTRANSPARENCY\, CONSISTENCY\, AND \nFAIRNESS. DETERRENCE\, WE WANT TO \nREMOVE THE INCENTIVE TO VIOLATE \nTHE LAW. WE WANT TO CLEAR THE \nEXPECTATIONS AND ENSURE THE \nPROCESSES ARE UNDERSTOOD BY THE \nREGULATED COMMUNITY. THAT’S \nTRANSPARENCY. CONSISTENCY IS WE \nMAINTAIN A CLEAR\, DOCUMENTED \nENFORCEMENT PROCESS. AND THEN \nFAIRNESS\, WE TREAT ALL \nVIOLATIONS SIMILAR IN NATURE AND \nIMPACT TO THE BAY AND PUBLIC \nACCESS SIMILARLY. DURING 2023\, \nWE — THIS WAS THE FIRST FULL \nYEAR WE HAD A COMPLIANCE \nPROGRAM\, AND WE’VE WORKED ON \nCOORDINATING CLOSELY WITH THEM. \nKIND OF SETTING UP DEFINING \nROLES AND EXPECTATIONS BETWEEN \nTHE COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT \nSTAFFS AND WHAT I CAN REPORT \nOUT\, HAVING WORKED WITH THEM \nOVER THIS PAST YEAR\, IS THAT \nTHEY’VE BEEN INSTRUMENTAL IN \nASSUMING COMPLIANCE MONITORING \nOF ANY ORDERS WE ISSUED AND \nSETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS WE \nISSUED. \nHOW IT WORKS\, WHEN THE \nCOMMISSION ISSUES AN ORDER OR A \nSETTLEMENT\, THAT ESSENTIALLY \nCLOSES THE ENFORCEMENT CASE. IT \nGOES TO COMPLIANCE TO MAKE SURE \nTHEY RESPONDED TO THAT ORDER OR \nSETTLEMENT FOLLOWS THROUGH\, PAYS \nTHEIR FINES\, MEETS THEIR \nDEADLINES\, DOES WHAT THEY’RE \nORDERED TO DO. THEY’VE ALSO BEEN \nINSTRUMENTAL IN MANAGING REPORTS \nOF IMPENDING AND POSSIBLE \nVIOLATIONS. AND THEY’VE BEEN \nABLE TO RESOLVE ANY ISSUES \nWITHOUT INFORMAL ENFORCEMENT \nACTION. FOR EXAMPLE\, THERE IS A \nKIND OF BOILER PLATE CLAUSE IN \nOUR PERMITS IN THE MANT TANS \nPROVISION THAT — MAINTENANCE \nPROVISION THAT SAYS\, IF WE FIND \nTHERE IS A PUBLIC ACCESS ISSUE \nWITH REGARD TO MAYBE A PIECE OF \nA TRAIL THAT’S IN DISREPAIR OR \nHAS BEEN SHUT DOWN FOR WHATEVER \nREASON\, OFTENTIMES WE WILL REFER \nTHAT TO COMPLIANCE RATHER THAN \nOPENING A CASE BECAUSE THE \nBOILER PLATE LANGUAGE GIVES THAT \nRESPONDENT OR THAT PERMITTEE\, \nRATHER\, 30 DAYS AFTER BEING OFF \nSTANDARD\, 30 DAYS AFTER BEING \nNOTIFIED TO FIX THAT PROBLEM \nBEFORE IT BECOMES AN ACTUAL \nISSUE\, AN ACTUAL PERMIT \nVIOLATION. SINCE THAT’S A COMMON \nISSUE WE RUN UP\, COMPLIANCE HAS \nBEEN REALLY GREAT IN BEING ABLE \nTO WORK WITH THE PERMITTEES TO \nGET THEM ON THE RIGHT TRACK \nBEFORE WE HAVE TO OPEN AN \nENFORCEMENT CASE. THAT’S BEEN \nVERY HELPFUL. MILESTONE \nTRACKING. WE USE OUR TECHNOLOGY \n— TECHNOLOGY I MEAN EXCEL FOR \nTHE FIRST PART TO ORGANIZE DATA \nAND TRACK DEADLINES. \nAPPROXIMATELY 34 OF THE 71 TOTAL \nCASES IN THE QUEUE AS OF THE END \nOF LAST YEAR ARE SUBJECT TO \nMILESTONE TRACKING. \nTHE REMAINDER OF THOSE ARE \nPRE-2020 WHEN WE DIDN’T HAVE THE \nSYSTEM IN PLACE AND THEY ARE \nTREATED A LITTLE SEPARATELY\, A \nLITTLE DIFFERENTLY. WE’RE \nWORKING ON THAT. I’LL GET TO \nTHAT LATER. THEN\, 2023 IS ALSO \nTHE FIRST FULL YEAR WE’VE HAD \nTHE NEW ENFORCEMENT REGULATIONS \nPUT IN PLACE THAT TOOK PLACE AT \nTHE END OF LAST YEAR. THESE HAVE \nBEEN INSTRUMENTAL IN \nFACILITATING MORE EFFICIENT \nCOMMUNICATION. WE’RE NOW ABLE TO \nCOMMUNICATE EXCLUSIVELY \nELECTRONICALLY\, GRANTED WE’VE \nGOT WRITTEN PERMISSION. THAT’S \nBEEN HELPFUL IN TERMS OF GETTING \nTHINGS OUT OF THE DOOR QUICKLY \nAND FACILITATING FAST RESPONSE \nAND EFFICIENT CONVERSATIONS. \nIT’S ALSO PROVIDED\, I \nTHINK CIVIL PENALTY CALCULATION \nPOLICY. THAT’S APPENDIX H OF THE \nREGULATIONS. THAT’S HELPED TO \nSTANDARDIZE HOW WE CALCULATE \nCIVIL PENALTIES TO DO IT MORE \nTRANSPARENTLY\, TO DO IT \nSYSTEM@ICILY — SYSTEMATICALLY. \nAND IT’S BEEN GREAT. IT’S BEEN A \nLEARNING PROCESS\, THOUGH. NEW \nAND IMPROVED TOOLS. FORMAL \nENFORCEMENT DOCKET. THIS WAS \nSTARTED UNDER OUR EX-ENFORCEMENT \nATTORNEY\, BRENT. HE TOOK\, \nCREATED A SPREADSHEET AND \nPROJECTED OUT FOR — I BELIEVE \nIT WAS 2023 — 2022\, MAYBE\, THAT \nWE WANTED TO BRING FORMAL \nENFORCEMENT THAT WAS IN THE \nQUEUE. HAVING COME ON IN MARCH \nOF 2022\, I’VE TAKEN THAT ON AND \nDONE SOME REVISION. I’VE \nIMPROVED THE FORMULA. IT’S MADE \nIT A BIT MORE USER-FRIENDLY\, A \nBIT MORE AUTOMATED AND I DID \nTHAT BASED ON LESSONS LEARNED\, \nSTAFF FEEDBACK AND \nCOLLABORATION. AND ALSO DRAFTED \nAN ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL PENALTY \nCALCULATOR TO MAKE EFFICIENT USE \nOF ALL THE REGULATIONS OR THE \nNEW PROCEDURES AND POLICIES THAT \nARE IN APPENDIX H SO NOW IT’S A \nMATTER OF DATA ENTRY AND THE \nSPREADSHEET WILL CALCULATE CIVIL \nPENALTIES BASED ON THE INPUTS \nAND SPIT OUT A GOOD NUMBER. \nTHAT’S STILL TESTING. THERE’S A \nLOT OF BUGS IN THAT. I’M HOPING \nTO GET THAT PERFECTED THIS \nYEAR. \nWE’LL SEE. IN 2023\, BCDC \nENFORCEMENT OPENED 70 NEW CASES \nTOTAL AND RESOLVED 50 OF THOSE \n70 NEW CASES. OVERALL\, WE’VE \nCLOSED 88 CASES IN 2023. AND THE \nVAST MAJORITY\, AS YOU CAN SEE \nFROM THIS TABLE TO THE RIGHT\, \nWERE OPENED IN THE LAST TWO \nYEARS\, 2023 AND 2022. AND \nIT INCLUDES THE — OH\, WE HAD \nAN OLDEST CASE IN THE QUEUE FROM \n1990. WE WERE ABLE TO RESOLVE \nTHAT IN 2023. WANTED TO CALL \nTHAT OUT. THEN\, PROGRESS ON OLD \nAND OLDEST CASES. SO OUR \nMANAGEMENT PROCEDURES DEFINES \nTHOSE OPENED IN 2016 AND BEFORE \nAND DEFINES OLDEST CASES AS \nTHOSE OPENED IN 2000 AND PRIOR. \nCURRENTLY WE’RE DOWN TO ONE OF \nOUR OLDEST CASES. AND THE NUMBER \nOF OLD CASES IS NOW 19. WE \nREDUCED THE NUMBER OF OLDEST \nCASES BY TWO AND REDUCED THE \nNUMBER OF OLD CASES BY ABOUT 14 \nIN 2023\, WHICH IS A PRETTY GOOD \nACCOMPLISHMENT. OLD AND OLDEST \nCASES COMPROMISE APPROXIMATELY \n52% OF THE TOTAL YEAR-END \nCASELOAD OF 71. IN 2024 WHAT I’M \nDOING IS PRIORITIZING THE OLDEST \nAND OLD CASES FOR RESOLUTION. WE \nUSE THESE RESOURCES TO DO OUR \nWORK. PRIMARILY ARCGIS SYSTEM\, \nWE CALL IT THE DATABASE\, WHERE \nWE’RE ABLE TO PUT PIN DROPS AT \nDIFFERENT PROPERTIES THROUGHOUT \nTHE BAY AREA AND KEEP NOTES. \nTHAT’S KIND OF OUR CASE TRACKING \nMETHOD. WE ALSO HAVE MANY OF OUR \nPERMIT FILES AND OTHER FILES ON \n1DOCSTOP WHICH IS A DATABASE \nTHAT HOLDS P.D.F.’S OF PAPER \nSCANS THROUGHOUT OUR AGENCY. \nIT’S BEEN PRETTY HELPFUL. WE \nWENT TO FULLY ELECTRONIC \nENFORCEMENT RECORDKEEPING. WE \nUSED TO HAVE PAPER FILES. AND WE \nMOVED AROUND 2020\, ESPECIALLY\, \nWE MOVED INTO REALLY TRYING TO \nBRING EVERYTHING ONLINE. WE WERE \nMAINTAINING BOTH OF THOSE FOR A \nWHILE. NOW WE ARE FULLY \nELECTRONIC. WHICH HAS MADE \nTHINGS MUCH MORE EFFICIENT. WE \nHAVE TEMPLATE LETTERS AND FORMS \nWE DEVELOPED TO SUPPORT THESE \n— \nOUR PROGRAM. WE RELY HEAVILY ON \nOUR BAY DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN \nANALYSTS AND OUR ENGINEER TO \nCONSUBJECT ON THINGS — MATTERS \nOF PUBLIC ACCESS\, DESIGN\, AND \nENGINEERING QUESTIONS. AND WE \nHAVE\, OF COURSE\, OUR STAND-BY \nCOMMUNICATION TOOLS. PHONES\, \nEMAILS\, TEAMS\, AND ZOOM. PROGRAM \nHIGHLIGHTS. SO WE ENDED 2023 \nWITH THE LOWEST CASE COUNT IN \nTHE QUEUE BEGINNING SINCE THE \nPROGRAM’S REINVIGORATION EFFORT \nIN 2019. YOU MAY RECALL IT USED \nTO NUMBER IN THE HUNDREDS. NOW \nIT’S DOWN TO ABOUT 71. NOW IT’S \nAROUND 74 BECAUSE WE GOT A FEW \nNEW ONES. WE’RE WORKING THROUGH \nTHAT. BUT PRETTY GOOD. SO I \nWANTED TO MAKE SURE I RECOGNIZED \nTHE COMPLIANCE STAFF FOR \nSTEPPING UP AND HELPING TO SHARE \nTHAT BURDEN. CERTAINLY\, THE \nENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE HAS \nPROVIDED A LOT OF SUPPORT AND \nGUIDANCE OVER THE YEAR. AND OUR \nINDIVIDUAL ANALYSTS\, ADRIAN \nKLEIN AND RACHEL COHEN\, HAVE \nBEEN DEDICATED AND HARD \nWORKING. \nRACHEL COHEN IS OUR NEW \nANALYST. \nSHE’S COME ALONG VERY WELL. OF \nCOURSE\, GREG AND LARRY\, OUR \nSENIOR STAFF\, HAVE PROVIDED \nGREAT SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE. AND \nI CANNOT — WE COULDN’T DO THAT \nWITHOUT MARGIE\, OUR \nADMINISTRATIVE STAFFER. KEEPING \nUS ON TRACK. SHE’S REALLY TAKEN \nOWNERSHIP ON THE TEAM IN TERMS \nOF TRYING TO COORDINATE \nMAILINGS\, COORDINATE OUR \nMEETINGS. REALLY VERY \nIMPORTANT. \nOH\, YEAH. SO WE COLLECTED ABOUT \n— EXCUSE ME. WE COLLECTED \n$425\,000 IN PENALTIES IN 2023\, \nDEPOSITED INTO THE BAY CLEANUP \nAND ABATEMENT FUND. AND JUST \nRECENTLY WE WERE SELECTED FOR \n— \nHONOREE FOR A 2023 GEO FOR GOOD \nAWARD THAT’S AWARDED BY GOOGLE \nEVERY YEAR FOR OUR USE OF OUR \nGOOGLE MAPPING TOOLS\, \nPARTICULARLY GOOGLE EARTH\, \nGOOGLE MAP\, TO ASSIST IN OUR \nINVESTIGATIONS\, RESEARCH\, AND \nMONITORING OF SITES AROUND THE \nBAY. AND IT’S PARTICULARLY \nHELPFUL IN THE MOST REMOTE \nLOCATIONS LIKE UP IN THE MARSH \nWHERE WE CAN’T ACCESS THROUGH \nANY ROAD. WE DON’T HAVE ACCESS \nTHROUGH BOATS OR WATER. WE’RE \nABLE TO\, FOR EXAMPLE\, VIEW \nHISTORIC IMAGERY. WHEN WE GET \nNAVIGATION\, DEPENDING HOW \nUPDATED THEIR DATABASE IS\, WE \nCAN ACTUALLY SEE ACTUAL \nCONDITIONS ARE\, CURRENT \nCONDITIONS ARE\, WITHOUT HAVING \nTO GO OUT THERE OURSELVES. AND \nBEING A SMALL STAFF\, WE REALLY \nRELY ON THESE TECHNOLOGY TOOLS \nTO HELP DO OUR JOB. SO IN \n2024\, I AIM TO PUT MUCH MORE \nHEARINGS BEFORE THE ENFORCEMENT \nCOMMITTEE AND THE COMMISSION \nTHAN WE DID LAST YEAR. ALREADY\, \nOUR DOCKET HAS ABOUT SIX \nCASES. WE’VE STRETCHED OUT TO \nABOUT MAY RIGHT NOW. AND MORE \nWILL BE COMING ON TOP OF THAT\, \nHOPEFULLY. THE WORK CONTINUES TO \nCOORDINATE ENFORCEMENT. OUR \nPROCESSES WITH PERMITS AND \nCOMPLIANCE. MORE COLLABORATION \nTHERE. MORE KIND OF PROCESS \nIMPROVEMENT WOULD BE IDEA. AND \nTHEN WE ARE ALSO REFINING \nEXISTING AND DEVELOPING NEW \nPROCEDURES AND BEST PRACTICES \nBASED ON LESSONS LEARNED IN \n2023. I MENTIONED A COUPLE OF \nTHEM SUCH AS OUR ENFORCEMENT \nDOCKET AND ONE THING I’M ALSO \nDEVELOPING RIGHT NOW IS A — \nBASICALLY A WORKBOOK TO MANAGE A \nCASE WHERE IT SHOULD MAKE IT \nMUCH MORE EFFICIENT TO BE ABLE \nTO ENTER THE INFORMATION OF A \nGIVEN CASE OR A GIVEN RESPONDENT \nAND THEIR ISSUES INTO THE \nWORKBOOK AND THEN HAVE IT \nPOPULATE OTHER TABS THAT WILL \nHELP US TO GENERATE LETTERS AND \nSO FORTH. AND HAVING GOTTEN IT \nWORKING YET BUT I’M WORKING ON \nIT\, I’M CLOSE. SO I’LL BE HAPPY \nTO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS \nTIME. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY \nQUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER \nGILMORE. \n>>MARIE GILMORE: IT’S NOT A \nQUESTION BUT A COMMENT. I REALLY \nWANTED TO THANK MATTHEW AND THE \nENFORCEMENT TEAM FOR THE \nDEDICATION AND THE HARD WORK \nTHAT THEY ALWAYS PUT IN. BUT IN \nPARTICULAR\, THE LAST YEAR\, THEY \nKEPT A STEADY STREAM OF \nENFORCEMENT CASES COMING TO US. \nAND WE’VE HAD SOME REALLY \nPRODUCTIVE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT \nJUST HOW THE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM \nHAS DONE AND IMPROVEMENTS THAT \nCOULD BE MADE. SO IT’S REALLY \nGREAT. THE ONE THING I WANTED TO \nADD WAS ABOUT OLD AND OLDEST \nCASES. I’M NOT SURE HOW MUCH \nTHE COMMISSION REALIZES THAT \nTHOSE CASES ARE REALLY TIME AND \nRESOURCE-INTENSIVE. ONE\, \nBECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF TIME \nTHAT HAS ELAPSED. AND SOMETIMES \nBECAUSE THE PROPERTY HAS CHANGED \nHANDS NOT ONCE BUT MULTIPLE \nTIMES. SO IT DOES TAKE A LOT OF \nTIME\, A LOT OF DETECTIVE WORK\, \nAND THIS IS ON TOP OF OR IN \nADDITION TO THE NEW CASES THAT \nARE COMING IN. SO IT’S — THE \nABILITY TO WORK BOTH ENDS OF THE \nSPECTRUM TOWARDS THE MIDDLE\, \nWORKING THE OLDEST AND OLD CASES \nVERSUS THE NEW CASES THAT ARE \nCOMING IN ON ESSENTIALLY A DAILY \nBASIS AND TRYING TO BALANCE THE \nRESOURCES NEEDED FOR BOTH TO \nKEEP THE PROCESS FLOWING ALONG \nIN A REASONABLE MANNER. AND THAT \nBALANCE IS NOT ALWAYS EASY TO \nSTRIKE\, BUT I THINK THE TEAM \nDOES A REALLY GOOD JOB. AND I \nLOOK FORWARD TO — AND THE REST \nOF THE COMMITTEE LOOKS FORWARD \nTO WORKING WITH YOU AND THE TEAM \nAS WE MAKE EVEN MORE PROGRESS \nOVER THIS YEAR. SO THANK YOU. \n>>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nOTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM \nCOMMISSIONERS? AND I ASSUME WE \nHAVE NO PUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO PUBLIC \nCOMMENT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. COMMISSIONER NELSON. \n>>BARRY NELSON: JUST AN \nENCOURAGING COMMENT THAT THIS IS \nREALLY IMPRESSIVE AND \nENCOURAGING THAT — IF WE STEP \nBACK AND LOOK BACK FIVE YEARS TO \nWHERE — HOW OUR ENFORCEMENT \nPROGRAM LOOKED\, WE MADE ENORMOUS \nSTRIDES. \nWE’RE MAKING PROGRESS BOTH IN \nTERMS OF PROTECTING PUBLIC \nRESOURCES AND IN TERMS OF \nPRESENTING COHERENT COMPLIANCE \nAND ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM TO THE \nPUBLIC. OVER TIME I’M CONFIDENT \nTHAT’S GOING TO MEAN WE HAVE \nLESS ENFORCEMENT PROBLEMS IN THE \nFUTURE. THAT’S REALLY \nENCOURAGING\, ESPECIALLY THE \nDISCUSSION OF COMPLIANCE. THANK \nYOU. \n>>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: YES\, \nSIR. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: THANK YOU\, \nCHAIR GILMORE\, FOR THOSE \nREMARKS. I KNOW THE ENFORCEMENT \nTEAM TAKES HEART IN THAT BECAUSE \nTHEY HAVE A JOB THAT IS REALLY \nDIFFERENT CANDIDLY THAN ANYBODY \nELSE AT BCDC. THEY HAVE TO BE \nTHE BAD GUYS. AND IT’S NOT EASY \nTO DO THAT WITH A SMILE ON YOUR \nFACE THROUGH THE DAY. BUT THEY \nSOMEHOW DO. AND I WILL SAY THAT \nTHINKING OF STRATEGIC PLANS AND \nTHE LIKE\, THERE WAS NO \nCONSIDERATION\, REALLY\, OF \nPUTTING ENFORCEMENT IN REALLY A \nSTRATEGIC PLAN WHEN WE STARTED \nBECAUSE THERE REALLY WASN’T \nANYTHING TO TALK ABOUT EXCEPT WE \nNEED TO DO IT BETTER. AND NOW I \nTHINK WE’RE DEMONSTRATING TO THE \nPUBLIC\, I KNOW WE’RE \nDEMONSTRATING TO THE RESOURCES \nAGENCY THAT WE’RE DOING IT \nWELL. \nAND I THINK IT’S REALLY\, REALLY \nIMPORTANT TO KEEP ON HEARING \nFROM MATTHEW THROUGH THE YEAR TO \nGIVE UPDATES BECAUSE I WANT — I \nWANT US TO SEE THAT 71 NUMBER \nGETTING DOWN TO 50. I MEAN\, \nYOU’RE NEVER PROBABLY GOING TO \nGET BELOW 50\, BUT IF YOU CAN GET \nIT DOWN TO 50\, THAT IS — THAT \nWOULD JUST BE REMARKABLE. AND \nTHE PROBLEM WITH THAT OR THE \nDIFFICULTY WITH THAT — AND IME \nLOOKING — AND I’M LOOKING AT \nMATTHEW AND I THINK I AGREES — \nTHE OLDER CASES AND THE OLDEST \nCASES TAKES SO LONG TO DO\, YOU \nHAVE TO HAVE A PORTFOLIO OF \nDOING THOSE WITH OTHER THINGS AT \nTHE SAME TIME. SO I DON’T KNOW \nWHEN WE’RE GOING TO GET DOWN TO \n50\, BUT I THINK IT’S A GREAT \nGOAL TO DO\, ESPECIALLY \nCONSIDERING\, MATTHEW\, THAT WE \nWERE AT 230-SOMETHING WHEN WE \nSTARTED THIS\, IS THAT RIGHT? \n>>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: YEAH\, JUST \nABOUT. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: SO I THINK \nTHAT SAYS A LOT ABOUT STAFF AND \nSTAFF’S WORK SO THANK YOU VERY \nMUCH FOR ALL YOUR SUPPORT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: AND \nI CERTAINLY WANT TO ECHO THANKS \nTO THE STAFF FOR ALL THAT WORK \nAND THIS FAVORABLE REPORT AND \nTHANK COMMISSIONER GILMORE AND \nOTHER MEMBERS OF THE ENFORCEMENT \nCOMMITTEE FOR THEIR EFFORTS IN \nTHIS AS WELL. ALL RIGHT. THAT \nBRINGS US TO ITEM 10\, BRIEFING \nON THE SAN FRANCISCO WATERFRONT \nCOASTAL FLOOD STUDY DRAFT \nPLAN. \nBCDC’S PLANNING DIRECTOR JESSICA \nFAIN WILL INTRODUCE THE MATTER. \n>>JESSICA FAIN: THANK YOU AND \nGOOD AFTERNOON\, COMMISSIONERS. \nI’LL KEEP THIS BRIEF AND LET THE \nPORT AND ARMY CORPS DO MOST OF \nTHE TALKING BUT OUR NEXT ITEM IS \nON THIS DRAFT\, SAN FRANCISCO \nWATERFRONT COASTAL FLOOD STUDY \nPLAN\, A COLLABORATION BETWEEN \nTHE PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO AND \nTHE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS \nTO ADDRESS COASTAL FLOOD RISK \nAND THE AFFECTED SEA LEVEL RISE \nACROSS 7 1/2 MILES OF THE SAN \nFRANCISCO WATERFRONT FROM \nAQUATIC PARK TO HERRON’S HEAD \nPARK. AND WE’LL START BY TURNING \nIT OVER TO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR \nLANE FORBES FROM THE SPORT OF \nSAN FRANCISCO. \n>>LANE FORBES: GOOD AFTERNOON\, \nCOMMISSIONERS. \n>>ELAINE FORBES: I’M REALLY \nPROUD OF THIS MOMENT BECAUSE IT \nREFLECTS MANY\, MANY YEARS OF \nANALYSIS AND WORK TO BE AT THIS \nPOINT AND SO WE’RE HAPPY TO BE \nAT THIS POINT AND TALK TO YOU \nABOUT THE DRAFT PLAN. YOU \nKNOW\, PROTECTING THE SAN \nFRANCISCO WATERFRONT FROM SEA \nLEVEL RISE AND THE IMMINENT \nTHREAT OF EARTHQUAKE HAS BEEN A \nSERIOUS MATTER AND SOMETHING WE \nMUST ADDRESS BUT SOMETHING \nTHAT’S ALSO REALLY\, REALLY \nCHALLENGING TO FIGURE OUT \nEXACTLY HOW \nTO ADDRESS SO I WANT TO SAY WE \nAPPRECIATE THE GUIDANCE AND NEED \nTHE GUIDANCE OF BCDC IN THIS \nMISSION AS WE ENDEAVOR FOR A \nSAFE AND FLOOD-RESILIENT SAN \nFRANCISCO WATERFRONT. WE’VE HIT \nTHIS MILESTONE AND WE STARTED IN \n2018 ASKING THE SAN FRANCISCO \nVOTERS TO HELP US FIGURE OUT \nTHIS BIG PROBLEM WITH A \n$425 MILLION BOND AND WE’VE \nWORKED VERY CAREFULLY WITH THE \nARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WHO HAVE \nGUIDED US IN HAVING A PLAN OF \nSOLUTION. WE STARTED WITH A LOT \nOF PROBLEMS AND NOW WE HAVE A \nDRAFT PLAN OF SOLUTIONS. \nWHAT DOES THIS PLAN DO? YOU’LL \nSEE FROM OUR TEAM THAT IT WILL \nHAVE THE FLOOD RISK AND THE SEA \nLEVEL RISE ON THE WATERFRONT AND \nTHE CITY AND THE SAN FRANCISCO \nTHAT THE SEA WALL AND OTHER \nPARTS OF OUR WATERFRONT \nPROTECT. THE PLAN IS SHOWING \nHOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND \nTHE POTENTIAL FEDERAL INTEREST \nWOULD RESPOND TO THIS PROBLEM \nAND HOW THEY WOULD BUILD FLOOD \nDEFENSES THAT REALLY TALK ABOUT \nHOW HIGH WE NEED TO GO\, HOW \nWIDE WE NEED TO MAKE THAT \nADAPTATION AND WHERE WE SHOULD \nBUILD THE LINE OF DEFENSE. \nYOU’LL SEE TODAY DOING SO IS AN \nEXPENSIVE ENDEAVOR. \nMULTI-BILLION DOLLARS AT THIS \nPOINT ESTIMATED AT $13 BILLION. \nBUT THAT IS A VERY\, VERY NOT \nDEFINED ESTIMATE WITH THAT \nDESIGN\, ETC.\, BUT IT IS GOING TO \nBE AN EXPENSIVE ENDEAVOR. THE \nONE AMAZING THING IS AS WE MOVE \nFORWARD\, WE WILL HAVE THE ARMY \nCORPS POTENTIALLY INVESTING 65 \nCENTS TO EVERY DOLLAR OF THE \nPLAN — OF THIS PROJECT. AND SO \nTHAT WOULD REPRESENT FOR SAN \nFRANCISCO ONE OF OUR BIGGEST \nFEDERAL INVESTMENTS IN \nINFRASTRUCTURE. SO IT’S A \nTREMENDOUS OPPORTUNITY FOR \nPARTNERSHIP. I WANT TO SAY THAT \nTHE ARMY CORPS HAS BEEN TERRIFIC \nIN FIGURING OUT HOW TO DEVELOP A \nPLAN THAT IS RESPONDING TO \nUNKNOWN CONDITIONS OR FUTURE \nCONDITIONS THAT WILL BE \nCHANGING. AND THIS IS THE FIRST \nMAJOR PLAN WHERE THEY HAVE \nDESIGNED TO UNKNOWN CONDITIONS. \nSO YOU’LL SEE MONITORING AND \nPHASED ACTIONS\, ETC. THE ARMY \nCORPS HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THINGS \nJUST BEYOND COST BENEFITS AND \nYOU’LL SEE OUR VALUES RELATED TO \nEQUITY\, RELATED TO ECOLOGY\, \nRELATED TO A NUMBER OF THINGS \nTHAT MATTER FOR US IN TERMS OF \nHOW WE WOULD PREPARED FOR AND \nDELIVER THE WATERFRONT OF THE \nFUTURE. WE DO HAVE A MILESTONE \nHERE BUT WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK \nAHEAD. WE’RE GOING TO THE PUBLIC \nWITH THIS PLAN AND\, OF COURSE\, \nWE WILL BE WORKING VERY \nCAREFULLY WITH YOUR STAFF AND \nWITH YOU\, COMMISSIONERS\, ON HOW \nTHIS PLAN EVOLVES. WE — WHILE \nWE HAVE A SENSE OF THE \nFOUNDATION AND THE WORK WE NEED \nTO DO TO PREPARE FOR THE SEA \nLEVEL RISE\, WE DON’T HAVE \nDESIGNS FOR WHAT IS ON TOP YET. \nSO WE WANT OUR FUTURE WATERFRONT \nTO BE AT LEAST AS WONDERFUL AND \nPUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE AS WE HAVE \nTODAY SO WE WANT TO LEVERAGE \nOTHER PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE \nINVESTMENTS\, OUR UPGRADES\, OTHER \nPUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND \nUNDERSTANDING WHAT THE CITY AND \nSTATE WANT TO ACCOMPLISH FOR \nTHIS WATERFRONT. I ALSO WANT TO \nLET YOU KNOW CONSTRUCTION WILL \nINEVITABLY HAPPEN OVER DECADES. \nTHERE WILL BE SEQUENCES AND WE \nWILL BE LEVERAGING OPPORTUNITIES \nTO DO THIS SO THE PUBLIC \nMAINTAINS MAXIMUM EXPERIENCE OF \nTHE SAN FRANCISCO WATERFRONT AS \nWE FIGURE OUT HOW TO \nADAPT. OF COURSE\, THE \nIMPLEMENTATION PLAN WILL\, OF \nCOURSE\, TAKE DECADES — \nTHE IMPLEMENTATION IS CRITICAL \nAND WILL TAKE DECADES TO \nIMPLEMENT. SO WE HAVE AMPLE TIME \nTO LOOK AT THE REGULATORY AND \nPOLICY CHANGES THAT INEVITABLY \nWILL NEED TO HAPPEN IN ORDER TO \nBUILD A RESILIENT WATERFRONT\, \nAND WE’RE LOOKING FORWARD TO \nDOING THAT WORK. SO I THINK I \nWILL END WITH AND TURN IT OVER \nTO MY STAFF TO SAY THANK YOU. \nTHANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP TO \nDATE. THANK YOU FOR THE WORK \nTHAT IS TO COME. AS WE MARCH \nFORWARD AND FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO \nVERY — HOW TO TACKLE A VERY BIG \nCHALLENGE ON AN OLD CITY’S HARD \nURBAN EDGE AND SOUTHERN \nWATERFRONT WITH INDUSTRIAL USES \nBUT ALSO MAJOR OPPORTUNITIES FOR \nCOMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT. SO WE \nAPPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT AND WE \nAPPRECIATE YOUR GUIDANCE AS WE \nMOVE THROUGH THIS PROJECT. SO \nWITH THAT I’LL TURN IT OVER TO \nMY TEAM. \n>>BRAD BENSON: THANK YOU\, \nELAINE. I AM THE WATERFRONT \nDIRECTOR. WE WANT TO THANK YOU \nFOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT \nAND ENGAGE WITH STAFF. I \nAM ONLINE IS MELINDA FISHER WHO \nIS THE ENVIRONMENTAL LEAD FOR \nTHE ARMY CORPS TEAM. MELINDA IS \nAVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ON \nTHE PRESENTATION\, AND WE JUST \nREALLY WANT TO EMPHASIZE THE \nPARTNERSHIP ELEMENT OF THIS \nWORK. THIS REALLY IS \nCOLLABORATION BETWEEN THE PORT \nAND THE ARMY CORPS TO PRODUCE \nBOTH THE REPORT AND THE DRAFT \nPLAN THAT I’M GOING TO GO \nTHROUGH. AND I’LL TRY AND MOVE \nTHROUGH QUICKLY SO WE CAN GET TO \nPOLICY DISCUSSION WITH THE \nCOMMISSION. NEXT SLIDE\, \nPLEASE. \nSO AS I THINK MANY OF YOU KNOW\, \nTHE WAY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT \nDECIDES TO INVEST IN WATER \nRESOURCES PROJECTS IS THROUGH \nTHE ARMY CORPS\, THROUGH A \nVARIETY OF GENERAL \nINVESTIGATIONS. WE WERE LUCKY TO \nGET THIS GENERAL INVESTIGATION \nOF COASTAL FLOOD RISK IN 2018. A \nLOT OF HELP FROM OUR \nCONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION IN \nTHAT. THE STUDY IS LOOKING AT AN \nUNUSUALLY LONG PERIOD OF TIME. \nINSTEAD OF 50 YEARS\, 100 YEARS \nFROM 2040 TO 2140. IT’S REALLY \nAN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS TO GUIDE \nTHE RECOMMENDATION TO CONGRESS \nABOUT WHETHER TO INVEST FEDERAL \nFUNDING. AS ELAINE MENTIONED\, \nIT’S A VERY HIGH LEVEL DRAFT \nPLAN AT THIS STAGE. VERY LITTLE \nENGINEERING. JUST ENOUGH TO GET \nTO THIS HIGH LEVEL COST ESTIMATE \nOF $13.5 BILLION. WE EXPECT THAT \nNUMBER TO CHANGE\, AND WE WILL \nKEEP ON SAYING THAT BECAUSE WE \nDON’T WANT FOLKS TO BE SURPRISED \nBY CHANGES IN THE NUMBERS OVER \nTIME. EXCITED THAT THERE IS SUCH \nA POTENTIALLY LARGE FEDERAL\, YOU \nKNOW\, COST SHARE OF 65%. EVEN \nTHE 35% THAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT \nHERE IS A HUGE AMOUNT OF FUNDING \nFOR THE CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO TO \nCOME UP IN THE CONTEXT OF THE \nCITY’S 10-YEAR CAPITAL PLAN. \nWE’LL NEED OTHER SOURCES\, \nINCLUDING STATE SOURCES\, TO \nACCOMPLISH A MATCH ON THIS \nSCALE. I MENTIONED THE \nCOLLABORATION. THE PORT IS THE \nCITY’S LEAD AGENCY\, BUT WE’RE \nVERY KEEN TO INVOLVE OTHER CITY \nAGENCIES. THE WAY SAN FRANCISCO \nIS BUILT OUT\, WE HAVE MAJOR \nINFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS RIGHT UP \nAT THE SHORELINE SO WE NEED \nSFPUC\, PUBLIC WORKS AT THE \nTABLE HELPING US THINK ABOUT \nTHIS PLAN\, HOW TO REFINE IT \nGOING FORWARD. NEXT SLIDE\, \nPLEASE. \nWE’D LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE \nARE ON UNCREDITED ANCESTRAL \nHOMELAND OF THE RAMAYTUSH \nOHLONE WHO ARE THE ORIGINAL \nINHABITANTS OF THE SAN \nFRANCISCO PENINSULA. \nIN ACCORDANCE TO THEIR \nTRADITIONS\, THE RAMAYTUSH \nOHLONE HAVE NEVER CREDITED — \nCEDED\, LOST NOR FORGOTTEN THEIR \nRESPONSIBILITIES AS THE \nCARETAKERS OF THIS PLACE\, AS \nWELL AS FOR ALL PEOPLES WHO \nRESIDE IN THEIR TRADITIONAL \nTERRITORY. AS GUESTS\, WE \nRECOGNIZE THAT WE BENEFIT FROM \nLIVING AND WORKING ON THEIR \nTRADITIONAL HOMELAND. WE WISH TO \nPAY OUR RESPECTS BY \nACKNOWLEDGING THE ANCESTORS\, \nELDERS\, AND RELATIVES OF THE \nCOMMUNITY. NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. \nSO WE HAVE JUST PUBLISHED A LOT \nOF INFORMATION ABOUT THIS STUDY \nAND THE DRAFT PLAN. WE’VE TRIED \nTO MAKE IT ACCESSIBLE ON THE \nPORT’S WEBSITE. FOLKS CAN SEE A \nSTORY MAP THAT WALKS THROUGH THE \nPLAN AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. WE’VE \nALSO GOT THE FULL REPORT \nAVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD\, \nINCLUDING ALL OF THE TECHNICAL\, \nENG ENGINEERING — ENGINEERING\, \nENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS\, \nINCLUDING THE IMPACT ANALYSIS. \nNEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. WE’RE IN \nTHIS VERY CRITICAL PUBLIC \nCOMMENT PERIOD. WE’VE GOT A \nDRAFT PLAN. THE WAY TO THINK \nABOUT THIS PLAN\, IT’S THE WORK \nOF THE DELIVERY TEAM\, THE ARMY \nSTAFF AND PORT STAFF AND \nCONSULTANT TEAM AND IT’S A \nDRAFT. SO WE NEED PUBLIC \nENGAGEMENT AND PUBLIC COMMENT \nDURING THIS PERIOD AND GOING \nFORWARD TO MAKE THIS A BETTER \nPLAN. WE’VE GOT FOUR ARMY \nCORPS-HOSTED NEPA WORKSHOPS \nCOMING UP IN THE LATTER PART OF \nTHE MONTH. AND WE’VE GOT \nMULTIPLE OTHER WAYS FOR MEMBERS \nOF THE PUBLIC TO ENGAGE. NEXT \nSLIDE\, PLEASE. SO I’M GOING TO \nGO OVER BRIEFLY WATERFRONT RISKS \nAND HAZARDS\, WHICH I THINK \nYOU’RE VERY FAMILIAR WITH. I’LL \nTALK ABOUT WHERE WE ARE IN THIS \nSTUDY AND NEXT STEPS. GO OVER \nTHE DRAFT PLAN AT THE HIGHEST \nLEVEL AND THEN\, YOU KNOW\, TALK A \nLITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW WE’RE GOING \nTO BE FURTHER ENGAGING WITH THE \nPUBLIC. NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. SO \nAS WE’RE THINKING ABOUT \nWATERFRONT RISKS AND HAZARDS\, \nWE’RE THINKING ABOUT IT THROUGH \nTHE LENS OF HOW PEOPLE USE THE \nWATERFRONT TODAY. NEXT \nSLIDE. AS DIRECTOR FORBES \nMENTIONED\, WE HAVE AN AMAZING \nWATERFRONT THAT IS HOST TO A LOT \nOF VISITORS SERVING USING\, \nMARITIME FUNCTIONS\, INDUSTRIAL \nUSES ACROSS THE WATERFRONT\, \nNATURAL AREAS LIKE THE HERON’S \nHEAD PARK AREA AND WETLANDS. SO \nWHEN WE’RE TALKING ABOUT RISKS\, \nWE’RE LOOKING AT IT THROUGH THIS \nLENS AND WE’RE ALSO LOOKING AT \nTHE INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITY THAT \nWE’RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY AS AN \nOPPORTUNITY TO LEAVE THE PLACE \nEVEN BETTER THAN IT IS TODAY. \nNEXT SLIDE. SO WE KNOW THAT WE \nHAVE CURRENT FLOOD RISKS IN THE \nCREEKS\, BOTH MISSION CREEK AND \nISLAIS CREEK. THE \nCITY’S RECYCLING FACILITY IS \nLOCATED. \nTHEY GET REGULARLY FLOODED \nDURING KING TIDE EVENTS. ON THE \nLEFT-HAND SIDE OF THIS SLIDE IS \nTHE BOMB CYCLONE THAT OCCURRED \nIN MARCH\, 2023. HAD THIS \nOCCURRED AT AN EXTREME TIDE \nELEVATION\, WE WOULD HAVE \nEXPERIENCED MUCH MORE IN THE WAY \nOF FLOOD DAMAGES. AND WE’RE \nMOSTLY CONCERNED IN THIS AREA \nRIGHT NOW WITH THE EMBARK DARROW \n— EMBARCADERO PORTAL AND THAT \nCONNECTS DOWN TO THE SUBWAY AND \nBART. WE’RE BEING REMINDED OF \nPOTENTIAL FIRST ACTIONS THAT \nCOULD DEAL WITH THE CURRENT \nFLOOD RISK SO WE DON’T HAVE A \nSANDY TYPE OF EXPERIENCE WITH \nOUR SUBWAY. NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. \nWE’VE LEARNED THROUGH THE STUDY \nTHAT SAN FRANCISCO IS VERY \nVULNERABLE TO SEA LEVEL RISE. \nESSENTIALLY WITHOUT ACTION\, \nFEDERAL ACTION\, MUCH OF THE AREA \nTHAT WAS FILLED OVER THE LAST \nCENTURY AND MORE FROM MARITIME \nAND RELATED PURPOSES WOULD BE \nRECLAIMED BY THE BAY ON THE HIGH \nSEA LEVEL RISE PROJECTIONS. \nWITHOUT A FEDERAL PROJECT\, THE \nMODELING IN THE STUDY SHOWS BY \n2050 WHEN WE EXPECT UP TO A FOOT \nOF SEA LEVEL RISE UP TO 500 \nSTRUCTURES AND ASSETS WOULD BE \nVUL VERBAL NO — VULNERABLE TO \nFLOODING. AND BY 2140\, DAMAGES \nCOULD AMOUNT UP TO $23 BILLION. \nAND THAT’S ONE OF THE FACTORS\, \nNOT THE ONLY FACTOR\, THAT WILL \nLEAD THE ARMY CORPS TO A \nPOTENTIAL FEDERAL INTEREST \nFINDING EFFORT. NEXT SLIDE\, \nPLEASE. \n>>SPEAKER: CAN I MAKE ONE POINT \nON THE SLIDE AND APPRECIATE \nTHIS? ONE OF THE THINGS WE’VE \nDONE IN PRESENTATIONS ABOUT SEA \nLEVEL RISE\, THE BAY AREA \nGENERALLY\, IS COMPARE THE COST \nOF DOING NOTHING TO THE COST OF \nATTEMPTING TO MITIGATE OR FIX \nIT. AND THIS WOULD BE A GOOD \nSLIDE FOR YOU TO MAYBE PUT DOWN \nTHE NUMBERS OF WHAT THE \nESTIMATED COST WOULD BE TO THE \nINFRASTRUCTURE AND THE CITY IF \nNOTHING IS DONE. I KNOW YOU \nPROBABLY TALK ABOUT THAT\, \nGENERALLY. I KNOW YOU HAVE. IT \nJUST SEEMS TO ME — IT’S ALWAYS \nSTARK WHENEVER WE SAY HOW MUCH\, \nWHEN WE TALK ABOUT THIS\, WE \nALWAYS SORT OF REPEAT THIS IF \nWE’RE GOING TO TRY TO GET \nSUPPORT IN THE BAY AREA NOR ANY \nFUNDING — FOR ANY \nFUNDING. \n>>BRAD BENSON: AND WE HAD \nSEISMIC HAZARD ON THE \nEMBARCADERO WATERFRONT. WE KNOW \nTHE FILL AREAS BEHIND THE SEA \nWALL AND UNDER THE SEA WALL ARE \nWEAK AREAS THAT WILL NOT PERFORM \nWELL IN AN EARTHQUAKE AND YOU \nSEE THE POTENTIAL DAMAGE THE \nBOTTOM RIGHT PHOTO HERE IS \nLATERAL SPREADING ALONG THE \nEMBARCADERO POST-1909 RIGHT NEAR \nTHE PIER 26 CRUISE TERMINAL \nTODAY AND THOSE SOIL CONDITIONS \nCONTINUE TO EXIST. THE ARMY \nCORPS STUDY QUOTES THE PORT’S \nMULTI-HAZARD RISK ASSESSMENT AND \nTHE REASON I’M SHARING IT TODAY \nIS THE ARMY CORPS DRAFT PLAN \nDOESN’T DEAL WITH ALL OF THE \nEARTHQUAKE RISK ALONG THE \nWATERFRONT. BUT THIS INFORMATION \nIS HELPING US THINK ABOUT HOW TO \nDESIGN COASTAL FLOOD DEFENSES SO \nTHAT THEY WON’T FAIL IN A MAJOR \nEARTHQUAKE. AND THAT’S A BIG \nIMPROVEMENT TO THE WATERFRONT \nTHAT WE HAVE TODAY. NEXT SLIDE\, \nPLEASE. SO THIS STUDY IS REALLY \nLOOKING AT THE 7 1/2 MILES OF \nTHE PORT INJURIES DICTION FROM \nHERON’S HEAD PARK UP TO AQUATIC \nPARK. THERE ARE OTHER EFFORTS \nONGOING IN THE CITY LED BY OTHER \nCITY DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE \nLOOKING AT THE OTHER AREAS OF \nTHE CITY’S PENINSULA. AND THE \nCITY’S SEA LEVEL RISE ACTION \nPLAN POINTS TO A UNIFIED PLAN \nFOR COASTAL FLOOD DEFENSE ON \nBOTH BAY AND OCEAN SIDE. THIS IS \nA BIG STEPPED TOWARD — BIG STEP \nTOWARDS THAT BUT IT’S GOT THE \nWHOLE EFFORT. NEXT SLIDE\, \nPLEASE. SO GETTING INTO THE \nFLOOD STUDY — NEXT SLIDE\, \nPLEASE. WE’VE BEEN AT IT SINCE \n2018. WE’RE AT THIS GREAT \nMILESTONE WHERE WE HAVE A DRAFT \nPLAN. WE ACTUALLY HAVE SOMETHING \nTO SHOW TO THE PUBLIC TO GET \nFEEDBACK ON. WE’RE GOING TO BE \nGETTING TECHNICAL FEEDBACK \nTHROUGH AGENCIES\, INCLUDING \nTECHNICAL FEEDBACK FROM OTHER \nELEMENTS OF THE ARMY CORPS. AND \nTHAT WILL HELP US BUILD A BETTER \nPLAN THAT CAN BE A RECOMMENDED \nPLAN THAT THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS \nWOULD RECOMMEND TO CONGRESS IN \n2026. IT’S ONLY IF CONGRESS \nAUTHORIZES THE PROJECT THAT THAT \nWOULD OPEN THE DOOR TO FUNDING \nFOR DESIGN AND LATER \nCONSTRUCTION. AND WE DON’T \nEXPECT CONSTRUCTION TO START \nUNTIL AFTER 2030. AND\, AGAIN\, \nLIKELY IT WOULD OCCUR OVER \nDECADES. NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. SO \nWE HAVE ASSESSED MULTIPLE \nSCENARIOS FOR SEA LEVEL RISE. \nTHE ARMY CORPS HAS ONE SET OF \nPROJECTIONS THAT THEY TYPICALLY \nUSE IN THEIR PLANNING. WE’VE \nALSO USED THE O.P.C. PROJECTIONS \nTO LOOK AT DIFFERENT SCENARIOS. \nAND ESSENTIALLY\, THE WAY TO \nTHINK ABOUT THE PLAN IS WE’RE \nNOT PICKING ONE SCENARIO TO \nINFORM THE PLANNING PROCESS. \nWE’RE LOOKING AT HOW PLANS \nRESPOND TO A RANGE OF SEA LEVEL \nRISE SCENARIOS AND COMING UP \nWITH AN ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT \nSTRATEGY THAT CAN RESPOND TO ALL \nOF THOSE SCENARIOS. NEXT SLIDE\, \nPLEASE. SO ESSENTIALLY\, THE PATH \nTO THE DRAFT PLAN HAS BEEN THAT \nRISK ANALYSIS\, LOOKING AT THE \nFLOOD RISK AND IMPACTS TO \nCOMMUNITIES. WE’VE BEEN OUT \nPUBLICLY TRYING TO ENGAGE AND \nUNDERSTAND PUBLIC VALUES FOR THE \nWATERFRONT OVER THE LAST SIX \nYEARS. IN LATE 2023\, WE ISSUED \nSEVEN DRAFT STRATEGIES THAT \nLOOKED AT THINGS FROM RETREATING \nTO DEFENDING AT THE CURRENT \nSHORELINE TO LIVING WITH WATER \nIN SOME LOCATIONS. WE GOT \nFEEDBACK ON THOSE DIFFERENT \nSTRATEGIES. AND THEN WENT INTO \nSORT OF A PROCESS WITH CITY \nAGENCIES AND THE ARMY CORPS’S \nCOST AND BENEFIT ANALYSIS \nPROCESS TO SELECT THE BEST \nELEMENTS OF THOSE STRATEGIES TO \nCOME UP WITH THE DRAFT PLAN. \nNEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. SO THESE ARE \nTHE PUBLIC VALUES THAT WE’VE \nHEARD MOST REPEATED IN THE \nPUBLIC PROCESS. I WON’T GO \nTHROUGH EACH OF THESE\, BUT IT’S \nBEEN THE JOB OF THE PORT’S \nPLANNING TEAM TO BRING THESE \nVALUES FORWARD IN THE PLANNING \nPROCESS\, AND NOW WE’RE GOING TO \nGO THROUGH A PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT \nPROCESS TO SEE HOW THE PUBLIC \nTHINKS ABOUT HOW WE’VE \nINCORPORATED THOSE IN THE PLAN. \nNEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. THE ARMY \nCORPS\, HISTORICALLY\, HAS LOOKED \nAT THE MOST ECONOMICALLY \nEFFICIENT PROJECT TO ADDRESS THE \nFLOOD PROBLEM. IT’S SOMETHING \nCALLED THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC \nDEVELOPMENT PLAN. AND THAT HAS \nGOVERNED CORPS PLANNING FOR MUCH \nOF THE PAST 30 YEARS. THEY’RE AN \nORGANIZATION IN CHANGE. THEY \nHAVE NEW GUIDANCE FROM THE \nA.S.A.\, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF \nTHE ARMY\, TO LOOK AT \nCOMPREHENSIVE BENEFITS. THIS IS \nWHAT DIRECTOR FORBES WAS TALKING \nABOUT EARLIER. SO WE’RE LOOKING \nAT REGIONAL EFFECTS OF THE PLAN\, \nENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES\, LIKE \nHABITAT AND ENVIRONMENTAL \nIMPACTS\, AND THEN OTHER SOCIAL \nEFFECTS THAT PARTICULARLY \nIMPACTS VULNERABLE POPULATIONS. \nSO THE STUDY HAS METRICS IN EACH \nOF THESE CATEGORIES THAT HELPED \nINFORM PLAN SELECTION AND WE \nTHINK THIS IS A BETTER WAY TO \nGET TO A MULTI-BENEFIT PLAN. \nNEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. THIS IS — \nTHIS IS A FIRST\, A BIT OF A \nFIRST FOR THE ARMY CORPS. \nTYPICALLY WHEN THEY COME INTO A \nLOCAL JURISDICTION\, THEY’RE \nIDENTIFYING A FLOODING PROBLEM. \nTHEY COME UP WITH A PLAN\, \nIMPLEMENT IT\, AND HAND IT OFF \nFOR LOCAL MAINTENANCE. SO \nKIND OF A ONE AND DONE \nSCENARIO. HERE WE’RE LOOKING AT \nMANAGING RISK OVER TIME. SO THE \nPLAN INCLUDES FIRST ACTIONS THAT \nREPRESENT THAT $13.5 BILLION \nTHAT WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER. \nAND THEN\, MONITORING\, LOOKING AT \nGREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS\, RATES \nOF ICE SHEET MELT\, OTHER FACTORS \nINFLUENCING SEA LEVEL RISE TO \nDETERMINE THE TIMING OF \nSUBSEQUENT ADAPTATIONS TO \nADDRESS HIGHER RATES OF SEA \nLEVEL RISE. AND THEN THE EARLY \nPROJECTS THAT YOU SEE HERE ARE \nRELATED TO THE PROP AND FUNDING \nWE — PROP A THAT WE GOT FROM \nSAN FRANCISCO VOTERS. NEXT \nSLIDE\, PLEASE. DIRECTOR FORBES \nREALLY WENT OVER THIS. THE PLAN \nIS TRYING TO ANSWER THESE VERY \nHIGH-LEVEL QUESTIONS ABOUT WHERE \nTO BUILD FLOOD DEFENSES\, HOW \nHIGH. AND YOU’LL SEE THAT VARIES \nIN DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE \nWATERFRONT. HOW MUCH SPACE TO \nUSE. WE’RE TRYING TO GAIN \nELEVATION OVER SPACE TO MAINTAIN \nTHE CONNECTION WITH THE BAY. \nTHAT ALSO HELPS US ADDRESS THOSE \nWEAK SOIL CONDITIONS THAT I \nSHOWED YOU EARLIER. AND THEN HOW \nFLOOD DEFENSES CAN BE ADAPTED \nTHROUGH SUBSEQUENT ACTION. NEXT \nSLIDE\, PLEASE. WE’RE VERY EARLY \nIN THE PROCESS SO WE DON’T HAVE \nANY DETAILED DESIGN OF THESE \nFLOOD DEFENSES. WE HAVEN’T \nDESIGNED THE PUBLIC REALM YET. \nWE DON’T HAVE THAT CONSTRUCTION \nSEQUENCES OR PLAN FOR THE LOCAL \nMATCH. WE TEND TO DEVELOP THAT \nIN LATER STAGES OF WORK WITH \nROBUST PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT. AND WE \nNEED TO THINK ABOUT — OTHER \nINVESTMENTS THAT ARE HAPPENING \nALONG THE WATERFRONT\, WHETHER \nIT’S IN PIERS ALONG THE PORT\, \nWHETHER IT’S OTHER \nINFRASTRUCTURE. AND THEN HOW DO \nWE KNIT THIS ARMY CORPS \nINVESTMENTS WITH OTHER \nINVESTMENTS THAT ARE HAPPENING \nAROUND THE WATERFRONT IN A \nRATIONAL WAY? NEXT SLIDE\, \nPLEASE. SO THE DRAFT REPORT THAT \nIS OUT ON THE STREET RIGHT NOW \nINCLUDES AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT \nSTATEMENT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE \nNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY \nACT. AND THERE’S OTHER FEDERAL \nLAWS THAT THE ARMY CORPS WILL \nHAVE TO COMPLY WITH IN ORDER TO \nGET THIS PROJECT AND STUDY OFF \nTHE GROUND INCLUDING COMPLIANCE \nUNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT\, THE \nNATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION \nACT AND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES \nACT. AND BCDC IS WORKING WITH \nOUR WORKING GROUP. AND WE \nAPPRECIATE THE STAFF AND OTHER \nAGENCIES WHO ARE PROVIDING \nFEEDBACK ON THE PLAN. NEXT \nSLIDE\, PLEASE. THIS IS A LOT OF \nINFORMATION ON THIS SLIDE\, BUT \nWE WANTED TO SUMMARIZE JUST THE \nVERY HIGH LEVEL ENVIRONMENTAL \nIMPACT ANALYSIS. IT’S INFORMED \nBY THE LEVEL OF DESIGN THAT WE \nHAVE RIGHT NOW. SO WE HAVE A \nLOW-LEVEL OF DESIGN. THE IMPACT \nANALYSIS FOLLOWS WHAT WE KNOW \nTODAY. YOU KNOW\, IT HAS LOOKED \nAT APPROXIMATELY 50 RESOURCES \nLOOKING AT BAY FILL\, YOU KNOW\, \nETC.\, ACROSS THE TOP. WE ARE \nSEEING IN THE PLAN VERY LIMITED \nBAY FILL. ACTUALLY\, THE EIGHT \nACRES YOU’RE SEEING HERE RELATES \nTO SOME POTENTIAL ADDITIONS TO \nTHE PLAN THAT ARE OPTIONS FOR \nTHE FERRY BUILDING. AN AREA JUST \nSOUTH OF THE FERRY BUILDING THAT \nIS VERY CONSTRAINED. YOU HAVE \nTHE TUNNEL RIGHT NEAR THE \nSHORELINE. SO WE’RE TRYING TO \nPROVIDE SOME FLEXIBILITY IN THE \nENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FOR \nFUTURE DESIGN. NEXT SLIDE\, \nPLEASE. SO JUST GOING THROUGH \nTHE DRAFT PLAN\, NEXT \nSLIDE. THIS PRESENTS THE DRAFT \nPLAN AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. WHAT \nYOU’RE SEEING HERE IN YELLOW IS \nTHE GENERAL AREA ALONG THE \nEXISTING SHORELINE THAT WOULD BE \nELEVATED TO DEAL WITH EITHER A \nFOOT AND A HALF OF SEA LEVEL \nRISE OR 3 1/2 FEET OF SEA LEVEL \nRISE. THAT 3 1/2 FEET IS REALLY \nBETWEEN THE BAY BRIDGE AND \nTELEGRAPH HILL AND I’LL GET INTO \nWHY. THE SHORELINE WOULD BE \nSTABILIZED IN THAT AREA. WE’RE \nLOOKING TO ADD NATURE-BASED \nFEATURES WHEREVER WE CAN. \nADOPTING THE HISTORIC RESOURCES \nTHAT STRADDLE THE SHORELINE. \nTHEN\, AS WE RAISE THE SHORELINE \n— AND I THINK YOU’RE AWARE OF \nTHIS — WE HAVE A STORMWATER \nISSUE. THE CITY OPERATES NOW \nRELYING ON THE COMBINED SEWER \nSYSTEM BUT EXTREME RAIN EVENTS \nTRAVEL ALONG THE STREETS AND \nFIND LOW POINTS IN THE \nSHORELINE\, WE’RE GOING TO HAVE \nTO COME UP WITH A NEW SYSTEM FOR \nMANAGING THAT STORMWATER THROUGH \nSTORAGE AND PUMPING\, GREEN \nINFRASTRUCTURE\, AND OTHER \nSTRATEGIES. AND THE PLAN \nINCLUDES FUNDING FOR THAT. \nAND THEN I’LL POINT OUT IN THE \nFISHERMAN’S WHARF AREA\, IT’S A \nBIT HIGHER THERE. WE’RE SEEING \nLESS FLOOD DAMAGES IN THE NEAR \nTERM. SO THE INITIAL STRATEGY IN \nTHE WHARF AREA IS FLOOD-PROOFING \nOF INDIVIDUAL BUILDINGS AND \nPIERS. LET ME GO INTO SOME OF \nTHOSE DETAILS AND THEN I’LL WRAP \nUP. NEXT SLIDE\, \nPLEASE. \nSO THE WHARF AREA IS A FOOT OR \nMORE THAN OTHER AREAS OF THE \nSHORELINE. YOU SEE ON THIS \nSLIDE\, IT’S ALSO PROTECTED IN \nSOME AREAS BY BREAKWATERS WHICH \nKNOCK DOWN WAVE ACTION. AND SO \nTHE PROPOSAL IS FOR A SMALLER \nINITIAL INVESTMENT IN THE WHARF \nTHAT WOULD FLOOD-PROOF \nINDIVIDUAL BUILDINGS AND PUT \nSHORT FLOOD WALLS AROUND PIERS. \nNEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. AS A \nRESULT\, WE’RE REALLY NOT SEEING \nA BIG SORT OF INVESTMENT IN THE \nSHORELINE THAT WOULD DEAL WITH \nTHAT SHORELINE STABILITY \nPROBLEM. AND WE’RE REALLY GOING \nTO HAVE TO RELY ON CITY \nINVESTMENT LIKE OUR PROP A \nPROJECTS TO IMPROVE THE \nSHORELINE. WE HAVE ONE GOING NOW \nTHAT WILL STABILIZE PART OF THAT \nSHORELINE. THROUGH MONITORING\, \nTHE ARMY CORPS PLAN INCLUDES \nMORE LATER\, ROBUST ACTIONS FOR \nTHE WHARF THAT WOULD ELEVATE THE \nSHORELINE. NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. \nIN THIS EMBARCADERO AREA OF THE \nWATERFRONT\, WE’RE SEEING A VERY \nROBUST FIRST MOVE THAT WOULD \nELEVATE THE SHORELINE TO DEAL \nWITH 3 1/2 FEET OF SEA LEVEL \nRISE\, STABILIZE THE SOILS\, RAISE \nTHE FERRY BUILDING\, BUILD NEW \nWHARFS AND PUT BULKHEAD \nBUILDINGS AT HIGHER ELEVATION \nWITH A TRANSITION DOWN TO \nEXISTING PIERS. SO THE PLAN \nDOESN’T ELEVATE THE PIERS\, BUT \nIT PROPOSES TO PUT SHORT FLOOD \nWALLS AROUND THE PIERS. \nTHIS IS PARTLY BECAUSE IT’S \nSUCH A HIGHLY DEVELOPED AREA OF \nTHE WATERFRONT. THE THINK WAS \nGOING ONCE\, DO MAJOR DISRUPTION\, \nAND HAVE IT LAST FOR A MUCH \nLARGER PERIOD OF TIME AND GET \nINTO THIS AREA RATHER THAN \nDISRUPT MULTIPLE TIMES. NEXT \nSLIDE\, PLEASE. THIS SHOWS YOU A \nBIT HOW WE WOULD IMPROVE\, YOU \nKNOW\, THE SOILS UNDER THE \nEMBARCADERO. \nGAIN ELEVATIONS TOWARDS A HIGHER \nSHORELINE TO NEW HIGHER WHARVES \nWITH THE BULKHEAD BUILDINGS \nNEAR THE TOP AND HELP WITH THE \nPIERS. \nNEXT SLIDE. AS A RESULT OF THIS \nROBUST INVESTMENT\, THE PLAN \nDOESN’T INCLUDE A PROPOSED \nSECOND ACTION IN THIS AREA BUT \nWE’RE LOOKING AT SPENDING \nPROPOSITION A FUNDING FOR THINGS \nLIKE DOWNTOWN COASTAL RESILIENCE \nPROJECTS THAT WOULD PROTECT THE \nPORTAL. NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. \nMISSION BAY IS VERY VULNERABLE \nTO FLOODING. THE PLAN HERE WOULD \nRAISE THE SHORELINE TO ADDRESS A \nFOOT AND A HALF OF SEA LEVEL \nRISE WITH GROUND IMPROVEMENTS \nAND STABILIZING THE SHORELINE. \nTHERE’S A LOT MORE OPPORTUNITIES \nFOR NATURE-BASED ADAPTATION. \nTHERE WOULD BE SHORT FLOOD WALLS \nAROUND THE PIERS IN THIS AREA. \nAND THEN NEXT SLIDE. WE HAVE THE \nUNIQUE FEATURE OF THE BRIDGES \nACROSS THE CREEKS\, WHICH ARE A \nPOTENTIAL ENTRY POINT FOR WATER \nDURING EXTREME EVENTS TO GET \nINTO SURROUNDED NEIGHBORHOODS. \nSO AS WE RAISE THE BANKS OF THE \nCREEKS\, WE HAVE TO HAVE \nDEEMPLOYABLES FOR THE BRIDGES \nTO\, YOU KNOW\, THAT CAN BE \nTEMPORARILY DEPLOYED DURING \nEXTREME EVENTS. NEXT SLIDE\, \nPLEASE. SO THAT THE ACTIONS HERE \nGET UP TO A FOOT AND A HALF OF \nSEA LEVEL RISE WITH LATER \nACTIONS TO RAISE THE SHORELINE \nTO ADDRESS 3 1/2 FEET OF SEA \nLEVEL RISE BASED ON THAT \nMONITORING EFFORT. I’LL GO TO \nTHE NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. AND \nFINISH UP WITH THE PORT’S \nSOUTHERN WATERFRONT WHICH IS \nWHERE OUR MARITIME INDUSTRIAL \nFACILITIES ARE. WE GOT LIGHT \nINDUSTRY AND BUS FACILITIES \nAROUND THE CREEK IN THIS AREA. \nHERE WE WOULD BE RAISING THE \nSHORELINE TO DEAL WITH A FOOT \nAND A HALF OF SEA LEVEL RISE \nWITH GROUND IMPROVEMENTS\, \nNATURE-BASED FEATURES IN THE \nCREEKS. THE GATE CLOSURE \nSTRUCTURES ONLY ON THE ILLINOIS \nSTREET BRIDGE BECAUSE THE CITY’S \nIN THE PROCESS OF REPLACING THE \nTHIRD STREETLIGHT RAIL BRIDGE AT \nA HIGHER ELEVATION. SO THAT’S A \nSEPARATE ADAPTATION OUTSIDE OF \nTHE PROJECT. I THINK I’M GOING \nTO TRY AND WRAP UP NOW AND GET \nTO BACK AND FORTH WITH THE \nCOMMISSION. CAN WE GO TO THE \nNEXT SLIDE AND LET’S SKIP OVER \nTHIS? AND SO THE SUBSEQUENT \nACTIONS GO TO A FOOT AND A HALF \nOF SEA LEVEL RISE WITH \nADAPTATION SUBJECT TO MONITORING \nWITH A LATER MOVE AT 3 1/2 FEET \nOF SEA LEVEL RISE. NEXT SLIDE\, \nPLEASE. NEXT \nSLIDE. SO WE’RE REALLY THINKING \nABOUT NEXT STEPS HERE WITH YOU \nAND YOUR STAFF. \nWE’VE GOT THE RESOURCE AGENCY \nWORKING GROUP. WE’RE GOING TO BE \nGOING BACK TO THE WORKING GROUP \nIN THIS PERIOD OF TIME TO MAKE \nSURE THAT WE GET TECHNICAL \nCOMMENT FROM EACH AGENCY. SO \nTHAT WOULD INCLUDE THE REGIONAL \nWATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD\, ALL \nTHE NATURAL RESOURCE AGENCIES AT \nTHE FEDERAL AND STATE LEVEL TO \nINFORM BOTH THE IMPACT ANALYSIS \nAND MITIGATION AS WELL AS \nPOTENTIAL CHANGES TO THE PLAN. \nWE’RE GOING TO BE GOING UP TO \nTHE CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS \nCOMMISSION AND PRESENTING TO \nTHEM ON MONDAY. WE’RE \nPARTICIPATING IN YOUR REGIONAL \nSHORELINE ADAPTATION EFFORT. \nADAM AND LUIS ARE BOTH MEMBERS \nOF THE WORKING GROUP. AND SO \nWE’RE REALLY EAGER TO LEARN HOW \nTHE REGIONAL EFFORT CAN INFORM \nWHAT WE’RE DOING AND HOW WE CAN \nALSO EDUCATE PEOPLE ABOUT THE \nARMY CORPS PROCESS. NEXT SLIDE\, \nPLEASE. WE’RE SUPER EXCITED \nABOUT THIS. EVEN THOUGH IT’S \nGOING TO UNFOLD OVER A LONG \nPERIOD OF TIME\, IT’S A LEVEL OF \nINVESTMENT IN THIS WATERFRONT \nTHAT CANNOT ONLY DEAL WITH THE \nRESILIENCE ISSUES THAT WE’RE \nTALKING ABOUT TODAY\, BUT IT \nCOULD LEAD TO EXCITING \nINVESTMENTS IN NEW RAIL \nIMPROVEMENTS\, ADAPTATION OF \nRESOURCES\, IMPROVE \nTRANSPORTATION ALONG THE \nWATERFRONT. SO IT REALLY IS A \nGENERATIONAL OPPORTUNITY. IT’S A \nBIG CHALLENGE IN TERMS OF THE \nFUNDING\, BUT ALSO A GREAT \nOPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY. SO I \nTHINK I’LL CLOSE THERE AND \nWELCOME QUESTIONS FROM THE \nCOMMISSION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC \nCOMMENT? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO PUBLIC \nCOMMENT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nQUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS. \nCOMMISSIONER PESKIN. \n>>AARON PESKIN: THE MAGNITUDE IS \nHARD TO GET YOUR HEAD AROUND. AS \nMR. BENSON SAID\, SUBJECT TO \nPLENTY OF CHANGE. THIS IS A VERY \nPRELIMINARY PLAN. MAYBE 20 \n30 FEDERAL FUN. I GUESS MY \nQUESTION IS\, MR. BENSON\, HOW DO \nYOU ENVISION THE PUBLIC \nENGAGEMENT AND PUBLIC COMMENT IN \nTHE 60 DAYS? LIKE\, WHAT IN THE \nHECK — \nEVEN AN ORGANIZATION LIKE BCDC \n— LIKE\, HOW DO YOU EVEN MAKE \nCOMMENT ON THIS? YOU CAN SAY\, \nYES\, I THINK THIS IS GREAT THAT \nYOU’RE FLOOD-PROOFING IN THE \nFISHERMAN WHARF’S AREA AND DOING \nADAPTATION IN THE CREEK AREA. I \nMEAN\, HOW DO YOU EVEN COMMENT ON \nTHIS? AND ARE THERE \nOPPORTUNITIES FOR MORE COMMENT \nAS THINGS BECOME MORE REFINED \nAND BECOME FINE GRAINED? \n>>BRAD BENSON: THAT’S ACTUALLY \nAN ISSUE WE’VE BEEN REALLY \nWORRIED ABOUT. IT IS SUCH AN \nOVERWHELMING SET OF ISSUES AND \nTHE PLAN\, IT EFFECTS SUCH A \nLARGE PART OF THE WATERFRONT. \nIT’S HARD FOR THE PUBLIC TO HEAR \nTHE INFORMATION AND THEN HAVE AN \nIMMEDIATE REACTION TO \nIT. IT’S A BIT MORE CHALLENGING \nGIVEN THE PLAN. WE’RE OFFERING \nWHEN WE ARE REPORTING WITH PORT \nTENANTS OR NEIGHBORHOOD-BASED \nORGANIZATIONS TO BRAINSTORM WITH \nFOLKS ABOUT THE PLAN. IF THEY \nDON’T REALLY KNOW HOW TO RESPOND \nTO THE PLAN BUT\, LET’S SAY AS AN \nEXAMPLE\, THEIR INTEREST MIGHT BE \nHISTORIC PRESERVATION\, WE’RE \nOFFERING TO MEET WITH FOLKS\, \nTALK IN A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL \nABOUT HOW THE PLAN AFFECTS \nHISTORIC RESOURCES\, WHAT THE \nIMPACTS ARE WE’RE SEEING\, HOW \nIT’S INVESTIGATING IN THOSE \nHISTORIC RESOURCES AND THEN JUST \nBEING AVAILABLE FOR A \nBRAINSTORMING ABOUT HOW THEY \nMIGHT COMMENT HOW THE PLAN IN A \nWAY THAT MIGHT ACTUALLY AFFECT \nTHE PLAN. SO THAT’S ONE STRATEGY \nTHAT WE’RE \nUSING. I THINK GOING TO MAYBE \nTHE OTHER POINT EMBEDDED IN YOUR \nQUESTION\, THIS IS NOT THE ONLY \nOPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. \nTHIS IS THE NEPA PUBLIC COMMENT \nPERIOD. AND WE REALLY SEE A \nPROCESS WHERE WE GET INTO THE \nDESIGN PHASE OF THE WORK. \nDIRECTOR FORBES TALKED ABOUT\, \nLIKE\, WE HAVEN’T DESIGNED WHAT \nGOES BACK ON TOP YET\, THE PUBLIC \nREALM. I THINK IN TERMS OF OUR \nSAN FRANCISCO PLANNING EFFORTS\, \nWHEN WE CAN GET INTO A SPECIFIC \nDISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT’S \nHAPPENING IN A SPECIFIC LOCATION \nALONG THE WATERFRONT\, HOW IT’S \nGOING TO AFFECT HOW PEOPLE USE \nTHAT AREA OF THE WATERFRONT\, I \nTHINK WE’LL GET MUCH MORE \nENGAGEMENT AND SORT OF FEEDBACK \nAS TO HOW TO FURTHER SHAPE THE \nPLAN. SO WE’RE NOT LOOKING AT \nTHIS AS THE ONLY PUBLIC COMMENT \nPERIOD. WE’RE LOOKING AS THE \nFIRST OF MANY. \n>>AARON PESKIN: AND THEN MAYBE \nTHIS IS A QUESTION TO \nOURSELVES. \nWHAT IS THE ROLE IN BCDC? ARE WE \nGOING TO SPECIAL AREA PLAN\, BAY \nFILL QUESTIONS\, 50% RULES? I \nMEAN\, WHERE — THIS — I MEAN\, \nARE WE GOING TO TOTALLY — 2030 \nIS ACTUALLY NOT VERY FAR AWAY. \nAND THIS IS UNDERGOING FEDERAL \nENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. WHAT’S THE \nROLE OF BCDC — I UNDERSTAND \nWE’RE INVOLVED. BUT WHAT’S OUR \nROLE? \n>>ELAINE FORBES: I’D LIKE TO \nMAKE SOME COMMENTS AND ALSO GO \nBACK TO YOUR PRIOR QUESTION\, \nCOMMISSIONER PESKIN. THE ROLE OF \nBCDC IS ENORMOUS HERE BECAUSE WE \nHAVE TO MAKE THESE IMPROVEMENTS \nCONSISTENT WITH THE VISION OF \nBCDC AND THE PUBLIC WATERFRONT \nWE’RE SEEKING TO RETAIN. AND \nTHERE’S CERTAINLY LEGISLATIVE \nAND POLICY CHANGES THAT NEED TO \nBE MADE TO DELIVER A \nCOST-EFFECTIVE PROJECT HERE AND \nTO MAXIMIZE PUBLIC BENEFITS. \nWE’LL NEED THIS COMMISSION AND \nSTAFF WILL NEED TO RETHINK \nTHINGS LIKE THE FILL REMOVAL \nREQUIREMENTS AND WHAT PUBLIC \nACCESS LOOKS LIKE IN A \nWATERFRONT THAT REQUIRES A \nHIGHER — A HIGHER AND BROKEN \nFABRIC FROM THE HISTORIC \nSHORELINE HEIGHTS. AND SO THERE \nIS JUST MANY\, MANY \nCONSIDERATIONS HERE. AND I THINK \nTHAT IS THE DIALOGUE THAT WILL \n— WE WILL NEED TO HAVE THE \nCOLLABORATION AND DIRECTION WE \nWILL NEED TO HAVE ALONG WITH THE \nSTATE LANDS COMMISSION TO GET \nTHIS RIGHT. SO IT IS AN ENORMOUS \nCHALLENGE MOVING FORWARD. AND \nONE OF THE KEY CHALLENGES\, \nACTUALLY I THINK\, TO HAVE A \nSUCCESSFUL PROJECT COMPLETED. \nAND BACK TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT\, \nI THINK MR. BENSON SAID IT \nRIGHT. IT IS A CONCERN WE’RE \nHAVING. I DO WANT TO RECOGNIZE \nTHAT PRIOR PUBLIC COMMENT WE \nHEARD VERY\, VERY STRONGLY THE \nCONNECTION AND ATTACHMENT TO THE \nFERRY BUILDING AND THE ARMY \nCORPS OF ENGINEERS FOUND \nPRELIMINARY FEDERAL INTEREST IN \nTHE IMPORTANCE OF THIS HISTORIC \nRESOURCE NATIONALLY TO \nCONTRIBUTE TO RAISING THAT \nBUILDING. SO THAT IS AN EXAMPLE \nOF — \n>>AARON PESKIN: THAT’S RAISING \nWITH AN S AND NOT A Z? \n>>ELAINE FORBES: YES. I WANT TO \nTELL YOU HOW PUBLIC COMMENT \nWHILE WE’RE IN THE CONCEPTUAL \nPHASES HAS AN IMPACT. \n>>AARON PESKIN: I CAN SEE FOR \nBCDC AND FOR THE PORT A LOT OF \nINHERENT CONFLICTS IN BOTH OF \nOUR ARGUABLY SHARED MISSIONS. I \nMEAN\, ON THE ONE HAND\, WHEN YOU \nTALK ABOUT CONNECTION TO THE \nWATERFRONT AND ON THE OTHER HAND \nYOU TALK ABOUT HISTORIC \nPRESERVATION WHICH AT LEAST IN \nTHE CASE OF THE ICONIC FERRY \nBUILDING MEANS RAISING IT UP \nSEVERAL FEET\, YOU’RE ALSO \nCUTTING OFF CONNECTION TO THE \nWATERFRONT. THERE’S A LOT OF \nCOMPLEX STUFF HERE. HOW HIGH ARE \nYOU TALKING ABOUT? SIX FEET? \n>>BRAD BENSON: I DON’T WANT TO \nGET INTO EXACT NUMBERS BECAUSE \nIT VARIES DEPENDING ON THE AREA \nYOU’RE AT. THERE IS A LOW POINT \nJUST SOUTH OF THE FERRY BUILDING \nTHAT’S ABOUT EIGHT OR NINE \nFEET. \nOUR CURRENT DESIGN ELEVATION \nTHAT WE’RE LOOKING AT FOR THAT \nAREA IS TO GET UP TO ABOUT 15 \n1/2 FEET. FROM URBAN DESIGN PER \nEXPECT\, YOU CAN IMAGINE HOW \nDIFFICULT IT IS TO GET UP TO \nTHAT HIGHER LEVEL. WHICH IS PART \nOF WHY WE’RE LOOKING AT HOW MUCH \nSPACE THAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT\, \nGAINING ELEVATION OVER SPACE \nHELPS WITH THAT. SO THAT’S AN \nEXAMPLE OF ONE LOCATION. \n>>AARON PESKIN: YEAH\, THAT’S \nTOUGH. BEFORE I RELINQUISH THE \nMICROPHONE\, HOW MUCH OF THIS IS \nBEING DRIVEN BY THE PORT AND HOW \nMUCH IS THIS BEING DRIVEN BY THE \nCORPS AND HOW DOES THAT DYNAMIC \nWORK GIVEN 65 CENTS OF THEIR \nPENNIES TO THE DOLLAR? \n>>ELAINE FORBES: I CAN ATTEMPT \nTO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. MUCH IS \nDRIVEN BY THE CITY AND THE \nPORT. \nSO THE INITIATIVE REALLY STARTED \nAS A CITY INITIATIVE. YOU’LL \nREMEMBER THIS VERY WELL FROM THE \nPRESIDENT OF THE BOARD CHAIR \nTHAT WE WANTED TO INITIATE THIS \nPROCESS TO FIGURE OUT A PLAN. SO \nIT IS THE CITY AND THE PORT \nDRIVING THE PROCESS. THE ARMY \nCORPS OF ENGINEERS\, THROUGH THE \nNEW START\, IS OUR PARTNER. AND \nIT IS NOW THEIR INTEREST TO \nFIGURE OUT HOW TO SOLVE THIS \nPROBLEM AND REDUCE THE COST OF \nNO ACTION AND SO THEY ARE OUR \nPARTNER IN THIS. IT WILL BECOME \nTHEIR PLAN WITH US. THEY MADE \nCLEAR WHEN WE MOVE FORWARD WITH \nTHE FEDERAL APPROPRIATION\, WE \nWORK HAND IN HAND TOGETHER IN \nTERMS OF IMPLEMENTATION. SO I \nHOPE THAT DESCRIBES WELL THE \nRELATIONSHIP AND WHO’S BEHIND IT \nAND HOW THE PARTNERSHIP WORKS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: SO \nMELINDA\, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU \n— \n>>BRAD BENSON: AND SO\, MELINDA\, \nIS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD \nLIKE TO ADD TO THAT ANSWER? \n>>MELINDA FISHER: NO. I THINK \nTHE ARMY CORPS POLICIES AND THE \nVARIOUS LAWS THE FEDERAL \nGOVERNMENT MUST FOLLOW ARE IN \nPLAY HERE SO AT TIMES THERE’S \n— \nTHERE’S FEDERAL POLICY AND STATE \nPOLICY THAT MOST — BOTH MUST BE \nFOLLOWED. SEA LEVEL IS GOING TO \nBE A CHALLENGE BETWEEN THE TWO. \nULTIMATELY\, IT WILL BE UP TO \nCONGRESS TO DECIDE. SO THIS GOES \nREALLY HIGH. MUCH\, MUCH HIGHER \nTHAN ALL OF US HERE. AND SO IT \nIS\, AS DIRECTOR FORBES SAID\, \nIT’S BEEN A GREAT PARTNERSHIP SO \nFAR. AND THERE’S A LOT OF \nDIFFERENT PLAYERS GOING ON AND \nDECISIONMAKERS INVOLVED. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU\, \nMELINDA. — \n>>BRAD BENSON: THANK YOU\, \nMELINDA. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT \nBCDC PLANS AND POLICIES BECAUSE \nI DON’T KNOW IF WE ANSWERED THAT \nAT ALL. JESSICA\, DO YOU WANT TO \nTALK ABOUT SPECIAL AREA PLAN\, \nETC.? \n>>JESSICA FAIN: AS YOU RECALL\, \nIN THE STRATEGIC \nPLAN\, WE TALKED ABOUT THE \nEFFORT OF THE PORT AND BCDC TO \nUPDATE THE SAN FRANCISCO SPECIAL \nAREA PLAN AND WE DID THAT WITH \nTHIS IN MIND. WE DECIDED FOR NOW \nTO TRY TO TAKE A MORE NUANCED \nAND TARGETED APPROACH TO SOME \nNEAR-TERM ACTIONS THAT WE CAN DO \nTOGETHER. \nBUT TO PAUSE A LITTLE BIT \nBECAUSE WE KNOW THERE ARE SOME \nPOLICY — LARGER\, AS YOU POINTED \nOUT\, LARGER POLICY ISSUES THAT \nWE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO WORK \nTHROUGH. AND RIGHT NOW WE — WE \nHAVE A STAFF TEAM THAT IS \nPUTTING TOGETHER COMMENTS. SO \nWE’LL BE REALLY DIGGING INTO OUR \nLAWS AND POLICIES SO THAT WE’RE \nPROVIDING THOSE TO THE PORT AND \nCORPS DURING THIS COMMENT \nPERIOD. AND WE HAVE\, AS \nMENTIONED\, HAD A CHANCE TO SHARE \nWITH A LOT OF THOSE ALREADY AS \nWE’VE BEEN ALREADY GOING THROUGH \nTHIS PROCESS AND \nPARTICIPATING. \n>>MELINDA FISHER: IF YOU DON’T \nMIND\, I WANTED TO ADD THAT THIS \nIS AN ONGOING PROCESS. WE’LL \nCONTINUE WORKING WITH BCDC AND \nALL OF THE AGENCIES IN THE BAY \nAREA INCLUDING U.S. FISH AND \nWILDLIFE\, THE WATER BOARD\, OTHER \nAGENCIES THROUGHOUT THIS WHOLE \nPROCESS AND THEN WHEN WE GET \nINTO OUR PRECONSTRUCTION\, \nENGINEERING\, DESIGN PHASE\, WHERE \nWE WILL HAVE MORE THAT DETAILED \nLEVEL DESIGN AVAILABLE\, THAT’S \nWHEN WE’RE REALLY GOING TO BE \nCOMING TO BCDC AND REQUESTING \nTHE CONSISTENCY\, DETERMINATIONS \nWE’RE NEEDING TO UPDATE THE \nSPECIAL PLANS AND DIFFERENT \nTHINGS LIKE THAT AND \nSO AT THIS PHASE IN THE STUDY \nOR THE STUDY PHASE\, EVERYTHING \nIS BEING TAKEN INTO \nCONSIDERATION. WE’RE TRYING TO \nMODIFY OUR PLAN AS MUCH AS WE \nCAN TO BE COMPLETELY COMPLIANT \nNOW. HOWEVER\, WE DO NOT EXPECT \nTO ACHIEVE FULL COMPLIANCE PRIOR \nTO THE CHIEF’S SIGNING OR PRIOR \nTO CONGRESS AUTHORIZING THE \nPROJECT BECAUSE WE JUST DON’T \nHAVE THE DETAIL AND WE WON’T AT \nTHIS PHASE. SO WE’LL CONTINUE \nTHAT IN THE FUTURE. AND AS \nEVERYONE HAS SAID\, THIS IS A \nLONG PROCESS. IT’S NOT DONE. BUT \nWE HAVE BEEN WORKING CLOSELY \nTOGETHER AND WE’LL GET THERE\, \nFOR SURE\, PRIOR TO \nCONSTRUCTION. \nI MEAN\, WE CAN’T PROCEED \nBEFORE. \nSO WE HAVE TO HAVE COMPLIANCE \nWITH EVERYTHING. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I’M \nGOING TO RECOGNIZE COMMISSIONER \nPESKIN — SORRY — COMMISSIONER \nGIOIA. \n>>JOHN GIOIA: I HAVE TO LEAVE SO \nNO DISRESPECT FOR THE PORT BUT \nTHANKS FOR THE PRESENTATION. SO \nI MEAN\, I KNOW FINANCING IS \nREALLY THE SUBJECT OF OTHER \nDISCUSSIONS\, BUT THE PORT IS THE \nLARGEST REAL ESTATE ALONG THE \nWATERFRONT. ARE YOU ALREADY \nANTICIPATING FINANCING — \nFINANCING PLANS AS PART OF \nDEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE APPROVED \nALONG THE WATERFRONT TO PAY ANY \nLOCAL SHARE FOR THIS? \n>>ELAINE FORBES: WE DO SOME \nPUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND \nWE ALSO HAVE A LOT OF FACILITIES \nDIRECTLY MANAGED THAT DON’T HAVE \nPUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS \nDEVELOPED. WE ARE THINKING OF \nOUR DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS THAT \nHAVE COME THROUGH. MOST \nRECENTLY\, WE HAD A LOT OF \nDISCUSSIONS AROUND PIERS 30-32. \nTHAT’S WHERE THE PROJECT WILL \nLIFT AND PREPARE FOR SEA LEVEL \nRISE AND PROVIDE SEISMIC \nIMPROVEMENTS AND WE’RE LOOKING \nINTO WHETHER THAT CONTRIBUTION\, \nTHAT INVESTMENT CAN COUNT FOR \nOUR 35 CENTS AS A WAY TO MAKE \nOUR MATCH SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD \nWITH OTHER PROJECTS. WE TRY TO \nLEVEL PUBLIC-PRIVATE \nPARTNERSHIPS WHEREVER WE CAN TO \nPAY FOR SEA LEVEL RISE TAX \nWHENEVER WE PAID FOR THE \nINFRASTRUCTURE NEEDED SO WE HAVE \nANOTHER SOURCE FOR OTHER \nIMPROVEMENTS IN THE AREAS. WE’RE \nVERY MUCH UNDERFUNDED\, VERY\, \nVERY UNDERFUNDED. SO WE ARE \nGOING TO LOOK FOR PUBLIC-PRIVATE \nPARTNERSHIPS SO WE CAN LEVERAGE \nTHAT PRIVATE INVESTMENT AND — \nTO ENABLE US TO PAY FOR MORE \nPUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. BUT THERE \nARE MANY\, MANY AREAS WHERE WE’RE \nGOING TO RELY ON STATE GRANTS\, \nCITY GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS\, \nAND OTHER WAYS TO FIND FUNDING \nBECOMES THIS IS OVERWHELMINGLY A \nPUBLIC COST AS WE SEE \nIT. \n>>JOHN GIOIA: THANKS. \n>>SPEAKER: I THINK MY FIRST \nRESPONSE IS HOLY COW. THERE’S A \nLOT IN HERE FOR US TO CHEW ON SO \nTHANK YOU FOR THE BRIEFING. A \nCOUPLE OF QUESTIONS AND A COUPLE \nOF COMMENTS. \n>>BARRY NELSON: DETAILED \nQUESTION AND THEN A BROADER \nONE. \nWHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE \nPIERS\, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT \nBUILDING FLOOD WALLS AROUND THE \nPIERS SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE I \nUNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS. THAT \nMEANS NOT RAISING THE DECK OF \nTHE PIERS UP. THAT MEANS \nBUILDING FLOOD WALLS SO THAT WE \nWOULD HAVE PIERS THAT WOULD BE \nBELOW WATER LEVEL WHICH I HAVE A \nHARD TIME WRAPPING MY BRAIN \nAROUND. DO I HAVE THAT RIGHT? \n>>BRAD BENSON: LARGELY RIGHT\, \nYES. THINK OF IT AS ASSET LEVEL \nPROTECTION. SO THE FLOOD WALLS \nAROUND THE PIERS ARE PROTECT — \nAREN’T PROTECTING THE CITY. \nTHEY’RE PROTECTING THE PIERS. \nTHE REASON THAT THEY’RE SHORT \nFLOOD WALLS IS BECAUSE WE\, LIKE \nYOU\, ONLY SEE THAT WORKING TO \nKNOCK DOWN SORT OF EXTREME \nEVENTS AND WAVES THAT CAN’T \nMANAGE WATER THAT IS LIKE \nROUTINELY HIGHER THAN THE PIER \nDECK. WE GOT ANOTHER ISSUE WITH \nMAINTENANCE OF THE PIER \nUNDERNEATH THAT BECOMES \nPROBLEMATIC. \n>>BARRY NELSON: THAT WAS MY NEXT \nQUESTION. WILL THE PIERS TAKE \nTHAT? \n>>BRAD BENSON: SO WE’RE LOOKING \nAT ALL OF THESE ISSUES. IT’S A \nFEDERALLY RECOGNIZED DISTRICT. \nWE HAVE CONSTITUENTS THAT HELPED \nUS REGION STRAIGHT IT IN THE \nNATIONAL REGISTER. THERE’S SOME \nREAL CHALLENGES WE’RE LOOKING AT \nHERE IN TERMS OF HOW SEA LEVEL \nRISE CAN AFFECT THE PIERS. \n>>BARRY NELSON: NEXT QUESTION IS \n— IT’S ABOUT COST. THE $13 \nBILLION PRICE TAG BOTH IS AN \nENORMOUS PRICE TAG AND IT’S NOT \nA SURPRISING PRICE TAG. AND WHEN \nYOU PRESENTED ONE OF THE MAPS \nTHAT SHOWED THE SAN FRANCISCO \nWATERFRONT\, THIS IS ONE OF FOUR \nREACHES AROUND THE WATERFRONT \nTHAT WOULD HAVE A COMPLETE PLAN \nFOR THE CITY SHORELINE SO THAT’S \nIMPORTANT CONTEXT. CAN YOU HELP \nUS AT ALL UNDERSTAND WHAT THE \nBIG COST DRIVERS ARE OF THAT $13 \nBILLION PRICE TAG? IS IT MOST OF \nIT ONE THING? IS IT SPREAD OUT \nOVER TWO DOZEN CATEGORIES? JUST \nSO WE HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT’S \nDRIVING THE COST OF PLANS LIKE \nTHIS. \n>>BRAD BENSON: THE WEAK SOIL \nCONDITIONS ALONG THE SHORELINE \nARE A BIG DRIVER OF THOSE \nCOSTS. \nYOU KNOW\, DEALING WITH\, YOU \nKNOW\, CITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND \nTRYING TO NAVIGATE AROUND CITY \nINFRASTRUCTURE. THINKING ABOUT \nTHE ACTIONS THAT ARE BEING TAKEN \nRELATED TO THE FERRY BUILDING \nAND THE SORT OF HISTORIC PIER \nCONNECTION TO THE SHORELINE \nAREA. THOSE ARE SOME OF THE \nTHINGS THAT ARE DRIVING COSTS IN \nTHE PLAN. \n>>BARRY NELSON: OKAY. AND JUST A \nCOUPLE COMMENTS. WE’VE SPENT A \nLOT OF TIME\, ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF \nTIME OVER THE LAST SEVEN YEARS \nIN — SEVERAL YEARS IN \nDISCUSSION ABOUT SEA LEVEL \nRISE. \nA LOT OF WHAT WE’VE DONE IS \nPLANNING TO PLAN. THIS IS ACTUAL \nPLANNING FOR OUR A VERY COMPLEX \nURBAN WATERFRONT AND IT’S \nSOBERING. AND THIS IS JUST A \nFRACTION OF SAN FRANCISCO WHICH \nIS A FRACTION OF THE BAY \nSHOWLINE WHICH IS A FRACTION OF \nWHAT CALIFORNIA WILL HAVE TO DO \nAS JUST ONE STATE. IT JUST GIVES \nA REALLY IMPORTANT SENSE OF THE \nCOLLECTIVE CHALLENGE WE FACE IF \nWE DON’T GET CLIMATE CHANGE \nUNDER CONTROL. AND IF WE DO \nINDEED FACE A WORST-CASE \nSCENARIO. THIS IS THE — SAN \nFRANCISCO IS A WEALTHY CITY IN \nAN AREA THAT’S WEALTHY IN A \nSTATE THAT’S WEALTHY COMPARED TO \nTHE REST OF THE COUNTRY AND\, \nYET\, LOOKING AT THOSE COSTS IS \nSOBERING WITHOUT WRESTLING WITH \nHOW AS A GOVERNMENT WE DEAL WITH \nENORMOUS COSTS ON THE SOUTHERN \nATLANTIC COAST\, ON THE GULF \nCOAST. SO IT’S JUST A REALLY \nIMPORTANT CONTEXT WHEN WE \nREALIZE AS BIG AS THIS PLAN \nLOOKS\, IT’S TINY\, IT’S TINY \nCOMPARED TO CALIFORNIA AND THE \nNATIONAL CHALLENGE WE’RE \nFACING. \nTHANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER RANDOLPH. \n>>SEAN RANDOLPH: THANKS VERY \nMUCH\, BRAD. AND THANKS\, ELAINE. \nMY QUESTION HAS BEEN PARTIALLY \nANSWERED. I WANT TO GO FURTHER \nON A COUPLE OF THEM. ONE IS ON \nTHE PIER. IT SOUNDS LIKE THE \nPLAN IS NOT JUST ABOUT THE SEA \nWALL BUT IT INCLUDES THE \nSTRUCTURES AND THE PIERS. CAN \nYOU SAY A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT \nTHE WALLS AROUND THE PIERS\, \nBECAUSE I WORK ON THE WATERFRONT \nEVERY DAY. IN THE LAST MONTH I \nSAW THE WATER LAPPING RIGHT AT \nTHE BOTTOM OF THE PIER. EVEN \nWITH THE WALL\, HOW DO YOU DEAL \nWITH THE CHALLENGE OF WATER \nCOMING UP DIRECTLY UNDERNEATH \nTHE BASE OF THE PIER OVER TIME? \nAND THE OTHER QUESTION RELATED \nTO THE PIERS IS — I THOUGHT I \nHEARD YOU SAY THAT YOU WOULD \nMOVE THE BULKHEAD STRUCTURES \nHIGHER BUT HOW DO YOU MOVE A \nBULKHEAD STRUCTURE HIGHER THAT’S \nCONNECTED TO A PIER? \n>>BRAD BENSON: THAT’S A GOOD \nQUESTION. I’LL TACKLE THE LAST \nONE FIRST. WE HAVEN’T DONE ALL \nOF THE ENGINEERING WORK THAT WE \nWOULD DO TO REALLY ANSWER THIS \nQUESTION. BUT ESSENTIALLY WHAT \nYOU WOULD DO IS LIKELY PICK\, YOU \nKNOW\, DISCONNECT THE BULKHEAD \nBUILDING FROM THE PIER SHED. \nTHAT’S SOMETHING YOU DO ANYWAY \nTO INSTALL A SEISMIC JOINT FOR \nTHESE PIERS. THEN\, YOU WOULD \nBRACE THE BULKHEAD\, MOVE IT \nOFFSITE\, REBUILD THE WHARF AT A \nHIGHER ELEVATION AND PUT THE \nBULKHEAD BACK WITH TRANSITIONS \nDOWN TO THE EXISTING PIER \nLEVEL. \nAND WE’VE DONE SOME CONCEPTUAL \nSTUDIES LOOKING AT THAT. AS \nDIRECTOR FORBES MENTIONED\, THAT \nCREATES AN IMPACT IN THE \nDISTRICT BECAUSE YOU’RE CHANGING \nELEVATIONS IN THE DISTRICT BUT \nIT ALSO REPLACES A VERY \nVULNERABLE PART OF THE \nDISTRICT. \nTHE WHARVES ARE THE OLDEST PART \nAND AGING FAST. \n>>SEAN RANDOLPH: THE OTHER \nQUESTION IS RELATING TO WHAT \nDIRECTOR PESKIN HAD\, OUR \nJURISDICTION AS BCDC. SO WE’RE \nGOING TO BE PERMITTING PROJECTS \nTHAT WILL HAVE A LIFE SPAN THAT \nWILL GO BEYOND 2030. IT’S NOT \nJUST PIER 30\, 32\, BUT THINKING \nOF THAT SPECIFICALLY\, HAVE YOU \nTHOUGHT IN DETAIL YET HOW YOU \nWOULD FACTOR IN THE KIND OF \nINVESTMENT THAT MIGHT BE MADE BY \nPRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERS TO \nREINFORCE THE WATER — RATHER \n— \nREINFORCE THE SEA WALL\, SEGMENTS \nOF THE WATERFRONT\, OF COURSE\, \nINTEGRATED INTO THE ENTIRE PLAN \nBUT WHERE THERE IS AN \nOPPORTUNITY TO BRING PRIVATE \nFINANCE IN TO CONTRIBUTE TO PART \nOF THE CHALLENGE? HOW ARE YOU \n— \nHOW ARE YOU THINKING ABOUT THAT\, \nBECAUSE I THINK IT WILL COME UP \nAS WE GO THROUGH VARIOUS \nPROJECTS. AND I THINK IT MAY \nTAKE A FAIR AMOUNT OF \nRETHINKING\, JUST THE STRATEGY OF \nTHE WATERFRONT AND STATE LANDS \nAND HOW DO WE ADAPT OUR POLICIES \nAND OTHER POLICIES TO MEET THIS \nNEW SET OF ISSUES? \n>>BRAD BENSON: WELL — \n>>ELAINE FORBES: SORRY\, BRAD. I \nWANT TO TALK ABOUT THE FINGER \nPIERS AND THEN TRY TO ANSWER \nYOUR VERY GOOD QUESTION. THE \nFINGER APPROXIMATE PIERS\, WHILE \nTHE PLAN IS RECOMMENDING MOVING\, \nYOU KNOW\, ESTABLISHING THAT LINE \nOF DEFENSE AT THAT WHARF AREA\, \nAT THAT BULKHEAD AREA\, RETURNING \nTHOSE HISTORIC BULKHEADS AND \nSIMPLY LEVELING DOWN TO THE \nPIERS AT THEIR HISTORIC LEVELS\, \nTHAT’S VERY UNLIKELY TO BE WHAT \nTHE CITY AND THE PORT WILL \nPROPOSE ULTIMATELY ABOUT WHAT \nGOES ON TOP WHEN THE PROJECT \nGETS IMPLEMENTED. WE WILL BE \nEXPLORING WHICH HISTORIC PIERS \nHAVE CAPABILITY AND WE WOULD \nWANT AS A CITY TO SEE HE WILL \nBRIGHTED AND WHICH — TO SEE \nELEVATED AND WHICH WILL BE \nDEMOLISHED\, ESSENTIALLY\, OR NOT \nMOVE BEYOND A CERTAIN POINT. AND \nTHE CHALLENGE OF HOW TO DO \nINVESTMENTS OVER TIME. SO WE \nWILL WANT OUR PUBLIC-PRIVATE \nPARTNERSHIPS TO COME AND MAKE \nINVESTMENTS IN THESE HISTORIC \nPIERS DURING THIS LONG TAIL OF \nTIME WE HAVE LEFT WITH THE \nDISTRICT. AND WE DID A STUDY\, \nHOW DO WE MOVE THE HISTORIC \nPIERS OUT FURTHER AND HELP THESE \nFLOOD WALLS SUBSTANTIALLY? THERE \nIS EPISODIC CHALLENGES. THIS \nCOULD SAVE THE PIERS FOR 30 \nYEARS FOR PUBLIC ENJOYMENT. \nTHERE IS OPTIONALITY IN WHICH WE \nHAVE TO ADVANCE AND ANALYZE. SO \nWE KEEP THE PIERS AS LONG AS WE \nCAN FOR THE PUBLIC’S ENJOYMENT \nAND LOOK AT WHAT OTHER HISTORIC \nDISTRICT WE SAVE AND WHICH ONES \nWE LET FALL TO SEA LEVEL RISE? I \nWANT TO MAKE SURE THE COMMISSION \nUNDERSTOOD THAT. AS TO THE \nQUESTION — AND BRAD WILL HELP \nMORE — AS TO THE QUESTION OF \nTHE PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS\, \nONE OF THE BIGGEST CHALLENGES IS \nHOW DO WE PHASE THE PROJECT’S \nIMPLEMENTATION? SO IF WE HAVE A \nPUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP THAT \nCAN ADVANCE\, SAY\, A PIER 70 \nPROJECT\, RAISE THE LEVEL OF THE \nSHORELINE\, PREPARE FOR SEA LEVEL \nRISE\, HOW DO WE — HOW DO WE \nMAKE THAT PROJECT WORK WITH THE \nFUTURE LINE OF DEFENSE THAT THE \nARMY CORPS PLANS TO IMPLEMENT \nWITH THE CITY? SO THAT IS A \nCOMPLEX SET OF QUESTIONS. WE’LL \nNEED TO RESOLVE THAT IN PIERS \n30\, 32\, SO ESSENTIALLY OUR \nINVESTMENTS FIT TOGETHER BUT IN \nDIFFERENT SEQUENCES OVER TIME. \nSO THAT’S ONE OF THE CHALLENGES \nWE’RE FACING AND WE’LL HAVE TO \nSOLVE. \n>>BRAD BENSON: COULD I ADD ONE \n— DOFL \n>>SEAN RANDOLPH: COULD I ADD ONE \nTHING TO THAT? AND NOW THE COST \nIS JUST — HAS JUST GONE WAY\, \nWAY UP. SO IT DOES SEEM THERE IS \nHISTORICAL DEBATE\, COULD YOU \nPUT HOUSING OR OTHER FACILITIES \nON THE PIERS? AND THERE DOES \nAPPEAR TO BE A BIG CHALLENGE OF \nADEQUACY OF CAPITAL AND \nFUNDING. \nSO EVEN WITH THE PRIVATE \nDEVELOPER COMING IN ON A \nPROPERTY\, IT LOOKS LIKE IT’S \nGOING TO BE MORE EXPENSIVE OVER \nTIME. BUT IT IS A SOURCE OF \nFINANCE. AND TO IT TRIKES ME \nTHAT’S ONE OF THOSE ISSUES — \nSTRIKES ME THAT’S ONE OF THOSE \nISSUES\, COMPLEX ISSUES THAT HAS \nTO BE FIGURED OUT. DOES OUR \nFRAMEWORK FOR NOT HAVING HOUSING \nOR OTHER OFFICE SPACE ON PIERS \nACTUALLY FIT WITH THE CAPITAL \nREQUIREMENTS FOR THIS SET OF \nCHALLENGES IF WE HAVE THE \nABILITY TO ADDRESS IT WITH THE \nPRIVATE PARTNERS? \n>>BRAD BENSON: I THINK I WANTED \nTO ADD ONE THOUGHT. THINKING \nABOUT PIERS 30\, 32\, OBVIOUSLY\, A \nLOT OF EFFORT HAS GONE INTO THAT \nWITH STATE LEGISLATION IN \nCOLLABORATION WITH YOU AND YOUR \nSTAFF. WE ARE LUCKY TO HAVE A \nCOASTAL CONSERVANCY GRANT TO \nLOOK THAT SORT OF LARGER SEGMENT \nOF THE SOUTHERN EMBARCADERO SO \nWE CAN DO MORE REFINED PLANNING \nTO THINK ABOUT HOW THIS PLAN \nFITS WITH THAT INVESTMENT \nKNOWING THERE THE 3032 \nINVESTMENT COULD PROCEED THE \nARMY INVESTMENT FOR QUITE A \nWHILE. WE’VE \nGOT SOME TIME TO DOING THAT \nPLANNING EFFORT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: THANK YOU. I \nREALLY APPRECIATE THIS \nPRESENTATION. \n[INDISCERNIBLE] \nWHAT’S GOING TO BE A VERY\, VERY \nLONG PATH THAT WE CAN’T EVEN \nUNDERSTAND YET. SO I REALLY \nAPPRECIATE YOUR [INDISCERNIBLE] \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nANDY\, WE LOST YOUR VOLUME. \nEITHER YOU MUTED — WE CANNOT \nHEAR YOU. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: I AM IN A \nDIFFERENT ROOM. CAN YOU HEAR ME \nNOW? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: I AM TRYING TO \nUNDERSTAND THE PRESENTATION \nABOUT [INDISCERNIBLE] \nANALYSIS THAT WILL BE UNDERLYING \nTHE CORPS’ PARTICIPATION AND I \nBELIEVE — I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU \nSAY THERE IS NEW GUIDANCE WITH \nTHE CORPS THAT IS GOING TO ALLOW \nFOR THE INCORPORATION OF \nNONMONETARY OR DIFFICULT TO \nMONETIZE BENEFITS AND COSTS. DID \nI UNDERSTAND THAT \nCORRECTLY? OUT OF THE FRAME OF \nOVER THE YEARS WITH \nUNDERSTANDING COST AND BENEFITS\, \nTHERE IS A VERY\, VERY PARTICULAR \nSTRUCTURE THAT THE CORPS USES \nAND IT SEEMS TO BE A LITTLE MORE \nAFFECTED WHEN BOTH STRUCTURES \nTHAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING AND THAT \nWILL ALLOW US TO REALLY GET OUR \nARMS AROUND ALL OF THE \nECONOMIC IMPACTS — \nTHE PROJECT OR THE \n[INDISCERNIBLE] \nWILL INCLUDE? \n>>BRAD BENSON: MELINDA\, WOULD \nYOU LIKE ME TO ANSWER OR YOU? \n>>MELINDA FISHER: YOU HEARD \nRIGHT\, THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY \nOF THE ARMY HAD ISSUE GUIDANCE \nTHAT PROVIDES A COMPREHENSIVE \nLOOK AT OUR FOUR ACCOUNTS. TWO \nOF THEM ARE MONETARY. SO THE \nNATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT\, \nWHICH IS WHAT YOU’RE MORE \nTYPICALLY USED TO SEEING\, FOR \nEXAMPLE\, WITH THE DREDGING\, A \nCOST BENEFIT RATIO\, SOMETHING \nVERY DEFINED. BUT THEN WE GET \nINTO THESE SOCIAL EFFECT \nCATEGORIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL \nQUALITY. SO WE’LL LOOK AT THINGS \nLIKE LIFE SAFETY OR BENEFITS TO \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE \nCOMMUNITIES\, TRANSPORTATION \nBENEFITS THAT AREN’T RELATED TO \nCOSTS OF THE TRANSPORTATION \nBEING DOWN OR SOMETHING. IT’S\, \nCAN PEOPLE GET TO WORK? CAN THEY \nNOT — HOUSING. LOTS AND LOTS OF \nFEATURES. THE ENGINEERING WITH \nNATURE FEATURES THAT ARE \nINCORPORATED THROUGH SOME OF \nTHIS. WE CAN BENEFIT FROM THE \nVALUE OF THAT OR THE POTENTIAL \nFOR REDUCING STORMWATER \nOVERFLOWS FROM THE COMBINED \nSEWER SYSTEM\, THINGS LIKE THAT \nCAN NOW BE INCORPORATED AND \nLOOKED AT AND ACCUMULATE \nTIFFLY — CUMULATIVELY USED TO \nJUSTIFY BEYOND A COST-BENEFIT \nRATIO. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: AND SO WE CAN \nALWAYS USE THE LOSS OF — IF WE \nDON’T DO SOMETHING\, THE LOSS OF \n[INDISCERNIBLE] \nTHE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS\, THE \nIMPACT OF THE — AND ONE OF THE \nLARGEST COST WAS THE LOSS OF \nPEOPLE WHO GO TO THE BEACH\, YOU \nCOME UP WITH SOME VALUE IF YOU \nADD UP — [INDISCERNIBLE] \nI’M EXCITED TO HEAR HOW THE \nCORPS — I KNOW IT’S GOING TO BE \n— IT’S A STRUGGLE FOR YOU GUYS \nTO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO IT BUT I \nTHINK IT’S A MUCH MORE REALISTIC \nBASIS FOR WHICH WE CAN THINK \nABOUT THE COST-BENEFIT FOR \nIMPLEMENTING THE PROJECT OVER \nTHE COMING DECADE. THANK YOU. \n>>MELINDA FISHER: DEFINITELY. \nTHE MAIN REPORT AND ECONOMIC \nAPPENDIX\, ENGINEERING APPENDIX \nHAVE DETAILS HOW WE IDENTIFIED \nTHE COST-BENEFITS AND TRADEOFFS \nOF THE SOCIAL EFFECTS\, VIERMAL \nQUALITY\, THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT \nTO YOUR POINT\, SPECIFICALLY\, \nABOUT LOOKING AT WHAT WOULD HAVE \nHAPPENED\, ABSOLUTELY. WE COMPARE \nALL OF OUR COSTS WHAT WE CALL \nTHE FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT \nCONDITIONS. THAT WOULD BE\, IF WE \nDID NOTHING. AND THAT’S OUR \nBASELINE. AND SO EVERYTHING \nABOVE THAT IS WHAT WE CONSIDER A \nBENEFIT OR A POSITIVE IMPACT AND \nFOR MONETARY STAFF\, THAT’S WHAT \nCONTRIBUTES TO THE BENEFIT COST \nRATIO. FOR THINGS THAT ARE \nNONMONETIZED\, THAT’S HOW WE CAN \nDEMONSTRATE\, LOOK\, THIS IS A \nREALLY POSITIVE THING. IF WE \nWERE ABLE TO SAVE 20\,000 JOBS \n— \nI AM MAKING UP NUMBERS. I DON’T \nKNOW WHAT IT WAS IN THE REPORT. \nIF YOU’RE ABLE TO SAVE THAT \nBECAUSE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN \nLOST\, WE WOULD SAY\, THIS IS \nREALLY VALUABLE TO GET TO THE \nNEXT PLAN WHICH HAS ALL THESE \nOTHER BENEFITS TO IT. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER EKLUND. \n>>PAT EKLUND: THANK YOU VERY \nMUCH\, CHAIR. I THINK \nCOMMISSIONER PESKIN HIT IT RIGHT \nON THE NOSE. THIS PROJECT IS \nHUGE. AND THE COMPLEXITY OF THE \nPROJECT IN AND OF ITSELF LET \nALONE LOOKING AT THE REGULATORY \nAND ALL THE COMPETING INTERESTS \nIS JUST OVERWHELMING. HAVING \nWORKED FOR THE ARMY CORPS OF \nENGINEERS FOR EIGHT YEARS AND \nTHE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL \nPROTECTION AGENCY FOR 35\, I CAN \nREALLY UNDERSTAND AND I CAN SEE \nBCDC HAVING TO — AND OTHER \nREGULATORY AGENCIES TO REALLY \nRETHINK SOME OF OUR \nREQUIREMENTS. AND I\, MISS \nFORBES\, I AGREE THAT ALL OF US \nWILL HAVE TO SIT DOWN AND FIGURE \nOUT HOW WE CAN\, YOU KNOW\, \nIMPLEMENT AS MANY NONSTRUCTURAL \nIMPROVEMENTS AND MAINTAIN THE \nHISTORICAL STRUCTURE AND STILL \nMAINTAIN THE JOBS AND THE \nQUALITY OF LIFE AND EVERYTHING \nFOR SAN FRANCISCO. BECAUSE IT’S \nWHAT DRAWS PEOPLE. WHAT YOU ARE \nDOING IN SAN FRANCISCO\, IT’S \nDRAWING MORE PEOPLE TO SAN \nFRANCISCO. BUT THE QUESTION I \nHAVE\, MISS FORBES\, OR YOUR \nCOLLEAGUE THERE\, IS THAT SAN \nFRANCISCO CAN’T BE THE ONLY PORT \nOR THE ONLY CITY THAT’S DEALING \nWITH THIS. SEA LEVEL RISE. AND \nHAVE YOU REACHED OUT TO OTHER \nSMALL AND LARGE CITIES \nTHROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA OR EVEN \nTHE UNITED STATES ON WHAT \nTHEY’RE DOING IN ORDER TO TRY TO \nBALANCE ALL THE COMPETING \nINTERESTS WHILE MAINTAINING \nENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS AND \nALL THE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS \nTHAT YOU CAN \nMEET? \n>>ELAINE FORBES: WE HAVE REACHED \nOUT. THERE ARE LESSONS LEARNED \nALL OVER NATIONALLY\, AND THE \nARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS\, \nMELINDA\, HAS BEEN ESPECIALLY \nATTUNED TO HELPING US UNDERSTAND \nTHE WAY OTHER JURISDICTIONS HAVE \nRESPONDED. AND BRAD BENSON WILL \nHELP ME WITH THIS\, BUT WE DO \nHAVE SOME VERY KEY EXAMPLES THAT \nARE HELPING US FIGURE OUT THE \nPATH. THIS IS A HARD-EDGE \nHISTORIC OLD WATERFRONT. HAS ALL \nTHE UTILITIES COMING TO ITS EDGE \nSO ECOLOGY GETS HARDER. RETREAT \nIS HARDER BECAUSE OF THE \nINFRASTRUCTURE. AND THESE ARE \nTHINGS THAT WE ARE LEARNING AND \nWE’LL SHARE WITH OTHER \nJURISDICTIONS\, ACTUALLY\, OLD \nCITIES ON WATER’S EDGE. SO WE’RE \nAHEAD\, BUT WE ALSO HAVE \nEXAMPLES\, SPECIFIC PROJECTS\, \nESPECIALLY THOSE WHO HAVE \nRESPONDED TO DISASTERS\, KATRINA\, \nSANDY\, LESSONS LEARNED\, \nNORFOLK\, GREAT COLLABORATION. \nAND THE CORPS HAS GIVEN US THESE \nTOOLS TO LEARN FROM OTHER \nEXPERIENCES. \n>>PAT EKLUND: THAT’S GREAT. \nMELINDA\, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR \nTAKING THAT ONE. I WORKED FOR \nTHE CORPS. IT WAS A DIFFERENT \nORGANIZATION. BUT I HAVE A TON \nOF OTHER QUESTIONS\, BUT THESE \nQUESTIONS ARE MORE DETAIL \nORIENTED AND IT’S NOT \nAPPROPRIATE FOR THIS BUT I \nREALLY LOOK FORWARD TO \nCONTINUING TO BE ENGAGED IN \nTHIS. AND TRYING TO THINK \nOUTSIDE THE BOX ON HOW WE CAN DO \nA WIN-WIN FOR NOT ONLY THE \nENVIRONMENT BUT ALSO FOR THE \nFUTURE OF THE CITY AND THE \nCOUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO AND THE \nPORT AS WELL. \n>>MELINDA FISHER: THIS IS \nMELINDA. SORRY. I WANTED TO ADD \nTO WHAT DIRECTOR FORBES SAID\, WE \nHAVE REACHED OUT TO A NUMBER OF \nGROUPS. AS MR. BENSON ALSO \nMENTIONED\, WE ARE LEADING THE \nPACK AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL WITH \nTHIS PROJECT. A LOT OF OTHER \nPROJECTS\, THERE WERE A FEW \nPROJECTS SLIGHTLY AHEAD OF US \nBUT THEY DIDN’T INCLUDE THE \nADAPTATION OVER TIME\, THE \nMONETARY PROTOCOLS SO WE ARE \nPAVING THE WAY AT THIS SCALE\, \nBUT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF \nPROJECTS ON OUR HEELS. WE’RE ALL \nWORKING VERY\, VERY CLOSELY. FOR \nEXAMPLE\, BOSTON\, CHARLESTON\, \nMIAMI\, ALL OF US HAVE BEEN \nCOLLABORATING AT THE CORPS \nLEVEL\, THE FEDERAL LEVEL TRYING \nTO FIGURE OUT HOW DO WE EVEN \nDEAL WITH SUCH A SITUATION AND \nAS YOU KNOW\, ALL OF THOSE \nDIFFERENT COMMUNITIES ARE — \nHAVE DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT \nECOLOGIES\, HISTORIC VALUE\, \nFLOODPLAINS\, EVERYTHING ABOUT \nIT. SO IT’S BEEN A LEARNING \nCURVE\, BUT I KNOW OUR LEADERSHIP \nAND EVERYONE NOW SEEMS TO BE \nVERY PLEASED SO FAR. SO SAN \nFRANCISCO DEFINITELY WILL \nPROBABLY BE ON THE MAP IF THIS \nTHING FULLY GOES THROUGH. \n>>PAT EKLUND: MELINDA\, THANK YOU \nSO MUCH FOR ADVOCATING FOR \nTHAT. \nI KNOW IT’S DIFFICULT SOMETIMES \nIN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BUT \nREALLY APPRECIATE IT. THANK \nYOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \nCAN’T QUITE TELL WHETHER \nCOMMISSIONER AMBUEHL HAS HIS \nHAND UP OR IF THIS IS \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER’S HAND — \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \nAPOLOGIZE\, WHEN YOU’RE IN THESE \nROOMS IT’S A LITTLE HARD. GO \nAHEAD. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. FIRST OF \nALL\, WE WANT TO \n[INDISCERNIBLE] \nI THINK I GOT A LITTLE BIT LOST \nIN SOME OF THE \nCOMPLEXITY. \n>>SPEAKER: ALICIA\, CAN YOU SPEAK \nTO WHEREVER DAVID HAS HIS \nCOMPUTER OR WHEREVER ANDY HAS \nHIS COMMUTER? \n>>ALICIA JOHN-BAPTISTE: IS THAT \nBETTER? I WAS SAYING THAT I \nTHINK I GOT A LITTLE BIT LOST IN \nSOME OF THE COMPLEXITY OF THIS. \nSO THERE’S SOMETHING TO ASK\, \nJUST A COUPLE OF — SOME \nQUESTIONS. MY FIRST QUESTION IS\, \nWHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE \nENGAGEMENT BETWEEN THE PORT AND \nTHE CORPS AND THE PROJECT\, ARE \nYOU — IS THE PROJECT \nESSENTIALLY THE UBER-PROJECT OF \nRESPONDING TO SEA LEVEL RISE? SO \nLET’S CALL THAT THE CAPITAL P \nPROJECT. UNDERNEATH THAT THERE \nARE A SERIES OF SMALLER PROJECTS \nWHICH COULD INCLUDE THINGS LIKE \nLIFTING THE FERRY BUILDING UP TO \nADAPT? OR IS THERE A DEFINED \nKIND OF SET OF INTERVENTIONS \nTHAT THE PARTNERSHIP PERTAINS \nTO? AND IS THERE A TIMELINE ON \nTHIS BODY OF WORK\, EITHER BY \nWHEN IT NEEDS TO BE COMPLETED OR \nSOME OTHER MILESTONE OR \nDEADLINE? SO THAT’S SORT OF ONE \nQUESTION. JUST THE NATURE OF THE \nPARTNERSHIP AND HOW IT APPLIES \nTO THE — YOU KNOW\, THE REALLY \nCOMPLEX SET OF INTERVENTIONS \nTHAT WILL BE REQUIRED. AND THEN \nANOTHER QUESTION RELATES TO \nFUNDING. I BELIEVE THAT THERE \nWAS A PERIOD OF TIME WHERE \nYOU’RE LOOKING TO SECURE \nCOMMITMENT — FEDERAL COMMITMENT \nTO SUPPORT THIS WORK. IS THAT A \nONE-TIME ASK THAT ESSENTIALLY \nGETS BANKED FOR THE LIFE OF \nIMPLEMENTATION? OR IS IT \nINTENDED TO BE MORE OF A KIND OF \nA ROLLING BASIS OF THERE WILL BE \nPROJECTS COMING THROUGH OVER THE \nCOURSE OF DECADES THAT WILL NEED \nTO SEEK FUNDING AUTHORITY AT THE \nTIME OF WHICH MATCHES\, ETC.? \n>>ELAINE FORBES: I’LL START THAT \nONE. I THINK THE FUNDAMENTAL \nANSWER IS\, WE DON’T KNOW ANSWERS \nTO YOUR QUESTIONS YET. BECAUSE \nWE’RE AT THE PHASE WHERE WE NEED \nTO DEFINE WHAT THE ACTIONS ARE \nIN THIS OVERALL PROJECT. SO I \nWOULD DESCRIBE IT AS AN OVERALL \nBIG-SCALE PROJECT TO PROVIDE \nFLOOD PROTECTION TO SAN \nFRANCISCO BASED ON THE SEA LEVEL \nRISE CURB. THAT’S THE PROJECT. \nHOW WE IMPLEMENT THE PROJECT IS \nTHE NEXT BIG PIECE OF \nWORK FOR THE CITY AND THE ARMY \nCORPS TO UNCOVER. WE WILL NOT DO \n— IT’S VERY UNLIKELY WE’LL DO \nTHE WHOLE 7 1/2 MILES OF \nWATERFRONT AT ONE TIME. WE’LL \nLOOK AT FIRST ACTIONS WE CAN \nTAKE THAT WILL FIT INTO THE \nCITY’S INTERESTS WHERE WE \nUNDERSTAND HOW THE UTILITY \nSITUATION WILL WORK\, WHERE WE \nHAVE A GOOD PLAN OF \nIMPLEMENTATION\, AND I BELIEVE WE \nWILL HAVE SEQUENTIAL \nAPPROPRIATIONS\, I BELIEVE\, FOR \nSTAGES OF THE PROJECT. \nMELINDA WILL HELP HERE. IN TERMS \nOF HOW TO PHASE FOR THE ARMY \nCORPS\, IT’S GOING TO BE WHERE \nTHERE IS THE MOST FLOOD RISK AND \nWHERE WE NEED TO TAKE ACTIONS \nEARLY. SO IT WILL BE ANALYSIS OF \nDEALING WITH RISK EARLIEST IN \nTHE AREAS THAT NEEDS MORE URGENT \nACTION. WE’LL ALSO BE LOOKING \nFOR PHASING IN IMPLEMENTATION \nTHAT ALLOWS US ENOUGH SPACE AND \nROOM TO TAKE BIG ACTIONS TO COME \nDOWN THE ROAD. LIKE YOU’LL SEE \nIN THE HISTORIC EMBARCADERO\, THE \nACTIONS PROPOSED IN THE PLAN ARE \nTO HIGH LEVELS — TO 3 1/2 FEET \nINSTEAD OF A LOWER LEVEL. THE \nANALYSIS SAYS\, YOU DO THAT ONE \nTIME. YOU DON’T TAKE \nSUBSEQUENTIAL PHASES TO ADAPT \nBECAUSE IT’S TOO MUCH. WE LOOK \nAT PHASING\, I ALMOST CALL IT A \nPROGRAM\, PHASING THE PROGRAM SO \nWE DO ENOUGH DESIGN TO PROJECTS \nARE READY TO IMPLEMENT. BUT \nTHESE ARE ALL THE BIG WORK OF \nMOVING FROM THIS CONCEPTUAL \nCONCEPT OF HOW TO PROVIDE FLOOD \nPROTECTION INTO SPECIFIC \nDISCREET PROJECTS WHERE WE KNOW \nWHAT’S ON TOP AND HOW TO \nCOORDINATE THE INFRASTRUCTURE \nMOVES THAT HAVE TO OCCUR AND \nTHAT COULD INCLUDE FLOODING \nCONCERNS FROM THE P.U.C. THAT’S \nONE EXAMPLE. THESE ARE THE \nPIECES TO WORK THROUGH AND THE \nARMY CORPS HAS SHARED WITH US \nIMPLEMENTATION AND THE STRATEGY \nAROUND IMPLEMENTATION IS ONE OF \nTHE — IS REALLY KEY\, KEY WORK \nTO GET RIGHT IN SOMETHING OF \nTHIS SCALE. \n>>ALICIA JOHN-BAPTISTE: THANK \nYOU. \n>>MELINDA FISHER: WHATEVER’S \nRECOMMENDED TO CONGRESS\, THAT \nFIRST ACTION\, IF IF IS \nAUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS\, IT \nIS APPROVED\, I GUESS YOU COULD \nSAY. \nWE ALL KNOW CONGRESS. WE ARE \nDEPENDENT ON THE FUNDING \nSTREAM. \nIF WE GET A HUGE SPLEL BILL — \nSUPPLEMENTAL BILL\, THE 35% COST \nSHARE IS WHEN IT BECOMES FEDERAL \nAND — AVAILABLE AND THE FEDERAL \nWOULD BE PUT IN A BANK. IF NOT \nIT WILL COME IN WORK PLANS AND \nSO WE HAVE TO REQUEST THE \nMONEY. \nAS TIME COMES ON — HOPEFULLY \n— \nIDEALLY THAT WILL MATCH WHAT THE \nCOST SHARE AVAILABILITY IS AT \nTHE TIME. AND WHATNOT. \nTHAT FIRST ACTION IS \nGUARANTEED\, DEPENDENT ON FEDERAL \nFUNDING\, OF COURSE\, IN CONGRESS \nAPPROPRIATIONS. THE SECOND \nACTION\, WE’VE BEEN ADVOCATING \nFOR TRYING TO MAKE IT MORE \nSTREAMLINED SO THE SECOND WOULD \nBE THE ADAPTATION FEATURES OR \nTHE ACTIONS. WE’VE BEEN ROUGHLY \nASSUMING TO HAPPEN IN THE \n2090’S. IT COULD BE SOONER OR \nLATER. DEPENDING ON THE \nRESULTS. \nWE’RE TRYING TO ADVOCATE THAT \nTHE AUTHORIZATION OF CONGRESS \nWOULD STREAMLINE IT SO WE DON’T \nHAVE TO WAIT AS LONG\, SO WE’RE \nKIND OF SET UP IN THE QUEUE. BUT \nBECAUSE THIS IS THE FIRST OF THE \nNATION\, FIRST OF THE CORPS\, OF \nCOURSE\, AS YOU CAN IMAGINE\, \nTHERE’S CHALLENGES TO THAT SO \nWE’RE GOING TO KEEP FIGHTING FOR \nTHAT. BUT WE DON’T KNOW WHAT \nWILL HAPPEN 100% WITH THAT — \nTHAT SECOND ACTION. THE FIRST \nACTION\, IF CONGRESS APPROVES IT\, \nAND IS SUBJECT TO FUNDING STREAM \nWOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR FUNDING \n— FROM FEDERAL \nFUNDING. \n>>ALICIA JOHN-BAPTISTE: THANK \nYOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO. IT’S \nHARD TO TELL. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: I WAS \nGOING TO ASK THE QUESTION THAT \nALICIA JUST ASKED SO THANK YOU \nVERY MUCH. I’D LIKE TO OFFER MY \nCOMPLIMENTS TO THE CORPS FOR \nTAKING SUCH A COMPREHENSIVE \nVIEW. I THINK THAT’S VERY \nVALUABLE BECAUSE IF THESE \nPROJECTS DO NOT FIT TOGETHER ON \nA HYDROLOGIC — A HYDRAULIC \nBASIS\, THEY WILL FAIL. WE DON’T \nWANT THAT TO HAPPEN. LOOKING AT \nTHEM TOGETHER IS EXTREMELY \nVALUABLE SO THANKS FOR DOING \nTHAT. \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: WELL\, I’LL \nJUST ADD MY ONE QUICK COMMENT \nWHICH WE — I ALSO AGREE\, IT’S \nVERY\, VERY IMPRESSIVE TO SEE \nTHIS VERY THOUGHTFUL\, \nCOMPREHENSIVE\, MULTI-BENEFITED \nAPPROACH. SO REALLY HATS OFF TO \nALL OF YOU. ONE QUESTION I’LL \nASK IS — HAS TO DO WITH — \nTHERE WAS A COMMENT THAT THEY \nTHOUGHT THE BENEFIT WAS GOING TO \nBE ALL PUBLIC BENEFIT AND I \nGUESS MY QUESTION IS\, WHO OWNS \nTHE WATERFRONT? IS IT ACTUALLY \nTHE PORT THAT ACTUALLY HAS \nOWNERSHIP OF THE WHARVES AND \nPORTS OR ARE WE LOOKING AT 1\,000 \nOWNERS? \n>>ELAINE FORBES: IT’S THE CITY \nTHAT OWNS THE PORT OF SAN \nFRANCISCO\, BUT UNDER TRUST TO \nTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. SO WE \nARE STATUTORILY A TRUSTEE OF THE \nSTATE OF CALIFORNIA. BUT WE ARE \nAN ENTERPRISE DEPARTMENT OF THE \nCITY AND COUNTY OF SAN \nFRANCISCO\, BUT THE PORT \nCOMMISSION AND THE PORT \nORGANIZATION IS CHARGED WITH THE \nMAINTENANCE AND DEVELOPMENT AND \nREPAIR AND OPERATIONS OF THE \nHARBOR. \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: THE WHARVES \nCAN BE OBVIOUSLY INDIVIDUALLY \nOWNED? \n>>ELAINE FORBES: IT’S ALL PUBLIC \nOWNERSHIP. IT’S LONG-TERM \nLEASES. IF THERE IS NOT A TRUST \nBENEFIT FOR SOME SEA WALL LOTS \nOR SOME OTHER PURPOSE\, WE \nSOMETIMES HAVE A PROPERTY SALE \nBUT IT’S VERY\, VERY RARE. IT IS \nALL UNDER PUBLIC TRUST\, PUBLIC OWNERSHIP. \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: I SEE. OKAY. \nGREAT. THAT’S ONE THING I DIDN’T SEE IN YOUR REPORT. YOU MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER ADDING THAT. \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: COMMISSIONER ECKERLE. \n>>JENN ECKERLE: THANK YOU. I WANT TO THANK THE PORT AND THE CORPS FOR THE FANTASTIC PRESENTATION AND OUR RESPONSES TO ALL OF OUR QUESTIONS. IT’S REALLY ENCOURAGING TO SEE THIS PLAN THAT HAS — IT’S INNOVATIVE\, IT’S SCIENCE-BASED. IT HAS THAT PHASED RESILIENCE PLANNING COMPONENT AND EMBEDDED MONITORING SO WE CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT’S HAPPENING AND ADAPT OVER TIME. I JUST WANTED TO BETTER UNDERSTAND — THIS MIGHT BE GETTING WEEDY. ARMY CORPS PROJECTIONS IN THAT ONE SLIDE THAT COMPARED IT WITH THE OTHER PROJECTIONS\, THEY LOOK LIKE THEY \nWERE LOWER THAN THE NATIONAL REPORT SCENARIOS. AND MAYBE WE DON’T NEED TO GET INTO THAT RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THE PLAN COME TEMPLATES RESILIENCE UP TO SEVEN FEET. MY MAIN QUESTION IS\, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT IF THOSE PROJECTIONS ARE SHOWN LOWER THAT THERE WOULD BE — THAT FUNDING FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WOULD NOT SUPPORT PLANNING UP TO THAT SEVEN-FOOT LEVEL? \n>>BRAD BENSON: MELINDA\, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO STAKE A FIRST STAB AT THAT? \n>>MELINDA FISHER: SURE. \n>>BRAD BENSON: AND THEY CAN YOU CAN ADD. SO WE LOOKED AT BOTH THE ARMY CORPS’ PROJECTIONS AND THE O.P.C. PROJECTIONS\, \nCOMMISSIONER ECKERLE. AND THE ARMY CORPS HIGH CURVE IS BOUNDED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA MOST LIKELY CURVE ON THE LOW END AND THE 100 AND 200 CURVE FROM THE PRIOR GUIDANCE. AGAIN\, WE’RE NOT CHOOSING A SPECIFIC CURVE. IT LOOK US A LONG TIME TO GET TO THIS. AS PLANNERS WE WANTED TO \nKNOW WHAT WE’RE PLANNING FOR AND IT IS AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE. AND SO WE’RE LOOKING AT ADAPTIVE \nMANAGEMENT TO MANAGE RISK OVER \nTIME. I THINK THE ARMY CORPS’ \nREGULATIONS REQUIRE US TO LOOK \nAT THE THREE ARMY CORPS CURVES \nAND ALSO DO NOT ALLOW CHOOSING A \nSPECIFIC CURVE OR AT LEAST OUR \nSTUDY GUIDANCE DID NOT ALLOW \nTHAT. AND I HAVEN’T HEARD \nNOTHING ABOUT SORT OF A CONSTRAINT ON FEDERAL FUNDING\, YOU KNOW\, RELATED TO SPECIFIC \nSEA LEVEL RISE CURVES. BUT MELINDA\, MAYBE YOU CAN HANDLE THAT PART OF THE QUESTION. \n>>MELINDA FISHER: YEAH. SO\, AGAIN\, THE FIRST OPTION\, \nDEPENDING ON WHERE YOU’RE AT \nALONG THE WATERFRONT\, IS TIED TO \nAN ELEVATION. SO THAT MIGHT BE 1 \n1/2 OR 3 1/2\, WHICH THEN \nCORRELATES TO VARIOUS CURVES. AS \nYOU SAW THOSE CURVES IN THERE \nAND THERE WAS A GRAY LINE ACROSS \nTHAT HAD 1 1/2 AND KIND OF SHOWED YOU WHERE YOU’RE AT IN \nTHOSE. THOSE WOULD BE COMMITTED TO IF CONGRESS DID — COMMITTED\, \nTOO\, IF CONGRESS DID APPROVE THE PROJECT. SO EVEN IF THE CURVE \nWAS LOWER OR WHAT ARE ACTUAL \nEXISTING CONDITION WERE SOMEHOW \nLOWER\, WE WOULDN’T TAKE THAT \nBACK OR TAKE THE STRUCTURE OFF \nTHE LAND. WHERE THE FUNDING \nMIGHT BE TIED TO MAYBE THE \nMONITORING AND IF THE \nMONITORING IS MAYBE INDICATING \nTHAT SEA LEVEL RISE IS MORE \nAGGRESSIVE\, MAYBE IT’S ON A \nHIGHER CURVE SOONER THAN WE \nTHOUGHT IT WOULD BE\, THAT’S \nWHERE FEDERAL FUNDING\, WE’D NEED \nTO GO BACK TO CONGRESS\, ASK THEM \nFOR MORE AND THEN WE WOULD DO \nTHE ADAPTATION. \nTHE ADAPTATIONS FOR THE DRAFT \nPLAN DO — DOES INCLUDE UP \nTO THAT SAFE HIGH CURVE AND AS \nBRAD SAID IT’S BETWEEN THE TWO \nCALIFORNIA CURVES. SO THAT’S \nKIND OF HOW THE FUNDING IS TIED \nTO CURVES. AND I WOULD BE \nGETTING WAY OUTSIDE MY LANE IF I \nEVEN TRIED TO EXPLAIN HOW \nTHE USACOE’S. IT’S TIED LOCALLY ON \nWHAT IS TIED TO SOME TIDE GAUGE \nSOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE NATION OR \nALONG THAT PARTICULAR COASTLINE \nOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND THEN \nTHE OTHER PIECE I WANTED TO \nMENTION\, OUR ELEVATIONS WE HAVE \nCOME UP WITH ARE ACTUALLY BASED \nON WHAT I LIKE TO CALL A PERFECT \nSTORM\, WHERE WE HAVE HIGH TIDE\, \n1% STORM\, PLUS SEA LEVEL RISE. \nSO THE LIKELIHOOD OF EVERY \nSINGLE ONE OF THOSE HAPPENING\, \nIT COULD HAPPEN. BUT IT IS LOWER \nPROBABILITY. IN A SENSE\, WE \nCOULD BE OVER — WE ARE \nOVERESTIMATING IF ONLY ONE OF \nTHOSE HAPPENS SO THERE’S A \nLITTLE BIT OF A WIGGLE ROOM \nTHERE IF THAT CURVES ARE OFF OR \nSOMETHING LIKE THAT. \n>>BRAD BENSON: I WANT TO OFFER \nONE QUICK CORRECTION. WE ARE NOT \nRAISING THE SHORELINE 1 1/2 OR \nTHREE FEET. WE ARE COMING UP \nWITH AN ELEVATION THAT WILL DEAL \nWITH SEA LEVEL RISE AND THAT \nTRANSLATES TO ON OUR — LIKE 13 \n1/2 FEET NAVD-80. FOR FEET AND A \nHALF. AND 15 1/2 FEET. NORTH \nAMERICAN VERTICAL DATA. SO JUST \nWANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. \n>>JENN ECKERLE: THANK YOU BOTH \nSO MUCH. I WAS CLEAR ON THAT \nSECOND PIECE AND REALLY \nAPPRECIATE YOUR ANSWERS TO MY \nQUESTIONS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I DO \nNOT SEE ANYTHING OTHER HANDS\, \nCOMMISSIONERS. SO WITH THAT I \nJOIN IN THANKING YOU FOR THE \nWORK AND THE REPORT. YES\, VERY \nCOMPREHENSIVE. BUT IT NEEDED TO \nBE. SO THANK YOU. SORRY. I THINK \nI ASKED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT \nTHE BEGINNING. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO PUBLIC \nCOMMENT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nALWAYS BETTER TO BE SURE. THANK \nYOU VERY MUCH. THAT CONCLUDES \nOUR BUSINESS ITEMS AND BRINGS US \nTO ADJOURNMENT. \n>>SPEAKER: I OBJECT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: YOU \nREALLY WANT ME TO SAY THAT? \n>>SPEAKER: NO. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \nWOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO \nADJOURN. COMMISSIONER GILMORE \nMOVES. COMMISSIONER NELSON \nSECONDS. COMMISSIONER PESKIN \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/february-15-2024-commission-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240228T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240228T120000
DTSTAMP:20260525T222126
CREATED:20240130T044442Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240220T174418Z
UID:10000128-1709112600-1709121600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:February 28\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/february-28-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240228T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240228T170000
DTSTAMP:20260525T222126
CREATED:20240130T054737Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240209T192621Z
UID:10000150-1709125200-1709139600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:February 28\, 2024 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/february-28-2024-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240307T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240307T170000
DTSTAMP:20260525T222126
CREATED:20240118T072405Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240315T215036Z
UID:10000092-1709816400-1709830800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:March 7\, 2024 Commission Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				This report lists the administrative matters that are pending with the Commission. Due to the cancellation of the meeting of March 7\, 2024 and because no Commission meeting will be held within 14 days of the mailed listing\, pursuant to Commission Regulation Section 10621(a)(2) \, the Executive Director will take final action on this matter unless a Commissioner requests full Commission consideration by communicating with the staff prior to March 15\, 2024. In the absence of such a request\, the listed matter will be executed administratively on or after March 15\, 2024. \nAdministrative Applications and Federal Consistency Actions \n\n\n	 Applicant\n\n\n\nU.S. Army Corps of Engineers San Francisco District\, Regulatory Division\n450 Golden Gate Avenue\, 4th Floor\nSan Francisco\, CA 94102-3404\n  \n \n \nDe Minimis Determination for the MOTCO Large Object Relocation Project\nNo. C2024.001.00\n \n \n\n\nSubmitted\nJanuary 4\, 2024\n\n\n\n		Location \n\nWithin the Coastal Zone in subtidal waters near the Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO) \n \n\n\n\n		Description\n	\n\nMOTCO submitted a memorandum describing a proposed project to relocate  25 submerged objects from a subtidal area that is planned for dredging to a  different subtidal area at MOTCO that would be out of the path of boat traffic  and strong currents. MOTCO identified the objects using sonar and believe them  to be pieces of ships sunk during the 1944 Port Chicago Disaster\, therefore the  objects are historical artifacts\, and are protected by the Sunken Military  Craft Act. The Memorandum concluded that the activity would not result in  significant direct or indirect coastal effects\, and therefore qualifies as a de  minimis activity under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). The CZMA  requires that the state agencies review the de minimis activity proposed  by the Federal agency\, and either concur with\, or object to the de minimis determination.  If the State agency concurs with the Federal agency\, the activity will be  excluded from further State agency review. If the State agency objects to the de  minimis finding\, the Federal agency must provide the State agency with a  negative determination or a consistency determination. \nAfter review of MOTCO’s Memorandum and de  minimis finding\, BCDC staff have found that the Memorandum was not  sufficient to reasonably find that the activity would not have any direct or  indirect coastal effects\, and thus BCDC staff do not concur with MOTCO’s de  minimis finding for the following reasons: \n\nThe large  objects are known by MOTCO to include pieces of ships that were used for  munition transportation\, and one of the ships is known to have been heavily  loaded with munitions when it sank. MOTCO has stated that there is no  definitive way to determine in advance if the debris still contains fuel or  hazardous materials. Therefore\, it is likely that the relocation of these  objects may result in the disturbance and release into the water of munitions  and potentially hazardous materials. \nMOTCO stated  that the objects would be relocated\, but have not specified methods for the  relocation beyond the requirement for the objects to remain submerged during  the operation. Without a relocation plan\, BCDC cannot concur that the activity  will not have significant coastal effects.\nMOTCO propose  requiring the contractor to develop and implement a Water Quality Monitoring  Plan for the project. Until the Plan is created and submitted\, BCDC staff  cannot concur that the Plan will be sufficient to avoid direct and indirect  coastal effects.  \nAs evidence that the activity would not have  significant adverse effects on water quality\, MOTCO submitted to BCDC the “Notice of  Applicability of the Wharf Maintenance Dredging Project – Large Object  Relocations Project under the State Water Resources Control Board’s Water  Quality Certification for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permits  (Order No. WQ 2021-0048-DWQ)\, Contra Costa County” issued by the San Francisco  Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) on November 9\, 2023. This Water  Quality Certification was issued for a previous plan for the activity\, which  involved the relocation of only four objects. The RWQCB has informed MOTCO and  BCDC that the issued Water Quality Certification must be amended for this  activity. Therefore\, the project described to BCDC has not yet been evaluated  for applicability under the Nationwide Permit. \n\n \n\n\n	Tentative Staff Position\n\nBCDC staff requests MOTCO review the proposed Federal agency activity in order to develop a negative determination or a consistency determination which indicates whether the activity will be undertaken in a manner consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of BCDC’s approved coastal management programs. \nRowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov\n	  \n \n\n\nAdministrative Permit Applications \nThis report lists the administrative matters that are pending with the Commission. Due to the cancellation of the meeting of March 7\, 2024\, and pursuant to Commission Regulation Section 10620(a)\, the Executive Director will take final action on these matters unless a Commissioner requests full Commission consideration by communicating with the staff prior to March 7\, 2024. In the absence of such a request\, the listed matters will be executed administratively after March 7\, 2024. \n\n\n	 Applicant\n\n\n\nSausalito-Marin City Sanitary District\n	  1 East Road\n	  Sausalito\, CA 94965	  \n \n \nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.002.00 \n \n\n\nFiled\nDecember 22\, 2023\n\n\n90 Day\nMarch 21\, 2024\n\n\n\n		Location \n\nWithin the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot shoreline band jurisdictions\, at the foot of Main Street in the City of Sausalito\, Marin County\, and at the Sausalito-Marin City Sanitary District Wastewater Treatment Plant\, at 1 East Road in unincorporated Marin County. \n \n\n\n\n		Description\n	\n\nRehabilitate an existing force main along approximately 2\,200 feet of  shoreline by inserting approximately 2\,180 linear feet of slip-lining from a  liner entry pit at Main Street to a receiving pit at the treatment plant\, with  the potential need to access an intermediate wye near 38 Alexander Avenue\, and  install additional infrastructure at the Main Street pump station\, involving  the following: \n\nAt Main Street\n\nMain Street Terminus\n\nConstruction staging at the terminus of Main Street  for approximately four months\, ensuring public access to the beach at all  times.\nExcavate an approximately 50-foot-long and  4-to-6-foot-wide area at the terminus of Main Street to a depth of up to  approximately 14 feet and install new underground valves and piping below Main  Street to connect the pump station to the rehabilitated force main. \nRelocate the existing public bench as needed  consistent with the approved public access plan for the neighboring Valhalla  project as authorized by BCDC Permit No. M2015.019.02.\n\nMain Street Beach\n\nRemove existing riprap at excavation area\, then\,  following completion of the rehabilitation project\, replace the riprap with the  delayed Phase 2 public access improvements required by BCDC Permit No.  M2015.019.02.\nExcavate liner entry pit on beach of approximately  35 feet in length\, 6 feet in width\, and 6 feet in depth.\nClean force main by using a jetter to pull debris  toward the wye at the liner entry pit and capture debris in a vacuum truck to  be removed and disposed of outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction.\nBackfill excavation area with native beach sand.\n\n\nAt the Wastewater Treatment Plant\n\nRemove existing riprap at excavation area\, and  replace riprap when project is complete to restore site to pre-existing  conditions.\nExcavate a liner receiving pit on beach  approximately 55 feet long\, 4 feet wide\, and 1 foot deep.\nClean force main by using a jetter to pull debris  toward the wye at the liner receiving pit and capture debris in a vacuum truck  to be removed and disposed of outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction.\nRemove portion of existing force main and install  approximately 35 linear feet of new 16-inch force main to connect the  rehabilitated force main to the Treatment Plant\, involving trenching along the  beach.\n\nLocation near 38 Alexander Avenue\n\nIn the event the liner becomes stuck between Main  Street and the treatment plant\, access the wyes from the surface to facilitate  movement of the liner.    \n\n\n \n\n\n		Tentative Staff Position\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Katharine  Pan; 415/352-3650 or katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov\n	  \n \n\nEmergency Permits \nThe Executive Director has issued the following emergency permit since the last listing. \n\n\n	 Applicant\n\n\n\nPacific Gas and Electric Company\n	  300 Lakeside Drive\n	  Oakland\, CA 94612 \n\nEmergency Permit No. E2023.007.00 \n \n\n\nFiled\nJanuary  23\, 2024\n\n\n\n		Location \n\nIn the Commission’s Certain Waterway jurisdiction at the Lakeville-Ignacio IG01/004 Electrical Tower (38.121742\, -122.507470) situated in tidal marsh east of the Petaluma River in unincorporated Sonoma County. \n \n\n\n\n		Description\n	\n\nConduct emergency repairs of a steel lattice electrical tower by  repairing and raising the tower foundations and installing cathodic protection.  The project resulted in the temporary disturbance of tidal marsh\, for which the  permittee is required to restore to the pre-construction condition within three  years and submit annual monitoring reports to ensure the success of the  restoration.  \nRowan Yelton  [415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov] \n \n \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Articles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nMud-Starved Wetlands Get a Meal\, At Last\nMORE TRAINING ACADEMIES PERCOLATING\nNBC Bay Area: Lawmakers propose measure they believe would save Bay from future flooding\nNew Highway 37 planning structure elevates focus on environment\, San Pablo Baylands\nAt epicenter of battle to hold back the sea
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/march-7-2024-commission-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240311T170000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240311T183000
DTSTAMP:20260525T222126
CREATED:20240127T083335Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240319T200721Z
UID:10000115-1710176400-1710181800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:March 11\, 2024 Joint Design Review Board and Port of San Francisco Waterfront Design Meeting
DESCRIPTION:The Design Review Board meetings 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 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. \nBayside Conference RoomPort of San FranciscoPier 1\, The EmbarcaderoSan Francisco415-274-0400 \nJoin the Meeting Via Zoom \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/84327629590?pwd=32j2Mdgqh3knGsJD0KOzSO4xPTPBxA.hjjj_0l8I08GTNnP \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers: \nUSA Toll Free1 (816) 423-42821( 866) 590-5055 \nConference code: 374334 \nMeeting ID:843 2762 9590 \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				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order and Meeting Procedure Review\nRemembrance and tribute to Marsha Maytum\, Waterfront Design Advisory Committee member from 2005 through 2023\nPort Announcements\, adoption of WDAC Minutes\, and adoption of WDAC Operating Procedures\nBCDC Announcements and approval of Draft Summary for the January 8\, 2024 Meeting\nPublic Comment for items not on the agenda\nFerry Building and Ferry Plaza Alterations in the City of San Francisco\, San Francisco County (Second Pre-Application Review)The Design Review Board and Port Waterfront Advisory Committee will hold their second pre-application review of the proposal by Hudson Pacific Properties to make exterior alterations to the San Francisco Ferry Building and Ferry Plaza at various locations along the ground floor and the building site.(Katharine Pan) [415/352-3650 katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov]Exhibit\nBriefing on the San Francisco Waterfront Coastal Flood Study Draft PlanThe Design Review Board and Port Waterfront Advisory Committee will receive a briefing from the Port of San Francisco on the Draft Plan for the San Francisco Waterfront Flood Study\, which was released for public comment at the end of January. The draft plan addresses coastal flood risk and effects of sea level rise for the 7.5 miles of waterfront within the Port of San Francisco’s jurisdiction from Aquatic Park to Heron’s Head Park.Presentation\nAdjournment in honor of Marsha Maytum.\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Summary\n				\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				March 11\, 2024 video meeting\n \nTranscript \nThe P. One. \nHello! \nrwassum: I’m located here at the pier. One port offices in San Francisco\, and our meeting will include participants who are here in the room and those who are participating online. And I want to thank the port for hosting the meeting here tonight. \nrwassum: Our first order of business is to call the role and board members. Can you please unmute yourselves to respond and then mute yourselves again after responding\, staff\, Ashley\, can you call the role \nrwassum: chair. Mccann\, present vice chair\, Strang\, present board\, Member Battalio present \nrwassum: board member Flores\, present board\, Member Hall and Pellegrini will be here shortly. \nrwassum: Thank you\, Ashley Danode\, at the support of San Francisco. I see all 5 of our committee members are here. So consider that \noops. \nrwassum: Okay\, thank you\, Dan\, and thank you\, Ashley. We have a quorum present. So we duly constituted to conduct business. \nrwassum: I want to share some some instructions to begin with\, on how we can best participate in this meeting\, so that it runs as smoothly as possible \nrwassum: 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 that it’s on so that everybody can see you\, and for members of the public. If you’d like to speak during a public con comment period. That is part of an agenda item\, you will need to do so in one of 3 ways. \nrwassum: First\, if you are 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\, and you will be asked to come up to the podium one at a time\, and to state your name and affiliation prior to providing your comments during the meeting. \nrwassum: After all individuals who are present make their comments\, we should call on those participants who are attending remotely to participate in the meeting. \nrwassum: The second way\, if you’re attending on the Zoom Platform\, please raise your virtual hand in zoom. If you’re new to zoom and you join our meeting using the zoom application\, click the hand at the bottom of your screen\, the hand should turn blue when it’s raised. \nrwassum: 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. \nrwassum: After you are called on\, you will be unmuted\, so that you can share your comments. \nrwassum: Please state your name and affiliation with the beginning of your remarks. Remember\, you have a limit of 3 min to speak on an item\, and we will tell you when you have 1 min remaining. \nrwassum: Please keep your comments respectful and focus. We are here to listen to everyone who wishes to address us\, but everyone has the responsibility to act in a civil manner. We will not tolerate hate\, speech\, threats made directly or indirectly\, and or abusive language. \nrwassum: We will mute anyone who fails to follow these guidelines\, or who exceeds the established time limits without permission \nrwassum: for public comments. If you are attending online\, please note that we will only hear your voices. Your video will not be enabled. If you are attending the 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 rooms audio system and is not synced to the individual panelist videos. \nrwassum: If you would like to add your contact information to the interested parties list to be notified of future meetings concerning these projects. Please call or email our board secretary\, Ashley\, Tomaland. \nrwassum: and her contact. Information is on the screen in front of us\, and can also be found on the BC. DC’s website. And finally\, every now and get. And again you will hear me refer to the meeting host to his Yuri tonight. Our BC DC. Staff are acting here as hosts for the meeting behind the scenes to ensure that technology moves the meeting forward smoothly and consistently. Please be patient with us if it’s needed. \nrwassum: And now the Board Secretary will provide a stop update with Dan to use. Sorry today. Board members and or San Francisco or Front design advisory committee members. \nrwassum: First time on the agenda is a remembrance past waterfront design advisory committee. Member \nrwassum: Marshall was an incredible person and wonderful to have on the committee. \nrwassum: She held valuable insight into how architecture interacts with people in the public realm\, and she was a master communicator. When it was Marcia’s turn to speak. Here the room would go silent. \nrwassum: People waited and listened to her every word. She possessed extensive knowledge\, architecture\, historic rehabilitation\, and urban design. She could explain complex issues in a manner that everyone understood. \nrwassum: and she left\, all agreeing that with her guidance project \nrwassum: she was gracious to all. \nrwassum: never providing a reason to be criticized. \nrwassum: So much of what she did to humanize architecture and public space. In conversation you could tell. She appreciated first viewpoints\, which was evident in how she spoke and treated others. \nrwassum: Marsha\, I on the port. Thank you for making waterfront more attractive\, more efficient\, and overall better place\, and we shall miss you. \nrwassum: No letting Marsha’s husband is here. Just want to acknowledge him. Thank you for coming \nrwassum: for all he is done for. \nrwassum: Appreciate the week. control you for your lives. \nrwassum: This is a time. If other Border Committee members want to mention Marsha or saying thing. I welcome that \nrwassum: as well. Thank you. \nrwassum: And it’s I think others in the room appreciate Russia’s contribution throughout \nrwassum: of what she did\, and she served on the committee from 2\,005 till \nrwassum: 2\,022. Right? So very long\, product. \nrwassum: Thank you very much. \nrwassum: Your. Yes\, your staff report. \nrwassum: Okay. The first item we have is 4 min of the April tenth\, 2023. Our front side advisory committee and for which we distributed to the committee members. Are there any changes alteration suggested for those months? \nrwassum: If not\, they stand up as drafted \nrwassum: we also circulated operating procedures for the Waterfront Design Advisory Committee\, and we’re using a chair to do it this evening. Are there any? \nrwassum: Do any of the committee members have comments on the operating procedures for that committee. \nrwassum: Those are amendable at any time. So we’ll stand with those as drafted at this point in time. \nrwassum: Okay\, thank you\, Dad. \nrwassum: and on behalf of the BC. DC. Design Review Board. Bill\, I just want to add our condolences to. As Dan mentioned\, the longevity of marshes association with the waterfront has left a a visible legacy for everyone. So we’re very grateful to her work over many years. \nrwassum: Okay? So we’ll move to the approval of the draft summary for January eighth\, 2024. Meeting we were finished with those the draft summary that was the meeting that we reviewed to pay park\, and 1301 sure way\, sure way live development \nrwassum: any corrections or comments from anyone. \nrwassum: Yeah\, I have some corrections. And I’m going to send them by email because they’re a little long winded. But I’ll just go over very quickly. So everybody knows the basic content. So I’ll read the what was described to me\, and then what it should be corrected to. \nrwassum: It is refreshing to see a softening approach as opposed to developing undesirable areas. It would probably be clearer to say it is encouraging to see an example of managed retreat that creates newly accessible outdoor space as opposed to using engineering solutions to hold back the advance of the ocean. \nrwassum: Then\, next is\, there’s \nrwassum: there’s beauty to a landscape being legible\, non-digactic learning. At Marina Green you can see a lot of rubble\, and there’s not a need for overwhelming signage. It’s about self discovery. \nrwassum: Possibly better. There is value to learning through self discovery and minimizing use signage. For example\, if the Marina green at low tide\, one can notice on one’s own. The classical stone building parts were used for rip wrap at the water’s edge after the earthquake of 1906\, \nrwassum: and finally\, observe that allowing dogs does seem like a cross mission to the intention of the park \nrwassum: change. To allowing dogs seems contrary to the intention for the park\, which is to establish a natural ecology. Thank you. \nrwassum: Okay\, thank you. So we’ll take those on board when we \nrwassum: prove the the notes. I also have 2 minor ones. Page 8 \nrwassum: point 4 \nrwassum: in the top section. It was a comment I made third line down. Just change the word instill to create \nrwassum: create regulations\, to address potential conflict. And then the final sentence like that\, the design is assisting with the parts objectives. We could just strike that. I don’t think that’s necessary. \nOkay\, any other changes. \nrwassum: Okay? So \nrwassum: I think \nrwassum: 4 of us were at that meeting. Let me just double check. \nrwassum: You weren’t. No\, you weren’t so\, Gary. \nrwassum: It’s you and me. Would you like to \nrwassum: move to approve? I will make a motion to approve the minutes\, and I will second it. Yes\, all those in favor. \nrwassum: And look thank you to staff for preparing these\, and particularly for the pave part\, because that was a single review\, and it’s been passed off. And it’s very large project. So I’m grateful that you have recorded detailed notes of that \nto guide staff as the project moves forward. \nrwassum: Right\, we will move to \nthe next item on the agenda\, which is the staff Update Ashley. I’ll hand it back to you for that I’d like to acknowledge that Board Member Hall has arrived\, and she’s now in meeting \nrwassum: I mean. I tried to keep this brief tonight \nrwassum: form 700 tis the time of the year when I must remind the Board to complete their online form. 700 filing for a statement of economic interests. \nrwassum: You should have received an email with instructions on how to file electronically\, please your junk mail filter. If you have not seen the email. I can also forward you the email that violin is due. Tuesday\, April second. \nrwassum: We will not be having a Drb meeting in April. \nrwassum: And that concludes my staff update. Okay\, thank you. \nrwassum: I will move to the next item\, which is public comments for items which are not on tonight’s agenda. If there’s any anyone who wants to speak to \nrwassum: items like that. And we’ll start with those members of the public who are in our headquarters building here today. If anyone would like to speak to an item that’s not on the agenda. Form a line near the podium to make a public comment. \nrwassum: seeing none. We’ll move to online. Is there anyone online who would like to make a public comment for items that are not on tonight’s agenda. We have no one online. I will not read the detailed instruction. \nOkay. \nrwassum: thank you. So we’ll move to now to the second review of proposed alterations at the Ferry Building and Ferry Plaza in San Francisco. And this is item 6. It’s a second review. And I will just remind you everyone of the order for this. So we will start with BC. DC. Import staff introductions to the project. Then we will have the project proponent presentation \nrwassum: we’ll have board and committee clarifying questions. We’ll have public comment then\, followed by board and committee discussion and summary\, and then we’ll conclude with a project proponent response\, a brief response to what’s being heard in the discussion. Summary \nso with that I’ll hand to BC. DC. Permanent at permanent analyst. Catherine Pam\, who’s going to introduce project? \nrwassum: We have somebody raising our hand on online participant raising their hand. Are you speaking or public comment for an item that’s not on tonight’s agenda \nrwassum: left. Yeah. \nRobert Harrer: no\, this is for items. An answer. Project. \nrwassum: Okay\, there will be an opportunity to comment after the staff interest. \nrwassum: Okay\, okay\, thanks\, Catherine. \nAlright. It’s being recorded. \nThank you. Chair Mccann\, and good evening Board members and committee members. Katherine\, Pan\, BCDC. Shoreline development program manager. And I’ll be introducing tonight’s project in terms of our regulatory context before I do. I’d like to remind the project team and staff to please turn on your video when you’re speaking or answering questions. When you’re not actively engaged with the board. Please turn off your video and mute your microphones that we may minimize distractions on screen. \nAnd this is the second review of the Ferry Building and Ferry Plaza. Alterations project in the city and county of San Francisco. The previous review was April tenth\, 2023. \nrwassum: So the post project is located at the Ferry Building\, a landmark on the San Francisco waterfront\, where Market Street meets the embarcadero. Just south of Pier one. The ferry building is an active ferry terminal and provides ferry access to and from Angel Island and north and East Bay destinations. \nrwassum: This site is covered by Vcdc. San Francisco waterfront special area plan. \nand it’s part of the plant’s northeastern waterfront geographic area. \nrwassum: The ferry building located the edge of the city’s financial district and downtown area is home to a variety of commercial uses and office uses\, and is surrounded by many similar uses. \nis also part of the waterfront\, extensive public recreation and net access network. So here you can see the ferry building and plaza in relation to Peer one which is actually where we are meeting today\, and the Weeda Plaza in adjacent public access space. \nrwassum: The area round the ferry Building and Ferry Plaza is covered by a number of existing VCDC. Permits\, each with its own public access conditions resulting in a layering of different access requirements from different eras of the site’s development. \nrwassum: I’ll summarize these briefly to provide some context for some of the changes being proposed\, as well as for some of the surrounding access connections. Since our last presentation of this information last April’s review\, we’ve taken another close. Look at these permits and refined our understanding of these access requirements. \nrwassum: So as a reminder\, when we talk about the ferry plaza\, we’re referring to this open area on the bay side of the ferry building enclosed by the Golden Gate Ferry terminal. And this restaurant structure. \nrwassum: all of this is located. \nrwassum: Yeah\, is located on the ferry platform\, which is also known as the Bart platform\, which is all fill\, authorized by Permit 1967011. \nrwassum: The 1967 permit required public access on the perimeter of the platform not required for ferry operations. The area wasn’t specified in a permit exhibit\, but was described in the text of the permit special conditions as the perimeter of portions of the platforms that are not required for ferry port operating purposes\, and that do not interfere with birthing ceremonial ships\, that in no case shall be less than 35 feet in width from the edge of the platform. So this depiction is based on that description. \nrwassum: Permit 1973010 authorized both the restaurant and the Golden Gate Ferry terminal. The permit required the entire plaza east of the easterly wall of the ferry building\, as extended south across the but platform. Except for those areas occupied by the ferry terminal\, or required for access to the restaurant to be used exclusively for public access. \nrwassum: It also required the second floor public lookout at the ferry terminals\, public access. \nrwassum: the requirement for the ferry plaza was later transferred to the 2\,001 Ferry building. Rehabilitation. Permit? So you’ll see that cut out here. Is cheap. \nrwassum: So permit 1990 0 8 was for a number of roadway improvements along the embarcadero and for the Muni Metro. It required the dedication of public access area for the Ambcero promenade between Broadway and Harrison Street \nrwassum: Amendment 6 approved in 2\,007\, authorized the use of a portion of the dedicated public access area to be used for outdoor dining. These include the 30 foot wide areas shown on either side of the building’s entry portico\, which have come to be called the cafe market zones \nrwassum: permit 90\, 97\, 0 0 7 authorize additional fill for North and South Ferry portal. A publicly accessible sheet pile\, breakwater\, and the promenades around the ferry building\, as well as the demolition of Pier one half to the north. \nrwassum: The dedicated public access areas required by the permit include the new North\, east\, and South promenads \nand Pier 14\, which is the breakwater. \nrwassum: Note that the South promenade here was dedicated\, based on an older configuration of the ferry building in wharf that changed with the remodelling of the building and the construction of the new Weeda terminals and plaza. \nThe 1997 permit also required the reservation of the new concourse of the ferry building\, and a 12 to 15 foot wide corridor between the embarcadero and the South\, prominent for public access purposes. \nrwassum: These areas were not required to be dedicated at the time to allow for the flexibility to consider potential revisions to the public’s use of the area. If and when the building was renovated. \nrwassum: permit 2\,000 0 one authorize the Ferry building\, rehabilitation project and the use of the ferry plaza for the farmers market. As the rehabilitation expanded the second floor of the building over the existing east promenade\, the promenade was expanded 12 feet bayward to provide continued uncovered access. \nrwassum: The required dedicated public access includes the East promenade space to 10 foot wide\, pass throughs through the ferry building and cafe market zones to mean\, maintain free of obstructions and the ground floor public restrooms\, as well as the ferry plaza\, which was transferred from that 1973 permit \nrwassum: and permit 2016 0 0 one authorized new gates for the Wida San Francisco Bay Ferry\, south of the Ferry Plaza\, and included public access conditions for the Weeda plaza\, also called the Embarcadero Plaza\, and a bayside promenade connecting the new ferry gates. \nrwassum: These areas are outside of the scope of the current project. But we’re including this information\, so that you’re aware of these closely connected uses immediately adjoining the project site. \nrwassum: And then here are just some contextual photos to orient us and help you visualize the current conditions of the site. Here’s the North Cafe Zone in Arcade. Here\, you can see. Got outdoor seating area. The north North Pass through entrance and at the time they were in the process of setting up additional outdoor seating\, and these were taken last April. On a Monday morning the North Arcade here is also\, used by a variety of commercial kiosks. \nrwassum: Here’s also the North Arcade last April\, on a Saturday evening. \nrwassum: And then here’s the south Caffeine market zone with the outdoor dining area and South Pass through and the South arcade\, which is mainly for storage and farmers market operations\, and these were from last April. This one in the bottom left was from this past December. \nrwassum: And here’s some views of the ferry plaza. This one on the top right is a view from the Gandhi statue\, facing towards the south side of the building. And then\, just under that is a view of the space on the north side of the plaza next to the Golden Gate Ferry Terminal facing east toward the restaurant structure\, and all of these are taken on a Monday morning last April. \nrwassum: And then here just 2 quick views of a crowd arriving at the plaza from the Golden Gate Ferry. So these are pedestrians and cyclists\, all making their way to the south side of the building across the plaza. \nAlso 9 Am. Last April. \nrwassum: Here’s the area on the south side of the ferry building. We’ve been calling the South promenade. So this provides access for both pedestrians and vehicles to the ferry plaza. So here you can see the area that’s reserved for public access alongside the drive aisle that’s also used by delivering service vehicles these cones and barriers here used to control vehicle access and this is from a morning last April between ferry landing. So it’s pretty empty. \nAnd then here\, just a few views from when the space is a little bit busier. Wednesday afternoon last December\, a Thursday morning in January\, during a ferry disembarkation a Wednesday evening in February\, and then Saturday afternoon after market in February. \nrwassum: Little blurry I guess \nrwassum: so lastly\, here’s some photos of the Saturdays farmers market. So here’s the South. Prominent area again during the market last April. \nrwassum: And then here are just some comparisons of the space on a Monday morning versus the Saturday market. \nrwassum: So very\, very different conditions\, I would say\, between the 2 \nrwassum: and then here is what our community vulnerability mapping tool showed us about the area. So downtown. San Francisco is a densely populated diverse community\, and the degrees of social and contamination vulnerability indicated by the tool covers a broad range. \nrwassum: Generally speaking\, indicators associated with higher social vulnerability in the areas near the ferry building include renter\, occupancy\, no vehicle ownership as well\, some combination of limited English proficiency\, very low income\, no high school degree disability\, individuals over 65 living alone\, non us citizens and people of color. \nrwassum: And then regarding potential sea level rise\, using current site elevations. This map shows what 24 inches of sea level rise would look like if the site remained unchanged. \nrwassum: Using the Ocean Protection Council’s 2018 sea level rise guidance\, 24 inches of sea level rise is equivalent to the mean higher high water level under the medium to high risk aversion\, high emission scenario at mid century. So at this level\, there’s potential for flooding during a hundred year storm event. \nrwassum: And this shows what 66 inches of sea level rise would look like if the unchanged. This roughly corresponds to the mean higher high water level at 2090\, and the medium to high risk aversion\, high emission scenario\, as well as the 100 year storm condition in mid century. \nand in this scenario the project site and much of the waterfront would be inundated. \nrwassum: So just reminder. Following this agenda item\, the port will be providing a briefing on the San Francisco waterfront coastal flood study which should provide some more context on the ports area-wide adaptation efforts. \nrwassum: Alright. And then here’s just a quick refresher. On some of the major topics of discussion from the previous review on April tenth of last year. Note that the project description has changed since then. Most notably in the removal of the bayfront kitchens. Alteration to the east side of the building and the ferry plaza kiosk from the proposal \nrwassum: in their review the boards were concerned that public spaces and amenities would be removed\, but that the demand for them might not be accommodated in the new design. And we’re interested in seeing metrics for amenities such as seating in order to compare existing and proposed conditions. \nrwassum: It was noted that the ferry building and surrounded public access areas are an equalizing space for tourists and local residents alike\, and they were concerned that the public nature of the site would be reduced. \nrwassum: The boards discuss how the gravitas of civic architecture contributes to the public character with the building and plaza\, and how more substantial materials could ground the public areas of the site\, while more playful\, lighter materials could help define the private commercial areas. \nrwassum: The boards also discuss improving the continuity materials and design between the proposed project and neighboring civic sites\, such as the Weed Weeda Plaza \nrwassum: members noted the importance of the transportation program that the plaza supports and that the space plays a significant role in making connections to all modes of transit members express concerns that with the transition from public transportation hub to more private uses. They also suggested\, considering the pathways that draw people to the plaza and different destinations of the site\, and finding a balance in way\, finding between using the building as landmark using design elements of draws \nand appropriate signage. \nrwassum: Alright! And then\, before we pass this over to the port staff\, I’d like to quickly summarize the questions in the staff. Report that we’d like the Board to consider in your review. So first\, please consider how this project meets the public access objectives provided in Bcd’s public access design guidelines \nrwassum: and then Staff has also identified some specific questions. We’d like to ask the Board about the design at this stage these are one to the proposed alterations reflect the civic nature of the ferry building\, and potential demands for public uses of the site is this\, if nature of the building and surrounding public spaces supported by the materiality and design of the proposed project. \nrwassum: 2. Do the proposed alterations sufficient sufficiently maintain or enhance circulation and connectivity to and along the shoreline. 3. Do the proposed activation areas along the building frontages collectively and individually promote an inviting and usable public access environment at the ferry building and allow for adequate public circulation to site entrances and destinations. \nrwassum: or\, in particular\, with the proposal to place a cafe\, market zone and public seating area in the South Promenade\, activate and improve the quality of the bal public access experience in balance with addressing the public access and circulation needs of the project area and then 5 to the proposed elements. Support a cohesive\, legible and inviting public access program. \nSo first\, I want to check to see if the board has any clarifying questions for me on anything presented in this introduction? \nrwassum: Any questions from anyone. Those permits all stack on top of each other\, none of them undid anything. \nrwassum: Let’s see. \nrwassum: I think\, the one so some of them do \nrwassum: like they reference one another. But that 1973 and the 2\,000 permit or the one kind of that\, specifically transferring the responsibility for the ferry closet over to kind of a new permit. \nrwassum: But other than that. They kind of just all like\, lie on top of each other like that. Yeah. \nrwassum: okay\, I’ll just jump in here. I just want to acknowledge that. Stephan Pellegrini board member Pellegrini has joined the meeting\, so we have that on the record. Thank you. I don’t think there’s any other clarifying question. So we’ll move on. Thank you. Hey\, Catherine? \nrwassum: So then I’ll pass it over to Dan Hodap from the part of San Francisco to present the port staff report. Thank you\, Katherine and I wanna remind Gordon committee members that will do. Speak\, speak up loudly\, but we tend to pick up very well for those that are watching online. But we don’t pick up so well for those that are sitting right here. \nrwassum: So please remember that. Use your big voice. Okay\, I wanna summarize a few points about Hudson’s proposal. Hudson Pacific Park properties and proposal for the ferry Building area on their purpose of the Ferry building project has stated. Staff report is to improve the public access\, visitor\, experience. \nrwassum: clarify and enhance pedestrian circulation around the ferry building. \nrwassum: extend visitor hours to also make the building an evening destination\, you know\, 10 to 7\, \nrwassum: and accomplish these goals while minimizing changes to the buildings. Historic significance\, architecture. Excuse me \nrwassum: at this second review Hudson’s design team will focus on free areas enhancements to activate the embark at arrow frontage which include weather protection in the arcades and other entry areas on that west front of the building \nrwassum: and canopies to shelter outdoor dining in the 30 foot width area adjacent to the building. \nrwassum: She is a public access area described specifically as an outdoor dining market. So that’s first. The second is along the south end of the building. \nrwassum: They’re proposing furnishings\, lighting and identity features to activate this side of the building and the strength of the pedestrian character of the area. \nrwassum: This is an area there would be changes to the public access. Definition supplies. \nrwassum: The third is in the closet behind the Ferry Building Ferry Plaza. They’ll describe minor improvements to extend us into the evening\, and for special events \nrwassum: regarding that answers to some questions that came up with previous meeting. \nrwassum: Golden Gate Ferry does not have immediate plans to alter their facility other than to repair existing flows. They’ve mentioned longer term ideas unlikely be within the next 5 years. \nrwassum: The port second of the port’s working with a broker on Ferry Plaza East\, which is the restaurant at the far end of the Plaza. \nrwassum: There is a potential tenant\, for it’s early in the discussions and changes are not likely to occur for at least 2 years and we don’t and won’t anticipate that this would impact any of the proposals you see in front of you tonight \nrwassum: the waterfront resilience plan\, which would be the next item on the agenda\, describes ideas for how to protect the ferry building during rising sea levels. The team is working with army corp engineers on the flood study \nrwassum: implementation would not be for 5 or more years. And the last point is\, Hudson is aware of all of these items I just mentioned\, and is aware that some of their investments could be impacted by future projects. That’s part of the responsibility to take this. \nrwassum: So we also have questions for the committee different than or 3. What focus on here \none will. The enhancements along the market arrow side of the building activate this frontage \nrwassum: with inviting cafes and public spaces\, and we’ll continue to allow appropriate views in the building and start building. \nrwassum: Second along the south end of the building. Will the proposed cafe market zone\, a public seating area and driveway. \nrwassum: With the sign and signage features activate this area\, that collection of improvements are planning. and will it add clarity to the circulation out of the building and from the market arrow promenades and back. \nrwassum: and will improve its pedestrian character like you saw images of it in Katherine’s presentation a couple minutes ago. \nrwassum: and the third is to the proposed elements together\, support a cohesive civic design compatible with the historic district. \nrwassum: With that I’d like to introduce Chris Pearson from who’s going to introduce the design team. \nrwassum: you know. \nrwassum: Thank you. Guys\, thanks. Good evening. Sorry. \nrwassum: So do I need to pull that one \nrwassum: last \nrwassum: should pull it up. \nrwassum: Okay. \nrwassum: awesome. Good evening. My name is Chris Pearson\, Senior\, Vice President of Development\, planning for us in Pacific. I appreciate the opportunity I could talk about our announcement project and talk about our role as stewards from this building you. You will hear from our design team. You will hear from Jane who has led us in guide in the very building in the last 20 years. I did wanna provide some context before. We got through this project for us is so much about our stewardship \nrwassum: and so much about our partnership with our tenants. It’s really to continue to engage with this building and bring it to life. \nrwassum: At all times. Today the building is open from about 6 Am. To 10 pm. Every evening. We lose activity. At about 6 30 pm. As barrier riders go home for the evening. Kind of pre covid \nrwassum: our tenants. We’re experiencing kind of an uptick in sales \nrwassum: which has allowed us to really rejuvenate the very really marketplace by focusing on women and ipod businesses \nrwassum: post covid. What we’ve seen is a 20% decline in sales. \nrwassum: The sales are really attributed to work from home. We’ve seen our tourism levels back to Pre 19 levels. But our tenants are still recovering\, and they’re also dealing with an increase in food costs. Labor costs everything else is trying to balance that with operating into this historic building. \nrwassum: Our hope and our desire is to find ways to activate this building into the evening and to really attract individuals\, to let them know that they’re building is alive and well in the evening\, and really encourage our vendors to fail them. Past 6 pm. \nrwassum: How do we do that? \nrwassum: Well\, this year we’re focusing down\, lighting the building\, which is something you’ll see in the come in the coming months. Hopefully\, we’ll light up the exterior of the building to really announce to the city of San Francisco that the building is alive and well in the evenings to Jane and her team have focused on really trying to provide events for civic engagement. \nrwassum: Last year they hosted 55 events on site\, with the hope to increase that overtime really providing free opportunities to engage with the building and expose it to the broader city\, as everybody knows it is\, but really give our vendors opportunities to engage with the new customer base both in the daytime and throughout the evening on weekends. \nOver the last several months we’ve been really focused \nrwassum: on \nrwassum: coming down the brass tax of this project and working with our partners to come up with an opportunity that we thought supported some of our most important tenants like food wise but also gave us an opportunity to bring the project to life. And so what you’ll see which you’ll hear from Carl and team today is really how we really want to activate in Barcodero \nrwassum: how we wanna light up the very plaza in the evenings to really attract folks back there\, and how we wanna activate the sound of prominent to show people this building is a lived and experienced organism\, and not just the architectural generally come to love so much. \nrwassum: I think some of the questions that we had in our previous presentation was about public public access and public seating this project will allow us to create 56 more public seats \nrwassum: on the South problem\, and I will be able to dedicate additional 236 square feet public access. All things we feel like meet the overarching goals of both these groups today. \nrwassum: I’d now like to introduce them to skip for just a bit\, but I now like to introduce Jane Connors to give you some con context for our stewardship on the very building. \nThank you\, Chris. \nrwassum: Good evening. I’m Jane Connors. I’m the general manager of the ferry building\, and I’ve had the honor of running the ferry building for the last 20 years\, and being a part of this team\, it’s remarkable \nrwassum: opportunity. And when people ask me\, what is it like to run the ferry building\, I always remind them we’re not just property managers\, we truly are stewards. We are looking at ways to make the building better. We’re looking at ways to make the community engaged and better\, and make our events better. \nrwassum: And one of the things I’m really proud of in the last 4 years\, and I think Dan and Mark Pyaz would agree\, is we restored the building facade\, culminating with the restoration of the 245 foot clock tower. So we take historic preservation very seriously\, and we’re really proud of that accomplishment and bringing in local artisans to do this kind of detailed work on completing the project. \nrwassum: and one of the best parts of our job is handing keys to these merchants. So when we hand keys to like Senior Csig or over Thomas\, he just patties or brand crapery. It’s one of the best days ever these food artisans have been waiting to open at the very building. It’s a culmination of what they are working for. \nrwassum: And then the last year we brought more vendors in you know. Reams has opened in Arabic comfort food. shop. Right in the Central Pass through. We open fatted calf\, who started very positive farmers market over 20 years ago. A year ago they came back to the building and are really thrilled to be rooted in the community where they started \nrwassum: and we announced New Cammonnian restaurant at the south end of the very building 2 weeks ago. And again\, somebody who’s totally thrilled to be a part of the community of businesses at the very building. \nrwassum: and I wanted to highlight at the top left photo. So Kiva grew up in San Francisco. He spent his childhood on the waterfront fishing with his dad. Little matter of fact\, his mom is a long\, short person that worked on the San Francisco waterfront. \nrwassum: She celebrated her eightieth birthday yesterday at the Ferry building with a birthday party\, but when we went to him with the opportunity to work at the ferry building to open a shop. It was again the culmination of what he’s worked for in the last 10 years \nrwassum: to be able to hang his hat here and say\, This is where I am. After all this hard work\, it’s really remarkable. But the other thing about being a steward at the very building is also listening to tenants and about what they need to make their businesses succeed. And in the last 20 years we’ve expanded shops. We’ve made their shops better\, and in the last 4 years the great assessment of Covid \nrwassum: is listening to these tenants and what they need\, and it’s outdoor dining. It’s better lighted. It’s extending the experience beyond lunch and the the 3 days a week of the farmers market. \nrwassum: you know. And so I think what we’re proposing today are subtle\, subtle changes\, but great enhancements to prolong the experience of the. \nrwassum: And one of our most important partnerships is with food wise. That’s the nonprofit that operates the very positive farmers market. I’ve had the honor again of working with Lulu and Christina here tonight\, Andrea. Thanks for coming here. But we listen to them\, too\, and we’ve listened to them\, you know\, up in since last April\, and making changes to this presentation into the proposed enhancements. \nrwassum: But again. I’m really proud. In the last 4 years we never closed. One day during the pandemic they operated 3 days a week\, and provided nourishment and connection a very\, very important part of what we’ve got from the last few years. \nrwassum: and starting 4 years ago\, prior to the pandemic\, we were producing about 4 to 6 seasonal events a year. \nrwassum: and we started to realize\, let’s bring in in house marketing and events teams to really help cultivate the community connection with our partners in different community neighborhood groups. \nrwassum: And over the last Chris mentioned\, we’ve produced 55 events last year. We’re planning on 150 events\, and that includes cooking classes\, Yoga classes\, music\, etc. And these are recent activations with community groups from the Chinatown dance troupe and the lion dancers during lunar New Year \nrwassum: and then on the back plaza\, we’re doing activations like the outdoor Yoga class. The Nighttime Activation skate night. We have a monthly plant market on Sundays\, and of course our music during the Thursday and Friday lunches during the summer time. \nrwassum: But again it all goes down to ways to make the very building better. And what we’re proposing today are these enhancements that we will that will bring the building into the evening and other days of the week. \nrwassum: and I’m introduced. Carl Cain. \nrwassum: Thank you. Jane Carl Cade\, Vice President of Construction for how to pacific properties \nrwassum: coming to Hudson. A big part of the excitement was be able to work on this project with Jane and her team in order to make what is already great success \nrwassum: an even more special and active part of our city here in San Francisco. I and our design team\, led by a lot of coach Robsky\, from Paige and Turnbull and Sarah Keel from landscape architects are going to take you through. What we’re doing. I think what Jane really tells us about. That’s important is that the design is really driven by the people \nrwassum: that make the ferry building experience so much of the building\, it will and needs to stay the same by a virtue of its heritage status. But I think the people\, and how they need to be able to use the space is what is driven driving\, what you’re going to see today. \nrwassum: So since we were last here\, we’ve been working with a number of groups\, and we’ve made some modifications. Some of you were here with us last year\, and you’ll see that we’ve really paired back and focused on the most important areas to support our merchants and the other people that make the ferry building. \nrwassum: Specifically\, we’re gonna have 3 key areas across the front. \nrwassum: The North Arcade\, with the cafe zone in front of it\, the South Arcade\, with the cafe market zone in front of it\, the gateway area\, which is a huge opportunity that we sometimes call the wedge \nrwassum: for obvious reason. If you look at the plan here and then finally\, an actual reduced scope where we’re really just looking at lighting specifically on the that plaza that’s much needed to make that a space that can be well used into the evening \nrwassum: about what you’re not going to see or what we’ve removed. First\, we in working with food wise\, our farmers market partner. We decided to remove the kiosk from the back plaza and and go further\, and really limit any fixed obstructions on the back plaza that make it hard not only to operate the market\, but also to load in and load out of the market and food wise is here today. \nrwassum: Second\, we remove the bay front kitchen component from the center back of the building. It’s really just not core to what’s most important right now. And so we’re focusing in on what’s going to most drive the merchant needs. And the merchant merchant vitality. \nrwassum: Here you can see a quick preview of what we’re looking at in the front arcade. This is the North Arcade. \nrwassum: We’ve got merchants\, and to be clear. Many of our merchants are both restaurants and food purveyors for take away and prepared foods\, \nrwassum: occupying fully occupying \nthat was front arcades \nrwassum: and and spilling out open onto the cafe zoom. \nrwassum: It’s important to note here\, and if you can see it in the rendering in 2\,003\, roll down grill gates were put in as a part of that project. \nrwassum: So we went back to that same location and looked at the way in which those are installed behind and separate from the building arcade and are looking at how we can create a moveable glass panel system that will be open during the regular daytime\, when the building is is generally functioning well\, and have that open condition that we would like to have. \nrwassum: and then have them when it’s cold or windy and into the nighttime be able to have something that would be closed today. Those rolled down our case that you saw earlier. They still don’t do much about wind or temperature into the evening. So that’s one of the important things to notice here. \nrwassum: The cafe zone\, as you see\, is lively\, is projecting live onto the embargo frontage\, including dining zones\, seating and public\, seating along the front and actually over towards the sort the portico. There is also a public non dedicated seating added there\, in addition to the canopy. \nrwassum: we think the wedge and the\, as we call it\, around the office for the gateway\, as we’re starting to call it more publicly as a huge opportunity. \nrwassum: There we now have a great neighbor in the weed of Plaza. The building itself\, with the restoration complete is looking beautiful. But in between\, as you’re going to see\, there’s a real question of what to add \nrwassum: this will give us a chance to better frame the existing driveway\, and both with the cornerstone that mimics the weed of plaza\, and with the Marquis sign announcing both the ferry plaza\, and you can’t quite see in this. But individual gates \nrwassum: and directions for those gates down below. We think this can be a really special place. We also are\, gonna introduce a new cafe zoom towards the rear left portion of this and a new public seating area that will benefit from the warmth of this being the southern side of the building. \nrwassum: Finally\, and this is really quite simple. We really need great lighting out on the plaza. What you see\, here is the only change is having a series of lights that we’ll talk more about\, that. Make this a place that everyone would like to spend time well into the evening. \nrwassum: So with that\, I’d like to call up lot of Coach Rossi from Page Interpol. \nrwassum: Thank you very much\, Carl\, for great overview of the project. I’m a lot of control. Excuse me\, and principal with Page in Truman. \nrwassum: I was part of the design team preservation design team in 2\,003\, when the renovation of this building\, brilliant to become the the new destination in the city\, and I’m part of the same firm that wrote the design guidelines in 1978\, \nrwassum: that define the approach to rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the very building. And I can assure you that in the proposed design. There’s nothing that we see that contradicts these design guidelines. \nrwassum: So as as architects our goal is to meet the clients needs\, and we’re faced with 1 million questions and 1 million problems as preservation architects was paramount to us is making sure that \nrwassum: for the magnitude of significance that this building is within the context of San Francisco and nationwide. We are bringing design interventions that are compatible and sympathetic to the fabric of the existing building. \nrwassum: So as Carl outline the the Arcade proposal and the cafe zone. Our focus is to bring warmth\, light\, and consistency of the design along the along the west side of the building by integrating new uses. The restaurant uses that will occupy the ark. \nrwassum: But the the character of the building is not changing at all. We are integrating new ways in system that will remain open the majority of the day. They will only be close at night. When restaurants are closed\, and when \nrwassum: on a few days we have weather that is not really comfortable for the visitors. So so that’s the purpose of this intervention and the outdoor area with the canopies. What they’re doing is they’re framing the space for outdoor seating while remaining completely flexible. \nrwassum: We have an exhibit here that actually helps you orient yourself a little bit. These images side by side\, tells you what the character is of the of the arcade\, and how it’s being used by visitors on the left and on the right\, how we envision will be used with variety of \nrwassum: visitors\, and and public uses. The benches and the seating along the edges of the canopies are open for public\, and will not prevent anyone to be using the the building just as people are engaging the traffic that that’s traffic that goes along the \nrwassum: right here\, we it. This may be a little bit faint\, but it gives you a sense. This is a plan that shows how the the seating is being planned within the canopies that restaurants will be using. But on the market day\, we envision it being \nrwassum: we pulled back because it’s it’s completely flexible. The barriers easily move to the back to allow the use of the of the of the area by the farmers market\, and these are the tents layout that we contemplated could easily go there. So so that is how we demonstrate flexibility that comes along with a proposed design. And speaking of design\, guidelines \nrwassum: the big\, the big focus of preservation design guidelines is flexibility and reversibility\, and what we’re proposing with the canopy structures is completely reversible. Their light\, their airy they they serve to organize the space for outdoor seating and engaging visitors \nhere. We’re looking at the view of the our key from the May\, and and it shows you that the focus of the design here is to maintain the the transparency of their key. There’s no\, there’s no barriers that we’re that we’re planning. So anybody who sees the arcade in the in the images that \nrwassum: that Chris shared before with the view of the of the length of their feed. This view will remain unobstructed with future interventions. This is how you this is a good example of how you read the keys now\, and this is how you continue to read them once the once the project takes place. \nrwassum: We wanted to show a different angle\, and there were questions about previously how the and where the new glazing systems will be installed. So the the role of dates that you see right now that we show you in previous slides. This is exactly the location where we’re gonna be installing on the the new blazing systems. So essentially the interventions that took place \nrwassum: in 2\,003 that they were meant to be irreversible are being replaced with a new system. But the system that allows \nrwassum: visitors to be comfortable inside the building\, and this is the view at night\, when on\, on those\, on those days when the weather is is not friendly. This is how we can see people and be enjoying being inside those spaces. But the the systems are transparent\, and they will look inviting and warm from the outside and the inside \nrwassum: side by side views on the left\, daytime on the on the right\, nighttime of the same of the same space\, and just to touch quickly on the materiality the civic nature of the building calls for the respect to the original materials. \nrwassum: What we’re introducing in terms of limited changes and very\, very limited interventions. The storefronts\, for example\, we’re using the the same color scheme and the same talent that exists on the building. Now\, the new canopy structures are gonna be again using the darker steel \nrwassum: still frame. The frames are gonna be painted and slightly colors that are complementary to the existing materials. And here in the next slide you can see how the calendar structures are providing this engagement of the traffic that exists today by inviting people in and activating this front of the building that right now is under utilized. So we’re very excited about that. \nBut then I would like to ask Sarah here to speak about the exterior closet. \nThanks so much. It’s great to be back and to show you all some response to your design feedback from last time \nrwassum: for the record. My name is Sarah Peel\, and I have a firm called Peel Landscape Architecture. \nrwassum: When we started working on this project one it’s obviously a place of a lot of seriousness. And we were trying to solve a problem of arrival and of knowing when you got here. But also when you got to the building\, but also when you got to the plaza\, and how you knew where to go\, and \nrwassum: over the history of the building. It’s changed. It used to be water where we\, the plaza\, is\, and it was more directive when it was water. \nrwassum: And so some of what we studied was how it changed as you moved through space. So it’s when you’re approaching the building\, you site on the tower. But as you get closer to it\, the tower actually disappears\, and kind of lose your bearings. And so we were looking at what would it take to feel like? You knew where you were going\, whichever direction you’re going\, and what would make it feel welcoming and public to be going here. \nrwassum: And we showed you this diagram. That has really been our North star for thinking about arriving at the building along this south edge. And so it’s a sort of secondary crossroads that works in relation to the crossroads inside of the building\, but completes a kind of circulation experience that allows you to move inside and outside the building \nrwassum: and activate all of the spaces around it\, and it works as one system rather than an interior experience and an exterior experience. \nrwassum: What we heard last time we were here were a number of things. But I’m gonna highlight a few. I think there was a concern about the materials. The amount of color. Was this really gonna work for food wise. And the farmers market? Did it really work for someone rushing to a very? \nrwassum: Did it feel truly public when you were here? And I think those were a lot of terrific comments. And we really continued that conversation over the last 6 months to a year \nrwassum: with people who use the space every day and have a lot more conversations which \nrwassum: got very much into specific things around operations. How does this place really work? There’s a built arc architecture. But there is also a sort of programming and operations side which we attended to in our thinking. \nrwassum: and when you arrive here today\, particularly at the south end of the building. It’s a bit indeterminate. It’s unclear exactly where you’re supposed to walk. It’s unclear exactly how to enter. It’s not totally clear when you get to different plaza\, and that those are some of the things we started to solve with our interventions. \nrwassum: So our interventions are quite a bit scaled back to the last time we were here. And we’re really building on what’s come before us much more directly. So\, for example\, we’ve added a cornerstone seating element \nrwassum: that is almost a piece of a glacier that cleaved off from the weed of Plaza. We’ve added the gateway sign and kept that to announce you entering Ferry Plaza\, and we have activation and spill out from the building on the eastern half. Of the wedge. And all of those things together begin to suggest. \nrwassum: This is really a pedestrian place\, and give you some cues for how to move about\, and we’ve enhanced that with some ground markings you the actual things that we’re using to do this. We really want to feel like they’re part of things that are already here\, so that we deposit. Granted the proportion of the seating. The way that we’re building that cornerstone is going to relate very directly to the materials that were used at. We deposit \nrwassum: the ferry plaza signage is taking a lot of queues from a traditional gate to a ferry\, but one that you’ll be able to see clearly from embargo. \nrwassum: And when you see those things laid out on the plan\, they’re working together with elements that are already here. You can see the seating that’s filling out. And this choose identity elements that we have. \nrwassum: You can also see a mosaic medallion and some ground markings that are further helping to define the space. But we’re being really careful. Not to add additional fixed elements that get in the way of things that food wise is doing out here and allow flexibility for setting up the farmers market. \nrwassum: The idea for the medallions came really from 2 things. One is there’s a tradition inside the ferry building of these mosaics that relate to the market hall. There’s also one on the mezzanine. There’s also a sort of way finding medallion at gate to a ferry\, and we wanted to use these medallions\, and each of the entrances to the ferry building to queue that this was a place of public entry. \nrwassum: So as you move between outdoor seating and other things\, this tells you you’re really supposed to enter here\, and it seems like an opportunity to tell a story about the waterfront\, either animals that are part of our waterfront\, or perhaps both\, and we would work with an artist on the final design \nrwassum: on the back side of this very plaza. I think you’ve heard everyone saying a lot of things are working here. And there’s a kind of you know\, civic ecology\, I would say that’s happening here because you have the farmers market. There’s also a really great lunchtime scene on a sunny day where people are using the tables and chairs that are being put up and down by Pacific. \nrwassum: The picture on the bottom right really shows the problem we’re trying to solve\, which is right now. You almost don’t perceive that there is this space back there at night\, because the lighting so falls away in that area. \nrwassum: Our design proposal is very small. We have a series of lights that march the edge kind of the way that lights can mark the edge of a roadway to sort of clarify circulation\, and we have additional seating that’s being added just to expand the use in that area. During lunchtime. \nrwassum: This is a view\, then\, of what that might look like at the sort of dusky commuter hours when someone’s moving to catch a ferry with some additional activation. Maybe someone would choose to linger. It’s those small decisions to do one more thing before you go home. That could really make a difference for a lot of the small proprietors here\, and we see just clarifying the circulation. \nrwassum: adding the lighting as being things that could really be game changers in this area. So I’m available to answer questions\, and with that I will hand it back to Carl. \nThank you so much\, Sarah. Thanks everyone on the team\, and thanks to the community\, for we look forward to your question. \nrwassum: Thank you. \nrwassum: Okay. So the next thing we’ll deal with is clarifying questions from the Pu from the proponent presentation. So I’ll just go down the row here. Any clarifying questions. \nrwassum: Go ahead\, Stefan. Any clarifying questions? I have one question. I think\, came up before right. It was the relationship between the relationship between the proposed lights here. Oh\, my goodness! \nrwassum: The relationship between the proposed lights and the pads of Gold Street lights that are actually located in just outfront. And I was curious about the hype relationship between \nrwassum: to to clarify Justin Herman\, or there’s so many positives around the site\, so directly in front of that very building. \nrwassum: the path of gold lights and their height there\, and the proposed lights that actually are carried around the sides of the building and introducing. \nYes\, we looked at extending those lights as an option\, and we ended up selecting something a little bit shorter and in part to keep with the proportion of the building. And when they hit the architecture. \nrwassum: okay. \nrwassum: I had a question about the \nrwassum: Does the cafe permit? Maybe this is for BCC. Actually\, staff. Does the cafe permit on the marketer side allow for permanent structures or just temporary structures. \nrwassum: It doesn’t it doesn’t mention structures. It’s just that it’s allow. \nrwassum: I mean\, it’s an allowable use to have outdoor dining and \nrwassum: the market space. That’s how it’s defined. Mentioned anything about any permanent instruction. Okay\, although it allows for like plan review of like the proposed use. And so \nrwassum: the dots in the kind of unused space on the other side the Southern Arcade or like the Southern \nrwassum: cafe zone both of those have\, like those permanent fixtures\, but like the rest of it\, doesn’t. \nrwassum: question. Well\, the seating on the way to be associated with any of the indoor uses\, or is that kind of general seating. It’s it’s both. The seating immediately in front of the entrance on the wedge is for public access\, so not associated with indoor use\, but anybody who \nbring out their goods and have a seat\, or just walk up and have a have lunch \nrwassum: the eastern portion of the wedge. The whole is to actually activate that the cities flee space right now potentially in the future as a potential cap they use will bring people back and show the activation kind of life that we’re trying to achieve. \nrwassum: And then\, just because I’m curious\, is there a reason why you’re not including the South arcade and that cafe space in the project right now. Yeah\, so currently that spaces least of food wise are are open. Our goal is to continue to work with them to activate that space as we work with them on the business bench in the future. What that space could be. That’s when that Arcade would really be considered for improvement. But it’s just \nrwassum: right now that would be approved \nrwassum: in the South. I would say. Consider it right now\, because it’s being proposed as like kind of a bigger picture. Later date \nrwassum: thing. I think because the details are most flushed out in the northern area like you can kind of focus your comments on that. But I think if it all kind of can move forward together\, it likely won’t come back here. And they get around to it. \nrwassum: and we acknowledge there’s a responsibility of symmetry in terms of the exterior. It’s just important that food wise is food wise\, and it’s not a restaurant\, right? So \nrwassum: physically from the exterior there will be symmetry. \nrwassum: Yes. Thank you for the presentation. I had a question regarding the wedge area and the painting that is meant to kind of guide \nrwassum: people further towards the the paws in the back. \nrwassum: Can you explain? Kind of reasons of where that \nrwassum: that meeting starts\, and I noticed it doesn’t extend to the curve line. Is there a particular one for that? \nrwassum: So the new paving is really just a graphic that’s in the driveway\, and it stops at the light ribbon partly out of deference to the light ribbon\, but also just as clarity for other paper things are happening \nwhile you’re there. The sign that says Ferry Plaza\, who is that intended to inform \nrwassum: that is intended to inform people arriving primarily from the embargo and looking for the ferry plaza or looking for ferries. And it’s something that \nrwassum: actually we’ve battered around quite a bit\, and it was something that was designed by many people. So it was an element that I’ll be honest. I was at first about\, but it was something that was seen as operation really \nrwassum: about mental geography. But many people are not aware that the plaza that they visit on Saturday is also their 6 other days of the week. And so I think there’s an important role of pulling people. \nrwassum: even semi regular visitors back to that public location \nrwassum: and and announcing that that is there as a public cloud. Okay\, interesting. Thanks. One other question. Can you point out what is different in the North Arcade \nrwassum: from what you presented last time\, or is it primarily operational? \nrwassum: I do the flexibility\, but I mean the design is substantially the same. I think maybe it’s more clearly on the operation side of it. I think there’s been questions on\, is it? Gonna close the space I roll that space open and enjoyable. We think even it’s use as a central cafe does provide for that activation. I mean\, today\, we have kiosk there. We have about a 9 foot walkway that really just serves as access to those kiosks. \nrwassum: We think by being able to close it in the evenings that will make it more attractive to potential users\, both \nrwassum: customers and potential restaurant users. But in the end it’s the design is exactly the same. But it’s it’s operation be more clear on how we plan on utilizing great? So my my question is\, when you move the railings to make room for the tents \nrwassum: in the in the render. They kind of look like they’re part of the architecture\, which is good. But at the same time you need something flexible. What is that really gonna be? And in terms of serving alcohol does that \nrwassum: height of barrier work\, or might something taller up here? So I think this is actually where there was a refinement\, because we had\, we got clarity that that needed to be removable\, or it’s on piece. \nrwassum: And so \nrwassum: there we go. So here in that kind of middle of top\, you can see the spec of what we’re looking at. So I think it needs to be formidable enough that it that it does its job\, but moveable as well. And I think that’s what we’re proposing from that alcohol licensing standpoint about defining space. I mean we could define it a number of ways. So this is just the design\, it solution. Thank you. \nrwassum: Just a clarification on the city. \nrwassum: so the the the area is open from 6 Am. To 10 pm\, okay? And so the moveable exterior\, CD\, does that get packed up every night? Or\, yeah\, we have porters who essentially move that seating in and out \nrwassum: right? And so the new additional exterior seating that’s moveable would be\, ha! I would have that same. Okay\, thank you. \nThank you. So \nrwassum: could someone explain how the arcades were used in the original \nrwassum: prairie building design? How people use them? And \nrwassum: it seems like that’s not necessarily what they’re being used for. Now\, I’m not sure. And can you also explain how the \nrwassum: proposed uses is the same as it is now\, or the way it was before. \nrwassum: Absolutely so the building has evolved. And it’s in its history. Obviously so\, they are case initially or partially use the storage space. We’re limited circulation of the circulation there. As as with the latest renovation\, our aids have been maintained as a as a circulation space. They have not been used \nrwassum: programmatically for anything other than circulation. So I think if you look at the life of the very building. So in the original conception\, there were times where these were\, there were in some of the caves. \nrwassum: There were actually ticket booths. At other times it was actually where you loaded and unloaded \nrwassum: free that had come over from the mainland. \nrwassum: I think\, as a part of the 2\,003 \nrwassum: version we didn’t. They? They did were not used as ticket\, boost and freight\, and I don’t know the exact date when they were last for\, but because the low\, the first floor was all freight. Freight processing\, much like an airport would be today. \nrwassum: We have had rep. But food wise importantly in the South Arcade\, with their storage and their kitchen\, that they open up and actually do different \nrwassum: programming in the South Arcade. And then in the North Arcade. You have had. This. These kiosks. \nrwassum: The problem is\, the kiosk have have been had a limited kitchen capacity. \nrwassum: Do their construction. Inform but this actually is attempting to have better functionality. But with similar qualities of the space \nrwassum: been there since 2\,015. That’s correct. So they’ve been activating as sort of publicly accessible customer base for since. \nrwassum: Yeah\, thank you for that. II always thought they were a place you could run if it was right. But I think I have one more question So when ferry passengers are queuing up or staging to go into one of them \nrwassum: games? \nrwassum: Do they use the free billing at all\, or like especially an increment\, whether that fit into your plan or that change\, you know. Well\, it really isn’t changing with with this. \nrwassum: What people have typically done is many fair customers we find well\, on rainy days\, basically time their trip very precisely from their office\, and are coming through the building rather quickly\, making it more important that we have this wide open lateral passageways through the building. But some people will come and be inside\, and and so it’s when it’s raining. \nrwassum: But I would\, I would say overall\, we’re not impeding on any business that’s called out for very passenger. \nrwassum: Okay\, thank you. Let’s go to the Wwdac for clarifying questions. Maybe just \nrwassum: go down the road. Yeah. \nrwassum: Do you ask any? Yes\, go ahead. Do I need to turn any? \nrwassum: Do you have a mic? I think you have a handheld mic right there. \nI \nrwassum: thank you for all \nrwassum: we’re continuing. \nrwassum: Okay. \nrwassum: is this better? \nrwassum: Thanks\, everybody\, for great reporting and sharing your meeting minutes and your staff report was with us. \nrwassum: It was very informative\, after more\, almost a year\, to really get into the deeper questions that you are all touching on in in your reporting. \nrwassum: There was one particular aspect that struck me\, and I’m not asking my questions necessarily in the Board of Importance. \nrwassum: I see a comment in the staff report that the information about signage for future restaurants was not discussed \nrwassum: and given that the new restaurants with the Arcade now being occupied by them are a very important part of the public image of the building. I am wondering. \nrwassum: why you decided to keep information about the signage out of this discussion. I believe personally\, it will have a great impact on how we perceive the building as in it’s public nature. \nrwassum: private signage on restaurants over retail is always something that is informative\, but does not necessarily contribute to the public nature the expression of the public nature of the building. \nrwassum: Maybe we should just go take that maybe I could ask some proponents to talk about the the how the process of signage works. And yeah\, II think on that a and it was\, and staff can also answer. I think at this point we did not have a specific proposal in mind\, not having \nrwassum: merchants in hand. Precisely so. We were figuring that there would be scrutiny\, and whether there are principles set forth by this group\, or whether that staff implements or another process. We’re open to that. But I would also just highlight. I mean\, in in our opinion\, \nrwassum: signage is important. A lot of a lot of times for restaurants. But in the re\, the reality of business activation that we’re we’re aiming for on the market there. Hope does allow for people to know that there’s something there to experience. So we do think just having that activation can diminish the need for \nrwassum: audition. Yes\, shortly after the ferry building was renovated in 2\,001\, I think. Open a little bit. After that we had the ferry building team develop \nrwassum: sign guidelines for the building that address the many tenants that are on the inside. And we’ve administered that throughout this 20 year period. And it’s been very successful in doing an appropriate level of signage. It did not reach to these outside arcade areas that was not anticipated at the time. I believe what would happen is \nrwassum: should this proposal move forward and restaurants go in there. We’d ask the ferry building team to bring on a historic architect again. And further\, these sign guidelines and document that so that when tenants come\, tenants go so that each one just has to fit into that box of how the sign guidelines address. So it would be a consistent quality\, and those don’t exist at this review yet. \nrwassum: Thank you\, Dan. Okay\, go ahead. Next question. My second question would perhaps be directed toward Miss Connor\, I think\, after 20 years of management\, she gave a great description about the needs of tents\, the very kind of emphasis on home clone small businesses expressing the local character. My question to the Hudson team would be\, what possible tenants are you envisioning for your restaurants? \nrwassum: The least steps of the restaurants is actually directed more towards small restaurants. \nrwassum: Perhaps was looking at the God’s as an example which is more a not fast food. There will be a very unfair description\, but quicker food type of restaurant. What are you envisioning to complement what this con has been working on for so many years. \nrwassum: I think you know\, you know\, we\, as I said\, speaking about the stewardship\, we’re always thinking about what’s additive to the building\, and II would say we need a butcher\, baker\, candlestick maker at the very building\, and we have that. But we also are looking at what’s you know what’s additive to the building\, you know\, as we need consistently each week\, and are adding\, you know\, names to the list of people we wanted the building. And we’re always speaking with people \nrwassum: blue. All it took 4 years of discussions with them to bring James into the building from starting at\, you know\, have been denally to the\, to the very Plaza farmers market. So again\, you know here\, what we’ve done in the last 4 years is\, I think\, a great indicator of the calendar of people we’re looking for has always doubles into details\, because\, I believe\, the changes of the glass line\, including private entrances into these restaurants \nrwassum: from the entrance of moving slightly further towards the facade building will make a difference\, will make a big difference in how we perceive \nrwassum: he’s not being privatizing to building. I think that is one of the biggest questions that is being asked by the public and by myself. How can we avoid that? Closing the arcade is not being perceived as privatizing the building. In in other cities\, where we have arcades\, there is a most connective element of a city looking at Bologna\, for example\, to other cities \nrwassum: of how to stitch the city together. In this particular case the arcades\, even if they’re only used in particular instances are an element of stitching the waterfront together when it rains\, when it’s foggy. That is where you meet your friends. \nrwassum: You’re not standing in the plaza\, or in front of the building\, or in the back of the building\, just standing under the arcade. \nrwassum: That’s that. II like to let that sit in the room. Perhaps people reflect on that as well. I have another quick. Can I just jump in there? I just wanna ask the proponent to make a comment if you would like\, just in relation to that. So 2 things. First\, II wanna be clear that we showcase our ones that \nrwassum: came into the building since Hudson’s ownership in 20. So we only ask you to judge us by our record\, and that we are have been working closely with merchants\, typically people who have come up out of farm out of farmers\, markets like like food wise and have over time been ready to take on the commitment of a brick and mortar space. So that is our intent. And if you look at each one of them\, I think \nI think it’s a great trajectory of what we plan in the future. \nrwassum: I think the next piece of what we find\, and my office is 2 blocks away. So I come here often in all weather. And I live here in the city\, we find is on rainy days. People want to be in the name \nrwassum: that we actually don’t get many people. If they’re coming as far as the face of the building. They want to come in and experience the life \nrwassum: and the warmth of the knave shops. We are not getting a lot of people traveling laterally\, even on rainy days. On warm days people want to be in front\, and it’s looking at the building. \nrwassum: And so they’re not as much in the in the arcade\, and if they were\, we would have more vitality in the kiosk that are located there than we have had for the last since 2\,015. \nrwassum: I mean\, I think\, like\, let’s be clear. Our overarching goal is to try to bring people inside. We want them to experience the inside of the building our tenants to benefit. \nrwassum: Please go ahead. I don’t wanna hog. The the question period here is\, do you consider the increased demand for delivery and proposed additional restaurants on the front of the building \nrwassum: to further put stress on the South. And we’re your primary access for delivering pickup is \nrwassum: yeah\, no\, we have a very intricate delivery scenario and guidelines in our leases and our rules and Regs. And we work closely with all the tenants we actually work with the Vcdc. To prolong the delivery needs\, because Hug Island is bringing us oysters at certain tides and Calgary. Murray was bringing us cheese during certain times of the day. It couldn’t just be regulated to a certain window. \nrwassum: So in 2013 we worked very closely with the port in BC. DC. To tell the story of what our delivery needs are\, and so we will continue to work closely with all of our vendors on the days of the times and the days they can can make deliveries. \nrwassum: My. My last question that probably causes\, as I continue listening to other people\, is. I do not see any back of the house \nrwassum: space indicated in your plans. You’re speaking about transparency and lightness and light touch\, etcetera\, when it comes to \nrwassum: food storage \nrwassum: back of the house activities that has to occur somewhere. Would you be needing? Take space from \nbuilding inside\, facing stores in order to accommodate that. \nrwassum: So so what you can see on the screen\, which is really hard to read. Unfortunately\, but hopefully\, you can see that your package is a a potential layout of restaurant space which shows you their activate\, their activate kitchen and everything else. So that that is similar to how dots operates they have. \nrwassum: That’s the great example. If you guys get an opportunity to go over there. You walk in\, you see \nrwassum: an open concept kitchen where they do have all of their storage and their cooking\, and we think the the space configuration is quite similar in just our Cape space as it is for us. So those kitchens would line up very similarly\, as as you see today\, and and I anticipate it. We’ve we’ve gotten this question before to be clear\, I think any \nrwassum: chef would love much\, much more space and much more back of house and and space in the very building is tier. And so part of what it is is working with a restaurant tour who can fit in these concepts that were designed by studio Kda. And sometimes that means they have a more limited menu. So it’s really somebody who’s very specific. That said it also means you’re probably this is gonna work. Better for a newer entrepreneurial \nrwassum: tenant to have that opportunity where they’re focused on their 4 great things\, and not as much on a long menu. \nrwassum: it. It partially answers my question\, and not fully. But one last question\, if if there’s for the architect could you perhaps show a drawing which in in large form shows the operation of the glass line pushing into the facade in into the arcade. \nrwassum: and how the canopy interacts. You’re providing a 6 foot walkway between the glass line and the canopy\, and then you have out out front of the canopy benches with which edge the public wide way. Would you describe that? To everybody in larger scale? It’s very difficult to read in your drawings. Ii would like to get some questions answered about \nthe possible usefulness of this inbound 6 foot 6 6 foot space \nrwassum: right? And I it may be easier to look at the exhibit. But right here\, \nrwassum: so it’s it’s a little easier to see that in the print form. Apologize for the lightness of the line work there. But you can see that the the kitchen\, the back of house and kitchen spaces\, of course\, against the back wall. And that’s where operational kitchen happens. The the circulation inside happens along the outer edge behind\, right behind the glass. So there’s there’s \nrwassum: there’s a path of circulation going along the lines. Have the cursor to show it\, but it’s it happens happens in this zone right here and and it tracks along the entire length of the arcade. \nrwassum: And furniture is Google obviously inside. So but there’s there’s enough space 6 feet or so. \nrwassum: Allow for circulation behind the the last line and between the table line and the camera line. So that’s that’s the design intent here. Obviously it’s conceptual and will be fine. \nrwassum: And then there is on the outside. There is a 6 6 foot pathway between the the canopy itself and the the face of them. It’s easier to see this in this image right here. Find that but this this image here \nrwassum: shows the amount of space that is. plan for for circulation between their structures. The \nrwassum: so for this group\, our responsibilities for this group\, our responsibilities. Talk about the quality of this particular space being public enough to be a full replacement of how we currently perceive the public realm in front of. \nrwassum: And I question that this hidden space\, particularly when it is on the front of the cannot be counted by the barriers. That that is enough to be perceived as part. \nrwassum: Thank you\, Catherine. Let’s keep moving. Alma\, go ahead. \nSo\, being brand new to this committee\, and having had the benefit of seeing it in the previous presentation. I just have to say that I can appreciate all the details that went into the collaboration between all the designers and the manager of the space\, etcetera. To make this happen\, I \nrwassum: think all the intentions to highlight the the life of the building in the afternoon are actually pretty valid. I had similar questions only on this front portion. I think all the ideas that are for the web and everything\, and bring in light into their \nrwassum: work. But this 6 feet seem a little bit of\, you know. \nrwassum: tight for that. And\, more importantly\, if we can pair that or it was more of a question \nrwassum: is it possible to maintain\, and the 6 foot clear on the inside at the same time? So then\, you have the sense of coming in and out\, and that was just the question when the when the glass is open\, so you always feel like there’s some circulation\, both inside the ark\, like similar to the way it is right now. \nrwassum: But also on the outside. And then just out of curiosity. And the second diagram of page 24\, \nrwassum: when the market is happening. \nrwassum: Then the the sort of the barrier pushes out and that will space was shown in the background empty. So that means that those at the moment of the market that space remains not usable for the rest of that’s correct. So on Saturday markets that all pushes those tables are stored and push back\, and and the market\, as you guys have experience. \nrwassum: And my only question was\, is it necessary\, then\, to keep the seating going in that understanding is that some of those stands work both sides\, so that configuration suggests that they can only function from their marketers. So it was more curiosity. If that’s the intent\, or there’s a reason for them maintaining that space not necessarily connected to the so the layout of of society market has been coordinated with food wise. There are some occasions where you can have double depth \nrwassum: for your for your 10 spaces. So those those vendors that need a little bit more space to operate will be able to have that space. But the first thing we did when we kinda \nrwassum: last left you was was sit with the food wise team to come up with something that worked just for everybody else’s identification. We’ve looked at a variety of ways to try to provide heat and light to this space. Most of those ways. We’re more impactful to food wise. And what we’re presenting today\, as it relates to the to the glass line and circulation. \nrwassum: You know\, the way this is designed conceptually is to have those\, those\, those glass walls sort of fold behind the column so that they’re not perceived from the public. So you do get that that areainess. And I think we all want to protect and see. So that is the hope. And the intent of the design is this concept to evolve. But it’s\, you know\, gonna be a a rail at the top that allows it sort of accordion behind that column line. \nrwassum: It won’t sit proud of that pole at all. It’ll be inset into the arcade\, so it does provide that opportunity for light\, airiness\, and some look at circulation. To be honest with you\, based on your question\, is it really some of that circulation area in inside the space \nrwassum: to give that appearance. \nrwassum: A lot of the table layout will happen as we identify tenant\, and how many seats they want\, how it’s sort of gonna work for them. What we’re showing you today is a is a sample layout. I would imagine that just from a service standpoint\, they’re gonna want a little bit more space to operate between those 2 points. So I do think you’re gonna get a lot of a bit of walkway on the interior space. You’re not proceeding today\, and it’ll be subject to prior code \nrwassum: as well. So I think\, you know\, we’re committing very clearly to the opening in between the 2 spaces that you can see right here. \nrwassum: and so that will line up to exiting and all sorts of \nrwassum: thank you. \nrwassum: looking at the best way. \nrwassum: And I think we wanna make sure. And we need. And so that’s \nrwassum: but it’s a shade. It’s a shade. There always will be transparency. Okay\, thank you. I was just curious about that. \nrwassum: Laura. Cool. \nrwassum: you know. \nrwassum: Okay\, I’ll try and keep this quick \nrwassum: the cafe zone does go to the parameter. So it includes that this may be actually question\, for \nrwassum: so is \nrwassum: wha is that 6 feet required? \nrwassum: Or is it a kind of illustration of something that might happen since it’s inside the cafe zone\, Asron. \nrwassum: Oh. \nrwassum: Dan Dan Hodap with the port! The way that per permit shows it is not a required circulation. There’s this 30 foot depth that can be used for cafe purposes. \nrwassum: and in this case it includes that 6 feet. It includes the area of the canopy structure\, and it also includes where the benches are. Outside of that\, too. \nrwassum: the only the only real sort of like restriction on the cafe zone\, like kind of physically it\, apart from like the 30 30 foot depth is in the 2\,000 permit they’re required to have like a sick 10 foot clearance like coming out from the pass through so like there\, that cannot be obstructed right? But within the zone itself it just says\, after dining. \nrwassum: okay\, and maybe that ties to the places where we’re seeing seating added. same question is that illustrative? Is there \nrwassum: because it doesn’t necessarily fall in any \nrwassum: embarcadero sidewalk \nrwassum: is all required public access. \nrwassum: There’s an overlay of a cafe zone on top of it that is allowed to occupy that space. \nrwassum: but it is still required public\, and the additional seating. So there’s voluntarily provided seating on the south as well as in front of the in front of the canopy. That is\, the public benefit to the enclosure of the outdoor dining\, so it would be required \nrwassum: that would be discussed and submitting. \nPass on. \nrwassum: Thank you. A few quick ones with the restaurant spaces in the arcades be heated and cooled. \nrwassum: Jane. Our current or you may want to speak to kind of \nrwassum: we are planning for \nrwassum: some conditioning\, but it’s not much of the building is not formally that way today. So \nrwassum: yeah\, with the open atrium. Now\, I mean almost all of our name shops\, and\, you know\, like the the Red Bay coffee\, the Delica\, they are not conditioned. It was\, it was really designed to use the \nrwassum: cool Mediterranean climate here but the enclosed spaces\, like\, you know\, at the corner stones \nrwassum: can elect to Bill\, you know. Bring in some Hpc. But I think in these spaces they have to have the title 24. So when they were open they could not. Yeah. And it would be something that would be triggered by that when they’re at\, but working as an open \nrwassum: market during the day\, they’re gonna be open\, and they’re not gonna \nrwassum: sorry. Catherine is my colleague. Catherine says the devils and the details and inter conditioning that that was a pretty large burden on your glass system. And and also there is a diagram somewhere that shows a reflective ceiling with a lot of ducks simply for exhaust and \nrwassum: make up error. And if you’re heating\, cooling space conditioning that lovely rendering of the open gate is gonna be different. \nrwassum: if this\, if this \nrwassum: comes to pass and the North Arcade is done\, and eventually the South Arkansas\, we’re with all of the food\, wise mission\, critical functions that exist there\, that that’s part of our conversation. So our goal is\, we work to send them\, like the long term tenants that are building for my foreseeable future for my kids to enjoy. We would figure out the appropriate space\, use that space that could include \nrwassum: keeping the stores there in some capacity. It it’s all to be worked with. But the general answer is\, that sounds okay. Doesn’t move forward without working with food\, wise and great concert\, to make sure that something that benefits both us and them. And it works for everybody. I mean\, that’s that’s our commitment. I realize we’re talking about the North. Okay. But because somebody said that there’s likely a precedent being said\, if that moves forward there may not be sufficient review on the south side. \nrwassum: It’s worth asking how that gets account. Accommodated \nrwassum: 2 more quick ones when and this is for staff. When were the restaurant spaces of the North South corners\, in close one\, where those are capable of part of the 2\,000 and \nrwassum: correct. Those were close part of that 2\,003\, 2\,001\, 2\,003 renovation. \nrwassum: They were part of the Tax Credit project. \nrwassum: Yes\, so they passed that. \nrwassum: That’s correct. Last question. if this does move forward\, it does reach our pools and the 6. These canopies turn out to be successful\, as you hope. Would there be potential plans to extend them to service. The existing outdoor dining that exists at the North and south end. \nrwassum: That’s not currently in our plans. I think what you see\, today is where our plans are which we think we need to be successful. We think\, obviously a great job operating as is\, we have renewed interest in our market bar space that is there without necessarily the canopy space. We do see these 2 locations because they’re gonna play with the arcade space. Because how we wanna utilize them at night. It is something that’s grateful. \nrwassum: you know. \nOkay. \nrwassum: thank you very much. I think that includes that concludes the clarifying questions. Part of the agenda we’ll move now to public comment. \nrwassum: And we’ll open the meeting to public comment. \nrwassum: Any member of the public attending the meeting in person. Please notify the Board secretary. If you would like to make a comment. \nrwassum: I’m gonna this is actually from BCC. We did receive a number of public comment letters regarding the variable building item. So I’ll summarize those. \nrwassum: We received these letters prior to 10 Am. This morning that they have been bored with sign review board. Okay\, from the very building tenants\, such as they wrote letters and support with group wise\, stating that they are able to adjust their layouts to the changed configurations project. \nrwassum: The Barbary Coast Association express support for the project and appreciation for the modifications to the project. Since the last review\, the project will allow the variability to compete with other host. Nearby projects along the shoreline on port properties. \nrwassum: The gateway Tenants Association express support for the project stating the neighborhood will benefit from the greater activity of market. \nrwassum: The San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council express support for the project\, stating that they’re grateful to Hudson pacific support of the merchant community and the work for local workers and contractors. \nrwassum: and the Telegraph Hill dwellers expressed concern over the Pros project. Let her summarize the Restoration design guidelines and identify the impairments of \nrwassum: the impairments of thousands of square feet of public access through privatization material impacts to the historic architecture and consistency with public access policies and the transformation of the very building from public marketplace into a restaurant entertainment destination as their price. \nrwassum: Okay\, so \nrwassum: will now move to the public comment. And can people come up? Or will they be called second call? Yes\, thank you. \nrwassum: Okay. We have a few people here in the room. I’m gonna start with Joe Sanders. If you come up to Mike for public comment and following that. \nrwassum: so have 3 min. \nrwassum: It’s not smooth. \nrwassum: Good evening\, members of the Design Review Board. My name is Joe Sanders\, and I represent Union Drywall Finishers\, Painters\, and the high road contractors of San Francisco. \nrwassum: I’m a painter by trade\, a graduate of District Council\, 16 registered apprenticeship program. \nyou know. and a resident of the city. \nrwassum: We take pride in restoring historical buildings\, such as the very building \nrwassum: I’m excited to be working with skilled trades workers to deliver this project with care and precision. \nrwassum: I respectfully request your \nrwassum: support on on this item and look forward to putting local tradespeople to work soon. Appreciate your time. Thank you. \nrwassum: Okay. Next we have Rudy Gonzales\, and then after that will be Christine \nrwassum: Rudy\, and for the row ahead of me in the exit row there. I’m sorry. That’s Isaac sitting behind me making little noises on my phone. I represent that 27 construction unions in San Francisco\, and skill treats people and apprentices at build our skyline. It’s \nrwassum: probably more rare than it should be that we have development partners who really see their role\, not just as you know corporate landlords or people who are. Gonna you know. II can’t say how many projects that we we think through and negotiate over that are just total privatization of public spaces\, and they have cute acronyms like co-host\, and things like that that’s worthwhile. And sometimes it is but I have yet to see a partner like Hudson Pacific \nrwassum: really see themselves as stewards\, and they they use that term and I think they really need it the the thought and care that they’ve gone through. We take very seriously. We have a lot of history on this waterfront not the least of which includes the general strikes thirty’s and a lot of labor\, unrest and frankly\, city by painter strikes which got us the 8 h day in the city \nrwassum: and trickled out through American labor history. This iconic feature is very much a part of that history\, and as a \nrwassum: native San Francisco I’m pleased to see a partner that really takes serious their commitment to honoring this historic landmark. It’s a tough time to be in commercial real estate. We certainly felt the brunts of the pandemic and we saw about 850 people in San Francisco out of work which is unique. And I think that reactivating this part of the waterfront is really important. I think it sends the right message and a strong message\, and it’s my sincere hope that \nrwassum: with approval and do consideration\, that this extends into more revitalization\, not just on the waterfront\, but really down the market corridor. So we’re delighted to be in partnership with people who really care about the property that they’re taking ownership of. And I certainly appreciate the time and dedication of the advisory Committee. Bcd see? Respectfully support. Thank you. Thank you. \nrwassum: Okay\, Christine\, you’re up. And then I have Catherine. Good evening\, everyone. It’s actually really nice to be here\, having such a partial conversation given\, how many changes that were made between last year’s presentation and this one? So I’m the executive director for other staff members in here who\, \nrwassum: 165 times a year\, create an event that brings the public down the farmers market. And I just wanted to put into my own words that we really have been in good faith talking with our\, and we’re grateful for the changes that they’ve made. We are excited to renegotiate\, at least for this other Kate. It. It is \nrwassum: true that you might not be reviewing the exact details of that in 4 years\, when we do renegotiate. \nrwassum: But we are working towards a common vision of a teaching kitchen. Our educational facilities recorded what we do. We don’t just run farmers markets. We have 3\,000 elementary school students who come to visit our farmers market every year. We have a team program\, and the teaching kitchen is core to that\, and Hudson is aware of that. \nrwassum: So we will be in any kind of future visions for this other cave\, really holding fast to that view of the importance of a teaching facility. It’s also the space of the farmers market use. It gets references storage. But it’s not. It’s actually an active teaching space that we use regularly. That does bring a lot of people down to the waterfront that we want to have them will feel like the waterfront for them. \nrwassum: So I’m just hearing my own words to say we are working together. I’m thrilled with some of the changes that are made. I do think that we can accommodate our market around the cornerstone and the gateway sign\, and the and the arcades I mean in the the canopy. But I will steadfastly be fighting to keep our kitchen. And so and I think that that will be quite possible. \nrwassum: Thank you. Thank you. \nrwassum: Fixed. Okay. Next\, we have Katherine Petron. And last\, we have Danny. \nOkay. \nrwassum: good afternoon board members. My name is Catherine Petron. I’m representing San Francisco Heritage this evening. We appreciate having been included in discussions with representatives of and their consulting team. We’ve been following the project since it’s inception. We recognize the positive changes to the project over the last year. We’re still opposed \nrwassum: to the proposed changes affecting the North Arcade and the city saw it\, in fact\, city facing the side. In fact\, last year. Our comment was\, our feeling was. \nrwassum: there was a lot of flexibility that could be had at the rear of the building on the bay facing side\, but that \nrwassum: the civic\, the principal facade\, shouldn’t be as impacted \nrwassum: we related our comments to the project sponsoring conversation over the last year\, and in our letter of last May\, and we still believe that these arcades should serve and be recognizable as open and publicly accept accessible public spaces. \nrwassum: The facade is characterized by balance and symmetry and listening to the project. Tonight I’m really even more unclear about the treatment of the south side the south arcades. \nrwassum: If\, in fact\, that doesn’t come to pass. Then that relationship of symmetry is is even a bit more off balance. \nrwassum: We thought that the presentation had some really wonderful ideas about innovative lighting\, and we think that a lower impact alternative that folks on lighting could achieve some of the goals that are under consideration. I think we all agree that the ferry building is our city’s \nrwassum: just architectural gem. I mean\, there are few buildings that surpass it. City Hall. You know\, and so we just would. Really\, urge the most serious level of scrutiny for these proposed changes. Thank you very much. \nrwassum: Thank you. Next. Okay\, next we have\, Danny. \nrwassum: Thank you very\, very much. Good afternoon. I’m Stan. He’s under the president of the Telegraph. and you know the American Planning Association describes the Ferry building as a famous city’s most famous landmark. \nrwassum: We couldn’t agree more. We know you feel the same way. \nrwassum: We acknowledge the changes that are made in this revised project. We appreciate. we appreciate them as far as they go. \nrwassum: for reasons now in our letter\, and I hope you’ve had a chance to read. If you haven’t\, I have extra copies here. \nrwassum: We continue to oppose the permanent inclusion of the historic arcades. the privatization of the designated public access\, cafe market zones. \nrwassum: and the addition of canopy structures in front of the arcades on the embarcadero frontage. \nrwassum: We’re concerned by the resulting loss of more than 12\,000 square feet mobile access. We’re concerned that the private restaurant use and the canopy structure is in the North Cafe Zone\, and it’s eventual \nrwassum: replication in the soft cafe zone are gonna impair the architecturally prized sweep of the ferry buildings\, public facing and market. and it will impair the architecture that we’re concerned with. The project is inconsistent with the important public access policies that we operate under\, including BC. DC. San Francisco Bay Area plan. \nrwassum: And\, in fact\, the 1978 design guidelines that were referenced earlier. we’re concerned that approval of the project’s future expansion to the South Arcade and cafe zones is pretty assured. \nrwassum: and could pose a long term threat to the farmers. Markets\, liability. First of all. we’re concerned as a basic and fundamental principle that the very building not be transformed from its historic role as a public market place \nrwassum: into our restaurant entertainment and designation destination. \nrwassum: In reviewing this project\, we strongly urge you to consider the concerns here in our letter. \nrwassum: Please ensure that public access is preserved. and that the legacy of this great iconic building remains intact. Thank you. Thank you. \nrwassum: Okay. We will move to online questions. Or is there one? I have one public comment online. Good. Okay. \nrwassum: Robert Hair\, if you could. \nrwassum: I’m unmuted you. And if you could take 3 min to speak and please get your name for the record. \nRobert Harrer: Good evening my name is Bob Hare. I’m representing the Barbary Coast Neighborhood Association. \nRobert Harrer: and the also known as BC. NA. \nRobert Harrer: And BCNA. Supports the Revised Ferry building enhancement that is proposed by Hudson Pacific properties. \nRobert Harrer: We believe this project will improve the visitor. Experience and the attractiveness of the Fury Building facility. \nRobert Harrer: It will also enable the ferry building to remain competitive. These are the other potential waterfront attractions in the future. \nRobert Harrer: We appreciate that Hudson has made several modifications to the project. After discussions with the port and food wise. \nRobert Harrer: most notably the proposed kiosk in the eastern or river flies. \nRobert Harrer: has been removed. \nRobert Harrer: the project offers several benefits which should expand the appeal of the facility. \nRobert Harrer: Not only will it create a more comfortable customer experience\, it will also create a better platform \nRobert Harrer: for vendors and tenants. \nRobert Harrer: We will leave\, of course\, the detailed technical judgments of the proposals\, architectural and stylistic merit. To others. \nRobert Harrer: however\, we believe the plan proposal allows the fair building to broaden and improve its future offerings. \nRobert Harrer: We note the port is working on developing 2 other major waterfront attractions \nRobert Harrer: at pairs 30\, slash 32\, and \nRobert Harrer: 38\, slash 40. \nRobert Harrer: Thus it is \nRobert Harrer: quite important that the ferry building be given the support now \nRobert Harrer: to update its offerings\, and that it can be positioned to be competitive \nRobert Harrer: against those future attractions in the future. In conclusion. \nRobert Harrer: we strongly urge approval for Hudson’s proposed project. \nRobert Harrer: Thank you. \nrwassum: Thank you. I wanna let you know we have one more public speaker here in the room. So\, Stuart Morton. \nrwassum: yeah. \nrwassum: sorry about that. I’m still important. I’ve been in the preservation community over 50 years. That was one of the founders of Heritage Jordan. \nI got so excited I fell down. Can you imagine the canopies in front of this gorgeous building. \nrwassum: They’re kind of cheesy. They’re probably\, if you look at it and imagine that looking at the picture of the. \nrwassum: This is not what a new story \nrwassum: happen to it. That’s what’s happening. It’s a happening. \nWhat a shame! \nrwassum: I can’t believe that you would even think about it. It’s a very serious approach. I have also a question. \nrwassum: how will canopy of that when \nI mean\, did did God have a wind problem? I mean the westerlies \nrwassum: they have wanted canopy. I can’t believe you didn’t even think about this. Thank you. Thank you. Alright\, thank you. \nrwassum: Okay\, \nrwassum: thank you. That concludes public comment. Thank you. Everyone who commented. We always appreciate the \nrwassum: thoughts\, and we take very seriously everyone’s comments that have been made this evening. So now we go to the next part of the agenda\, which is for discussion and advice. And \nrwassum: what we \nrwassum: typically do is 3. We have a discussion. a fairly structured discussion tonight\, because there are a lot of people here for the discussion. And \nrwassum: we wanna make sure that the critical points are all make. So we have been given from BC. DC. Standpoint staff. Just a reminder. Staff asked us to consider 5 questions within the 7 objectives for public access\, that we always \nrwassum: hey as a foundation for our comments. But there are 5 specific comment specific questions. And so the first question deals with the alterations that are proposed. Do they reflect the civic nature of the very billing potential demands for public uses of site? \nrwassum: And I don’t know if we put the questions back up so everyone can see them. And and also it’s a city nature of the very building and surrounding public spaces supported by the materiality and decided project. So that’s the first question. Second question\, did the proposed alterations sufficiently maintain or enhance circulation and connectivity to an along shoreline. \nrwassum: The third question do the proposed activation areas along the building frontages collectively and individually promote and inviting and usual public access environment that’s very building and allow for adequate public circulation to site entrances and destinations. \nThe fourth question\, in particular\, would the proposal to place a cafe\, market\, zone\, slash market zone and public seating area in the South Promenade\, or \nrwassum: what we call the gateway gateway Plaza activate and improve the quality of the public access experience in balance with addressing the public access circulation needs project area\, the fixed question do the proposed elements supported cohesive\, legible? Anybody access program. So these are the 5 questions that would be post by staff for the side. \nrwassum: We had 3 questions that were posed by Dan Hodap for the Wbac. To consider\, and I’m just paraphrasing slightly here. But the first one will in had the proposed enhancements activate the frontage and continue \nrwassum: and continue to provide for all important views to this important historic building. \nrwassum: And it’s environment the second question for the Wd\, IC\, will be enhanced enhances on the south end in enhance the circulation\, the pedestrian character and the activation of this part of the building. And then the third question\, do all of the improvements take collectively? Do they all add up to \nrwassum: Do they all add up to an appropriate treatment for historic building and district of this importance to the city. \nrwassum: That’s probably 3 questions. Now\, I think what I’ll do to start with. What we typically\, do we have 5 questions here? But I’ll just ask each of the Board members to speak to one\, or maybe \nrwassum: 2\, of the questions that they feel represents\, you know\, their interests most. Most importantly\, so that we can. And we’ll have some dialogue as we go. So look\, I’m gonna go to the far end. Here\, Stefan\, I’ll hand this microphone down to you and Stefan\, if you would like to \nrwassum: just lead off with your reflections on these questions. So a couple of questions. \nrwassum: I think I’ll say that I’ll start. Maybe that thing that I appreciate a a lot of the changes. And I think\, where I would \nrwassum: maybe start or focus. I think has to do with question 3. \nrwassum: And it. \nrwassum: maybe I’m not alone in trying to grapple with this nature of sort of what is perceived as a loss of access with the billing up the portions of the Lookj \nrwassum: and \nrwassum: also understanding that the loaded today is not a high quality public space \nrwassum: and it’s also not very transparent into the building\, and that these improvements would actually address those things to a certain extent. But the nature of public access. I think this is still a question. \nrwassum: A question here. So one \nrwassum: maybe one way I’ve been trying to sort of think about this is that if there is sort of a loss of public space on the ground? Is there sort of a nexus or an enhancement or increase in public space around the building \nrwassum: that can be seen to sort of balance \nrwassum: the enclosure of a portion of the building. And if they’re if those 2 things can actually sort of be seen to counter each other. \nrwassum: Because I think if you even think of storage building going through an evolution where a logic is filled in\, certainly seems to be \nrwassum: a viable option. But what we have here is a building that it’s really \nrwassum: within \nrwassum: our Vcdc jurisdiction. \nrwassum: Yeah. So this this nature of really trying to maximize public access here. \nrwassum: So one could argue that the enhancements promenade into the area behind \nrwassum: are increasing public access to certain hours or counter. \nrwassum: What’s lost in the logo? \nrwassum: but II don’t know the answer to that question. \nrwassum: Because the I would say that the \nrwassum: South prominide appears improve greatly improved over what we saw before. \nrwassum: but I think there still is this question in my mind\, and I would sort of invite some discussion on that topic. \nrwassum: So if we are looking at a proposal that’s seeking to enhance public access. And if that’s sort of our job. But about this proposal is actually doing. \nStop there. Okay. \nrwassum: let’s let’s keep going down here. I’m mindful that we will just see how the topics expand\, how the topics progress is so\, Stefan\, I and and you’re making some critical\, critically important points there. So I we’ll discuss that. \nrwassum: Thank you so much for the thoughtful presentation. All of the comments and thanks also to the public. \nrwassum: Comments that we received is really nice to hear. Kind of the full set of of responses that people have. \nrwassum: and I also really appreciate coming down to the brass tax of the project. I think previously my concerns were about removing public seating that we’re supporting the market hall aspects and kind of focus\, shifting to more of a \nrwassum: classic restaurant approach instead of a kind of a market hall approach\, and that was primarily in response to the bay kitchen. So I’m personally pleased to see \nrwassum: what this the public sitting in the kitchen area is maintained. And II also appreciate hearing more about what the tenants need and how you’re engaging with the tenants supporting them. As it’s a very difficult time to be a retailer right now\, especially downtown. So I think that was really helpful for me. \nrwassum: And I also appreciate while working with the market. I think that was a really important component of the project’s public and accessibility. I think it’s like one of the major snap resources that’s available in San Francisco. So I think that was a really important aspect of public access to food in this case. \nrwassum: So I mean I. This may be controversial\, but II believe that \nrwassum: overall. I think this is a building that has changed a lot over time. \nrwassum: And that’s what’s made it work\, and I don’t think we should be afraid of the building\, continuing to change\, to keep up with trends and land uses. Particularly at this moment\, in time where we’re seeing our downtown struggle to bring life. And I think seeing a an operator who wants to kind of turn up the dials on bringing life to this really important destination downtown is great. I wanna I think we should do everything. \nrwassum: you know\, within reason to support that. I think activating the building with successful retailers and ensuring the success of small scale retailers. Here is a really important part of the success of this building\, and yet the concept that this building is always represented\, which is sort of see the best of the day in San Francisco. You know our kind of local readers. \nrwassum: And II think that’ll really benefit bringing life here will benefit our whole downtown district. \nrwassum: And I think this billing provides a number of really neat public access. It has assets it has usable seating. \nrwassum: That’s comfortable \nrwassum: indoor\, usual seating bathrooms that you can easily go to. When there’s sun you could. There’s a place to sit in the sun when there’s when there’s places to sit out of the wind. So to me\, that’s kind of the main \nrwassum: that that is a really wonderful public access part of this building. \nrwassum: and I’m not a historic planner at all. I’m not a historic architect\, but it’s my personal feeling that \nrwassum: public access that is not actively being used as public access\, like the arcade space\, which is really cafes right now\, and storage space. \nrwassum: I don’t. I agree with Safan. I don’t see the quality of that space\, and I don’t think \nrwassum: preserving it as public access just for the sake of square footage of public access is the right approach. I think this isn’t a building just to look at. It’s a building to be activated and used and loved\, and to support these successful businesses. So \nrwassum: I think that for the for the. \nrwassum: with regard to the North Arcade and Cafe Zone key things to me here are sort of 3 things \nrwassum: there’s a there’s a sort of a hierarchy that we can read in the facade. There’s the main entry\, that’s kind of number one. Most important. There’s these end caps\, which are kind of number 2\, most important. And then there’s these central arcades between them kind of the wings. \nrwassum: And I think that the \nrwassum: this idea of holding the glass \nbehind the line of the columns. \nrwassum: Let’s us read that Arcade. I mean what the Arcade is doing is\, it’s giving us this sort of depth of facade substantialness of the building. You can read the depth of these big columns holding the glass line behind. Those \nrwassum: does help those read\, and then I would just say\, the thing I’m struggling with is these cannabis which \nrwassum: to me sort of make those central places feel like more \nrwassum: prominent in this tripartite hierarchy or 5 partite hierarchy\, or whatever we’re talking about here. And I think if those cafe areas were a little bit lighter\, touch\, more fold away at night. \nrwassum: you know\, less substantial than got\, and market hall. Then I think that would actually reflect the kind of architectural character of the building in terms of the use of that space as our key space as as retail space. I think it’s great. Bring light and life into the spaces. I wanna walk down the market arrow and see this building just \nrwassum: full of people and lights at night. I think that would be incredibly wonderful. It’s a cold building. Give me conditions\, spaces where I could be comfortable at night and see the life on the street. I think to me that is sort of more fully in line with the vision of this building when it was renovated as this really public space. \nrwassum: after\, you know\, pulling on the market arrow\, freeway\, and all that. There’s been a major project to make this part of the waterfront really public\, I think\, actually bringing more life to the ground floor of this building. \nrwassum: light on the street\, and all that would help make it kind of more\, fully realizing its vision. And then the last point I’ll make is that I think that the wedge is a fantastic idea. I want to sit on the southern part of the building in the sun. I want more places for people to sit outside every time I go to the I work 15\, and every time that which is in the very building every time I go outside to eat\, there’s nowhere to sit in the sun\, and I would love more places to sit outside. So I think that’s fantastic. \nrwassum: And just the last point is on the South Arcade. I think just that. I would apply the same logic which is lighter touch. \nrwassum: Keep the kind of depth of facade evidence and live in it with uses. \nrwassum: If it’s going. If there’s going to be\, you know\, cafe sitting outside\, it should be kind of like lighter touch\, and keep keeping this visual hierarchy of this kind of like tripartite. \nrwassum: Can I just jump in on that for a second? \nrwassum: I really agree with everything you said. Very clear\, very articulate. The canopy\, the. Are you referring to the this on the cover? This\, you know\, my reaction to that\, just \nrwassum: as a person who goes down there on that side fairly often \nrwassum: when it’s hot. I mean\, if you’re sitting in Gotson\, you’re out in that seating area. It is incredibly hot during summer. And so I actually thought that canopy was a pretty light touch structure\, but providing much needed shape. So you know. \nrwassum: I liked the way you described the building and the breakdown of the building or the composition of the building. But if you look at this rendering on the first image in the exhibits. \nrwassum: I think it to your point about evolution of the time. I think that’s a fairly effective way to improve the comfort level for people. And you know public seats. Could you achieve it with umbrellas? I guess you could. I mean as a possibility. Yes\, and you know\, the market\, after all has is. \nrwassum: you know\, it’s market days. There’s lots of\, you know\, temporary structures in that. So yeah. \nrwassum: yes\, thank you. \nrwassum: What I’ve been thinking about the presentation is that I would summarize. The challenge here is. how do we activate support these small businesses and balance public access. \nrwassum: and I have some of the same questions that Stephan has in terms of \nrwassum: You know\, how do we come? Quantify\, evaluate \nrwassum: purse or footage literally. Do you know that conservation of public access? Given that the proposed design is meant to be flexible and reversible? I think \nrwassum: that that \nrwassum: lessons my concern\, and also given the fact that public access there is \nrwassum: not of high quality. So I kind of agree on a lot of the points already made. So I’ll kind of redirect my focus on 3 pause in the back. \nrwassum: and and the fact that it’s incredibly under utilized \nand I do think that proposed design will help\, and I agree that the wedge has \nrwassum: a lot of potential to be inviting space to to welcome people\, to to stay on the wedge\, but also direct people through the back. And my question about the marking extent \nrwassum: was because I’m I’m wondering if you would only see that marking. And then some of those key moves to invite people in is queues that there’s something exciting behind here. Please come to back. \nrwassum: I don’t think you’ll see them until you’re right in front of them\, and so \nrwassum: I would just invite people to explore how to extend those moves either to the curve line. I understand that this might be outside your project area\, but as people are walking up and down the market arrow\, I think there’s an opportunity \nrwassum: to really\, you know\, create a queue further. \nrwassum: that is\, is not currently in the design. \nSo I’ll stop there and hand it off to Gary. \nrwassum: Gary. \nrwassum: okay\, thank you. Yeah. Given the kind of economic trough that the city is in and the Market Street corridor ferry building can\, and should\, I think\, play a really important role in reinvigorating\, you know. And it can be kind of like an acupuncture move\, you know\, if you can activate this building\, it will spread out from there. And I think we do all agree that the Preservation Building is really\, really key. \nrwassum: But I also think that preservation of the building reinvigoration\, historic building is part of preserving a historic building. And so I kind of agree with what others said\, that if it’s flexible and it’s removable and it’s light\, and it is not a permanent doesn’t touch the building. It’s set away. \nrwassum: I’m sort of okay with the arcades if they’re doing the job of activating the holding. So I see that it’s really tricky. I really respect everybody’s opinion that’s come out today because I think the activation and preservation\, if you wanna be a purist in terms of preservation\, alright counter purposes. So you know\, luckily\, I don’t have to decide. You know how you you know \nrwassum: resolve that? \nrwassum: So anyway\, II think also the climatic modification of the the arcade. The new\, the new structure provides is good with shade\, and the render. It looked as though there there was radiant heaters in there\, hanging from \nrwassum: structure that seemed like a good idea to meet\, so that it deals with the heat\, but also when it’s cool and even wondering if there was some kind of roll down\, you know\, in screens\, or something that could come out of those arcades as well. So I know that umbrellas and any kind of fabric creates problems with the point. \nrwassum: So that’s I think the North Arcade. I wanna make one comment about the connectivity \nrwassum: to the waterfront. I don’t know it’s possible to bring up the one image. There’s a couple of perspectives looking towards the water from the market arrow on the south side\, and there’s 2 perspectives there. \nrwassum: But The signage at the end to me is \nrwassum: as much of a barrier. It’s maybe more of a barrier than than an invitation\, and I really like the way the signage and the granite. \nrwassum: It’s kind of a ground level\, so it’s there if you’re looking for it. But it’s not in your face. \nrwassum: I think. They’re in that one image. It says\, you know\, Fairy Plaza\, very building on the ground\, and it says very something on the building and very close again\, so it seems redundant\, and I think people will find their way there. If you’re a resident. \nrwassum: you know how to get there. If you’re a commuter\, you know how to get there. I’m not sure why that sign is there. \nrwassum: and if it does have to be there\, then I just think that it needs to be very\, very carefully designed. \nrwassum: with the same degree of care as the canopies. I was especially saw the way that sign meets the ground\, and as soon as you put a \nrwassum: obstruction in the traffic area\, now you have to do it with concrete footing at the base to keep\, you know\, cars from running into it\, and it just made me realize that that wasn’t fully designed. I know it’s not fully designed\, but as it goes forward\, if it goes forward I’ll keep that in mind. \nrwassum: Thank you. \nrwassum: Thank you. Thank you. Gary\, and yeah\, excellent comments. \nrwassum: you know. Bob\, I’m gonna hand to you. Why don’t you? \nrwassum: Yeah\, it’s a beautiful. It’s a beautiful building I feel a little out of my depth here as a engineer and not a designer. \nrwassum: In the sense that we’re talking about here. \nrwassum: I’m concerned about the kind of the conflict between \nrwassum: some comments about wanting to keep the arcades open space and to maintain public office space and \nrwassum: desire to activate the space and to change the use. And II really\, I’ve been thinking\, and II can’t think of a way to mediate that. I think that other board members have some great comments \nrwassum: on how to do that. so I’ll just \nrwassum: give my time to the other board members. Okay\, thank you. \nrwassum: Well\, for me. I think I I’m I’m not going to \nrwassum: build on what the other Board members have said. I think it’s II agree with everything that people said\, and \nrwassum: I think\, for for me the critical question that you know I want to address is is the the question of the publicness of public space and the evolution of public access of the time\, and \nrwassum: I think\, for those of us. on. of improving or creating public space over the years\, you do see a constant evolution of how public space is used\, and \nrwassum: you know what may be very effective for 5 or 10 years\, then may become redundant\, and then something else might become more effective\, more appealing to people. So \nrwassum: well\, I know our BC\, DC\, you know we we have to have purpose\, and we do establish precise with footages. I think\, when it comes to the public space around this early. \nrwassum: the precision of how many square feet represents a compromise that could not be \nrwassum: well back from versus a compromise that might actually enhance the overall public \nrwassum: sense of \nrwassum: quality of public space because of other things that are being added in there\, or other attractions or other destinations\, can in my mind\, be a reasonable \nrwassum: justification for being able to compromise a little bit on these square footages. \nrwassum: And I think\, in South Plaza\, I think\, what is proposed is is very positive enhancement. \nrwassum: I actually like the way finding \nrwassum: aspect of that very class assigned Gary. I agree with you. The detailing could be refined\, but obviously there would be time to do that. \nrwassum: But I know from the standpoint of the type of visitors who come here not everybody really knows how to find all the different very \nrwassum: you know which way to go\, left or right for the different walks\, and I think that was actually quite a useful thing to to have there\, as well as the additional signage. So I think that is very well handled. \nrwassum: I \nrwassum: and I won’t repeat what we said about the update. But I do think that evolution. \nrwassum: viability\, activation\, comfort are really critical aspects for public space. And II think this proposal is has done a good job at at creating that \nrwassum: better environment and focusing on those areas. \nrwassum: So I look\, I think that with that I think I’ll hand over to the W. Tac. \nrwassum: you have. I think we’ve pretty much touched on the 5 questions here. So stuff\, please clarify. There’s something handle adequately. But let’s go into the wdic. And \nrwassum: and those 3 questions that you were asked to to look at and discuss. Thank you. \nrwassum: Catherine\, please. Ii can’t speak loud enough. Can you hear me? I think. Use the use of zoom again. \nrwassum: may I say for introduction that your questions\, 1\, 3\, and 5 \nrwassum: very much resonate with me\, and I wish I would be allowed to comment on them. Very thoughtful. And I very much appreciate it. Just send us a summary\, including specific aspects that are very important to me. I personally actually received 5 questions in my memo. \nrwassum: Of which Dan\, I think\, summarize 3. And I’m gonna try to identify the questions because the way he stated them there was slightly different phrase than what you said\, so I will try. \nDo the proposed design enhancements reflect the history and sign nature of the ferry building. \nrwassum: I think that is a big\, big question\, because over time the fairy building\, as was presented today\, particularly with respect to looking at history and challenges over time\, is gone. So many\, many changes. What is our responsibility? Is the building\, as it is \nrwassum: beautifully restored to a historic building that we all feel is of extremely important civic nature and civic presence in the city it does actually anchor. The city between \nrwassum: City Hall is unalterable\, and the ferry building\, where land meets water. And I think that analog for me leaves the building itself so precious and so important that I have very little tolerance or appreciation for those changes of which I see too many on the west facade \nrwassum: given absence mission of to to utilize and activate the building. I’m very much in support of everything that’s happening on the south side. Again\, some of the design choices in detail can pro probably be elevated and can be staying as a longer discussion. There’s certain aspects which I think we could all discuss of improving on. \nrwassum: However\, it is the building itself\, and what we are suggesting on the west side. where I have big questions. Most and foremost\, I believe \nrwassum: I fully support the idea of activating the building. However. the canopy\, as proposed from my perspective\, is extremely static. \nrwassum: It is so static that it actually changes the perception of how we perceive the building from the long view from across the street\, as well as how we seize a building\, or don’t see the building. Well\, when we are on \nrwassum: society work in front of the building. \nrwassum: the canopy is too massive\, the canopy is too long\, and if the wisdom of the arcade gives us a clue for activation\, then I believe that the \nrwassum: motion of the arcade is being obliterated by the static nature of the canopy \nrwassum: you have like waves\, and all of sudden it’s all flat. It’s covered\, it has lights on it. It’s very regimented\, and I think it wipes out the dynamic of what could be \nrwassum: earlier today. Alman made a very important point that immediately sparked my curiosity\, although we’re not here in a real design discussion. When she said. consider of how you could basically \nrwassum: utilize or furnish a space undernecrate in a slightly different way. And I think there are other ways doing that. \nrwassum: the second question and then you need to correct me if I’m not quite hitting the right number here\, based on what I’m providing and what you said. \nrwassum: What’s the proposal to place a cafe market zone and public seating area in the South. Permanent improves the quality of public space. \nrwassum: I would say\, most likely. Yes. \nrwassum: I answered\, that another one is other proposed canopy structures along the west side of the building\, compared with history with the historic district? And do they continue to allow appropriate use of the building? The answer would be. \nrwassum: No\, I summarized that. \nrwassum: Do the proposed improvements enhance circulation and connectivity to and from the fair building\, Zambagu permanent\, and the fair plaza \nrwassum: my answer would say\, in the way it is delineated. I would question it. My answer would probably be\, no. \nrwassum: What starts to really concern me is that the changes that need to be made to the ground plane 3 times during a week \nrwassum: creates an element of too much activity and haste \nrwassum: that takes away of perceiving a strong \npublic space \nrwassum: as being really there. There’s constant changes. And I like the dynamic what’s happening on the South Plaza and in the wedge and beyond. But as it addresses the front of the building. \nrwassum: I am concerned about that. Those will be my comments. \nrwassum: I think. Many of you have said many of the things that probably will have to say. And I was just gonna suggest that I don’t know how this works\, but we do have 3 different spaces\, and which we’re looking into\, and I guess eventually evaluating. And that is the wedge in that front of the building. \nrwassum: So definitely\, if we’re talking on those 3 terms\, I think the proposals we made for the pluses seem pretty reasonable to me in terms of focusing on late \nrwassum: the ferry bill\, the ferry plaza sign. The only question I was gonna ask whether that would also include the function of providing that separation for for traffic\, because right now you have this temporary barrier that doesn’t necessarily look that great\, anyway. So going back to the point of what currently is happening can be improved by having that arc \nrwassum: be functional for that separation\, or that separation is no longer necessary. \nrwassum: so in in which case\, then\, I prefer honestly to have a more design element that incorporates all those functions that the will require\, and that then feels a much more welcoming and clear element to include. \nrwassum: Given that it is definitely gonna go through. As you know\, the design to be done carefully and integrated. So it feels very \nrwassum: oh. \nrwassum: friendly to pedestrians\, while at the same time barriers. \nrwassum: cars when needed and if needed. \nrwassum: So in that case\, I think from that perspective\, I think that’s fantastic. This whole area on the wedge and the reactation. I couldn’t agree more. That’s phase. When you are in the market day it feels like the most amazing place \nrwassum: most of the time when I’ve been there it always feels like it’s an empty market space\, which actually is the whole point of these new improvements \nrwassum: that I think will change that perception. So I’m pretty much in favor of all of these\, and whether \nrwassum: even sort of to Patricia’s comment\, whether it has to come out or not. I don’t think in in essence people need that. Once you begin to see it activated\, you will understand that this is an inviting place as opposed to the back of house\, which is my perception currently today. \nrwassum: That brings us back to what I’m receiving in the conversation the more controversial. and from my perception. I would probably lean on the side of saying\, we do need to support our \nrwassum: vendors. Our restaurants are ours. Everything in the city today is becoming more\, more and more paramount that we actually go a little bit above and beyond\, in order to reactivate all of the areas that we all enjoy. \nrwassum: And to me the biggest conundrum had always been. Why is it fair building has such a limited schedule? And it is because we don’t know that it is openly. And so the whole notion of whatever needs to happen that to activate that I think I’m very much in favor of. \nrwassum: I am not a retail or commercial expert. But I do know that all those activations in reality are a bit of a gamble. You have to test something\, put it out there\, see how it works\, and then evaluate and revisit. I think \nrwassum: I presume some of that will play a factor in how this activation happens. I couldn’t agree more that I am a fan of blue bottle in the world in general. In that location a blue bottle at the very building seems like something that somebody forgot to finish up. \nrwassum: You feel you really feel that you’re under some kind of temporary situation. So currently\, the activation of the publicness of that space. I think in my mind as a user of the city\, not as a designer. Anything else feel somewhat. \nrwassum: Am I supposed to be here. This is the backup house like you know how the slant store used to have the out. The door thing like this is a little thing where\, like there’s a blue bottle inside which\, indeed\, there is one. So there’s this whole perception of what happens on that secondary function. I think this \nrwassum: proposal is the current risk the current gamble to try to figure out. I do think that there are many things that the minor level of design\, whether that perception is 6 foot. \nrwassum: although the grandness of that movement is is perceived correctly or not. And and it’s not about the 6 foot dimension it’s about. I think Patrice was bringing that up about it is making it work\, not necessarily fight over feet and inches. \nrwassum: And that’s why I was bringing up the question. Can we think of this parallel axis that feels pretty open because currently\, right now\, my perception only in terms of what cost the cost. \nrwassum: Sorry. No\, is that that is definitely pretty unaccessible unless I work\, I go by \nrwassum: which I haven’t. But if the idea that I’ve seen here from for this proposal is not quite like that it is perceived as something that you can come through\, go through\, pass through\, and I think that’s the big difference\, I think. \nrwassum: And so for that\, from that regard. I like the class. \nrwassum: All of those things\, I think\, are fantastic. I do wonder\, I think the benches that are supposed to be in front to kind of delineate that as or anything that we’re introduced as a public benefit. \nrwassum: And I wonder if that’s necessary in this context of keeping this perceived as much more flexible than with Mark\, please. And Goth got thoughts \nrwassum: he’s doing because those 2 spaces don’t. Don’t feel as public\, let’s say as I just. I’m just wondering if it’s a decision of those little end elements that may have you perceive us. I’m giving you something at the turn that perceptually is making us feel this is more private than it should be. \nrwassum: because I do think the intention\, and I believe that this is meant to be pretty common. \nrwassum: And it’s just some. Some of the things\, even though\, that physically are allowing public access might be prevent projecting an image of not being as public as it could be. \nrwassum: The question of the trail is in my mind. Is. \nrwassum: is it again part of this idea of of activating within a little bit of a gamble. Do you need to shade in order for them to be successful or not? And that’s probably the question that we need to ask is whether shade is a must or a good thing to have\, and in the presentation to be fair\, I don’t know if I heard that is \nrwassum: a deal breaker. If if some person decides to put a rest around this location without the canopy or the \nrwassum: they would be like\, I’m out of the I’m out of this game. This is\, this doesn’t work on this. They have some ability of shaded in there\, and that maybe that’s something that we can clarify\, and that may bring another \nrwassum: way to evaluate the value of that canopy. Within the context of what we’re trying to achieve\, which is activating. \nrwassum: Yeah. So \nrwassum: I’m sort of gonna echo some of the same thoughts that have already been \nrwassum: brought up. But he was Kirsten. \nrwassum: Everything everything you said was kind of what I was thinking about. I completely agree with the the very plaza area. I agree. I think the proposed \nrwassum: updates are reasonable. I think the wedge \nrwassum: The wedge plaza area also seems like. \nrwassum: you know\, that’s kind of the right thing to do in that location. I will say that the very \nrwassum: the fairy sign. \nrwassum: yeah. I’m not sure also how I feel about it\, but I do know that \nrwassum: I was recently in Hong Kong\, and there were moments in these crowds\, but the only way I could way find is to look up. And so I think that might be something we wanna really just think about when it is crowded. And you know\, you can’t see sides that are ground level. So I think that’s important. \nrwassum: And then\, as far as the south treatment. \nrwassum: Yeah\, you know again\, I think I agree with the \nrwassum: idea that it is not well used space. And I used to. You know. I used to come here a lot to the ferry building during lunch and on weekends. \nrwassum: and these spaces were never places that I would want to be \nrwassum: my dog would not even want to walk under them. And so I think\, you know\, we really need to think seriously about you know how valuable some of this public spaces\, if it’s not being used. \nrwassum: and we have an opportunity here to \nrwassum: make them more publicly used. And so I think I would. You know I would\, you know\, want to keep that in mind. \nrwassum: I think the other thing I would just add is\, and this might be. Controversial\, too\, is the idea of the canopies. \nrwassum: Don’t offend me. I think if they’re done right and are \nrwassum: finely detailed\, they can actually accentuate the architecture. \nrwassum: the historic architecture\, I mean\, I think they’re really great examples throughout the world. this country\, Asia\, Europe. where \nrwassum: the integration of a modern structure\, or even support systems into historic architecture. When I see them. \nrwassum: I think it’s beautiful. I think they actually accentuate the historic architecture in many ways. And you know\, this one’s a little bit hard to see to read\, because\, you know\, you see the sort of powerful line across this canopy across the south face\, and I’m trying to figure out if I were standing across Barcodero. \nrwassum: What I really perceive this canopy\, which at least in the renderings\, appears to be very porous. You know\, if anything\, I think\, looking at the renderings\, I still\, kinda I can still make out the the historic facade of the building. \nrwassum: So you know\, without that kind of rendering\, you know. Who’s to say whether that’s really that dominant or not? I think again\, if it’s done. Well\, it could help. It could help to sort of light up the \nrwassum: the elevation of the building. So \nrwassum: any any comments? \nrwassum: Okay. \nrwassum: okay\, I will. Book. I’ll go through the 3 spaces. And I think we’re agreement. It’s restrained. It’s really not that big change. And the mighty makes a lot of sense. \nrwassum: The wedge plaza. I agree with a lot of the comments. I do think that \nrwassum: that the Graphic is on actually the vehicular surface. But I can appreciate that’s where the like visibility\, the figure. And we’re trying to drive traffic foot traffic. \nrwassum: I think the comments about devils and the details. And I know this is really service room. But it’s gonna get probably choppier like with crosswalks and things\, so \nrwassum: that I will put faith in the design team and the like process to kind of find elegant ways to resolve how that thing fits in to things I do. \nrwassum: And you know it’s not for Wjc. To maybe comment on the permits\, but it is the public access. It feels strange to me that there is like we’re moving pieces of permits around. But we’re not over maintaining a pattern on the South that doesn’t actually have to do it. \nrwassum: The usage \ncirculation. So I see that this is like a a first move in the \nrwassum: added proposed public access requirement. But I would say it like\, you have \nrwassum: pinch points\, and it just seems strange. So it is maybe a moment to think about. Is there an opportunity \nrwassum: to clean up actually\, what’s important about the public access on the South and then on the arcades and the Northern\, II think\, agree. I have concerns about the Southern being something we have no real notion of what \nrwassum: the details are so I’m not really comfortable\, that that is a thing that just gets rolled in for the Northern\, and\, I should say\, really really appreciate the thoughtfulness and the restraint\, and coming back \nrwassum: and I think this presentation was really well organized. and I hear the nighttime \nrwassum: goals\, which I think is a really important one. So to me\, then\, the canopy is about lighting and heat\, actually\, maybe more than shade and so that how do we can we achieve that? I I’ve come to kind of agree on the Arcade. \nrwassum: The possibility enclosure. I think some of the things I feel like I take issue with is the things that feel like their gestures to maintain publicness. But they’re not right. So even in maybe is actually about fire. But the passage between the 2 restaurant spaces. \nrwassum: It’s not really. Maybe that’s I don’t know. It’s preservation or fire\, but it doesn’t seem to me about like public circulation. I like what? Where Alma was going about\, actually affiliating it with the outside space\, especially with opening up those \nrwassum: arcades. I am in the same. I think\, thinking of like some hesitation about the canopies. I appreciate \nrwassum: person\, how you talked about that and I do wonder the length\, I mean\, 115 feet is pretty long. So that is\, I think\, thinking about how can you \nrwassum: downgrade and maybe straight on\, like I do think that aerial view on the front cover does like do a better job of convincing? That’s not actually do. Any of us are gonna experience. \nrwassum: I am curious to the dentum\, like what the height that is\, and having you can see through. And the arcade. Thank you. Okay\, I go look at that. \nrwassum: so that it’s not obscuring from a distance. And I do think that is. \nrwassum: that is the privatization. So I don’t know. II I’m reading that is like that is a controlled perimeter most of the time\, and I know it’s like meant to feel airy\, and it is a control perimeter. So I would like to see emphasis on additional seating in other places which I think would support. I mean finding the seat over there sometimes can be hard. So II support in general. I think you know\, design could be talked about. \nrwassum: So I’m gonna give him. I think then I’m conclusive on the canopy. But I think my recommendation would be. I think it could be done. But I’m concerned about the details. I’m concerned aboutings. I’m concerned about how the perimeter really works in the end\, and whether it should be one singular length. \nrwassum: Thank you to everyone. One of the benefits of being last is that all the good ideas have been spoken. I have a lot of empathy for everyone in this room\, of\, from all perspectives\, including the \nrwassum: heritage and hill\, and as well as the applicant and the architect is a \nrwassum: authority problem. I’ll \nrwassum: keep my comments to the arcades and the canopies. I think everyone is\, had very good comments about the I will note that the 2\,002 project\, which was \nrwassum: pretty controversial when they cut the holes in the floor\, and people were \nrwassum: very concerned about that. And that turned out to be the right book and \nrwassum: it was\, you know\, argued about\, and people who argue about the certain territory standards can come to very different conclusions. You know all in good goodwill and good faith. \nrwassum: To my mind. The arcades fundamental nature changed when their ends were enclosed and they ceased becoming connected tissue\, and they basically became covered outdoor space so that the North and South Arcade\, which is what we’re talking about\, really don’t connect anything \nrwassum: and in fact\, they’re already privatized\, and they’re privatized in a very ad hoc\, and not very successful way where they’re \nrwassum: 22 foot interior. Gracious! With this\, been carved up with these little boxes and kiosks\, and and a little kind of mean circulation area along the north side\, and then themselves side. As much as you know. We want to see food wise seated\, everything storage lockers\, except on\, you know\, when when conditions operating. So I hope \nrwassum: with the successful. So lease extension that they can actually build something that’s that’s more permanent and visible. so I do support the enclosure of the arcades and the rendering. If you could go back a couple of shows that view of the restaurant \nrwassum: this one \nrwassum: side by side. Yeah\, those are good\, just position. And I have 2 months\, 2 months of this. This to me\, restore the spatial characteristic of that arcade. \nrwassum: and you can kind of see in the background. Oh\, there’s a little box that’s the backhouse. \nrwassum: I’m very concerned that once you layer in the ductwork for goods and make up air and possible space conditioning. And you do a more realistic version of what a backup house restaurant looks like that we’re going to approach \nrwassum: more what we what we have now with simply a glass wall. And so\, boy\, is the double of the details of these restaurants. \nrwassum: and I do note that well\, gods is successful. Gods has about 10 feet on the other side of the wall. \nrwassum: and while everyone wants to watch exhibition cooking. Nobody wants to watch exhibition dishwashing. And so that’s really gonna make a break. \nrwassum: As to the privatization of the public room\, I would say that we should keep in mind that the ferry building\, as a whole\, as a marketplace\, extremely successful\, to separate people from their money\, and while you can walk through there without pulling out your wallet\, I think. \nrwassum: Kind of not the point. \nAnd a cafe presents a fairly low barrier to entry \nrwassum: for a $15 beer. You can sit there for 2 h. \nrwassum: So get that leaves leaves me with the \nrwassum: Kennedy’s. I’m of 2 minds. Half of me would rather see a bunch of clunky market umbrellas and and space heaters out there that they roll back on at the end of the day. \nrwassum: But intellectually I do believe there’s possibility of a successful design for those candidates. I think it has to be very minimal. \nrwassum: I think even the what’s intended now has 2 horizontal bars\, and it doesn’t appear to be \nlower of which seems to intrude on the \nrwassum: on top of the arch. \nrwassum: I’d love to see a series of perspectives from across the street\, from the curb line from. you know\, every 20 feet\, to actually see \nrwassum: without all the beautiful entourage just showing what with the\, with the stuff\, with the heaters there? And are they clunky\, or are they streamlined and integrated house thin? Can you get this thing? How elegant can you get this such that it can visually recede? \nrwassum: And I think there’s the possibility for that. I think there’s a lot of design work. \nrwassum: And I would have like to see more detail on that going forward to future design review boards. I would recommend the apple. Do those studies without the entourage that you know everybody loves happy people eating. \ndo it\, do it in a more sort of stripped down way. \nrwassum: Oh\, one last comment\, which is these market lights which are ubiquitous on every parklet and most people’s backyards\, and you can buy them depot. \nrwassum: I think that this as a canopy element\, is is minimal \nrwassum: approach would be far more successful with completely concealed sources. So you have pools of light on the dining\, but you don’t walk\, drive by\, and it looks like this\, you know. \nrwassum: It’s cheap lights \ngoing back. \nrwassum: Couple of comments. I saw everybody’s head nod when he said concealed lights. Just wanted to. Nobody else expressed that. But I saw 5 heads\, not at the same time\, and one clarification on public access square footage. This area\, where the candidates being proposed anticipated for this cafe restaurant use \nrwassum: in the original remodel permit for the ferry building. So it’s not technically a loss of public space. This was the intended use\, such as Gots and market bar. It’s not a balance that probably needs to be hit on square footage \nrwassum: for this area. but it’s a I think\, a design question\, and that’s why we have the design experts here. \nSo \nrwassum: if we had kind of something to add to your discussion is now the time to. Yes\, I was just going to summarize. So yes\, go ahead. Yeah. So one of the things that we’ve been discussing with the applicant and with the port. \nrwassum: Sure. So one of the things we’ve been discussing with the applicants and with the port I’m having to do with that Southern wedge is the circulation around I guess\, like the north side of the drive aisle where? In the proposed cafe market zone. They would have like some barriers around that meeting area where\, right now\, I guess it’s like kind of where the cons are. And so we are curious. Because it \nrwassum: it has been like a topic of discussion is like how that space and we can figure if anybody had an opinion about like that like circulation through that space. Or if I don’t know if you just like to find on that a little bit\, so that we have a little bit of feedback to work with. \nrwassum: that would be great. \nOkay. \nrwassum: I’ll I’ll let me respond to that. Anyone else can jump in. It’s an important question. And I think the \nrwassum: majority\, I mean\, I think everyone actually feels very positive about the activation of that area. So this is one of those questions about \nrwassum: human behavior in relation to a defined cafe seating zone when there is still a very large area around it\, some of which is defined roadway \nwith \nrwassum: certain times that they might be activity on that\, but for the majority of the time pedestrians to most that \nrwassum: really in without even\, II think\, thinking about the fact that they’re on the roadway versus defined pedestrian area. \nrwassum: I think the \nrwassum: the other thing I would say about this is\, this is very much a a a flex zone here from a pedestrian standpoint. So you know the definition of where the pedestrian walks \nrwassum: is not. \nrwassum: this seems to be a very big area open to the pedestrians\, even with the definition of that that restaurant area with the planters that move back and forth to accommodate the market. So \nrwassum: I don’t see an issue with that. II appreciate that in the end you’ve got to define these. Some of you know what is formally defined as as pedestrian versus vehicular\, or \nrwassum: or the other side adjacent the plaza. But I think in this case\, the benefits \nrwassum: that are accruing from that outdoor seating area and the desire to have that. \nrwassum: I think\, means that \nrwassum: area can be accommodated in what I would call that that quite large\, flexible area. \nrwassum: Do people agree with that? Do you want to add something. \nrwassum: I completely agree. And I think what’s happening around the edge of this building in general is the bump out in front of got in the bomb out in front of Market Hall. Kind of create this like soft. \nrwassum: occupiable edge around the building. And \nrwassum: it it struck public. Just square feet of concrete is not by itself great public space\, right? What makes great public spaces \nrwassum: offering different ways to use it\, and I think\, providing these kind of soft\, occupable edges around the building and clarifying circulation patterns\, and opening up spaces where there’s eddies and things as necessary\, and giving gracious enough space to entry ways\, and all of that \nrwassum: is a way of structuring the way to use the building that just makes it more legible. And I think to me this is \nrwassum: adding a kind of a soft\, occupyable edge in a way that makes this face not feel like back to house anymore. It’s still navigable. With this kind of you can cut the edge of the corner and go around edge if you want to see the tables\, but it does also on like a market day when there might be people. A lot of people wanting to find a place to say it does kind of clearly indicate where you could sit comfortably without people bumping into your legs\, and where you can kind of walk \nrwassum: without having to worry about bumping into people’s legs. So I think\, giving this this space. \nrwassum: I think there’s enough space here for circulation\, clearly for people\, and it seems like enough space for this kind of nice seating and adding this structure to this\, and I think this also goes from the side\, giving them a little bit more structure and opportunity to occupy these spaces\, and also have plenty of generous circulation. Space\, I think\, isn’t total improvement to the legibility of the whole building. So just to really fall on you\, said I agree. \nrwassum: and I ask a question. Aye. \nrwassum: so the open public seating is only on the west side of that south facade and on the eastern facade. What we’re trying to get to is like\, is that a porous dining area where people can walk through? It’s like it’s packing like gold Starbucks out here. \nrwassum: or is it appropriate or acceptable\, for there to be dividers\, and it becomes an exclusive space that public then needs to circulate around. I have an opinion on that. I have an opinion. \nrwassum: So II think this gets to this idea of like what’s what’s measurable. And so \nrwassum: maybe the window that I look at that through is that if you can create spaces along the edge of building where the public \nrwassum: can have a good experience \nrwassum: in in a way that the public can have a good experience all along the edge of\, like a really well designed commercial building on Market Street\, in downtown. \nrwassum: That we should \nsupport that wherever we could get it. \nrwassum: And so I was talking to \nrwassum: my faithful seat maker. About just this \nrwassum: The edges of the building right now are not so great. And so\, if you look at them from the same point\, what’s the quality of the sidewalk in front of the building\, where there is not an outer seating area. \nIt’s not that it’s really not that great \nrwassum: but if there was sort of an active edge that you could walk along. \nrwassum: you could argue that you’re sort of \nrwassum: a larger portion of the building that is today somewhat inconsistent. So I would. I would look at the web to that web and say\, maybe the goal is to try to make space around as much of the building as you can where it feels really great to walk along the edge. \nrwassum: I mean\, I’ve I’ve sort of go for that shy zone\, that where you can actually put people next building\, you can \nrwassum: have entrances and other things that open up\, you can have transparency instead of the back of the kitchen store. That sort of encourages \nrwassum: the kind of pedestrian activity that’s oriented to the building. \nrwassum: So I wouldn’t be supportive of having that continue around the southern side of building. \nrwassum: Very welcome. \nrwassum: Yeah. I mean\, I think\, yeah\, Stephan\, specific question was\, if that was leased to a restaurant\, would that be acceptable? And I think what I’m hearing you say is \nrwassum: yes or no. \nI think the answer is that \nrwassum: having that publicly accessible space around the edge of the building. \nrwassum: yeah\, not restaurants. or the condition that we’re seeing in the in front of these loaches is that \nrwassum: there\, in theory\, is a passage along the edge of the building between the actual restaurant space and the outdoor seating where I could continue to walk. \nrwassum: It’s not in the permit yet. but I think that kind of space is something. I think that from a policy standpoint I we would\, I would support. So just to be clear in the south at the south side. So in this rendering. \nrwassum: with the outdoor seating area with the plan of boxes. It’s not the other outdoor seating areas with \nrwassum: everyone can. You know\, you could see tables\, chairs that everyone could see that. And then further along. There’s a zone that might be attached to a restaurant that might occupy that corner in the future. This is all might\, you know\, but I mean\, I feel like that’s appropriate. I you know the building is is big enough\, and the offerings that you know you want variety. And \nrwassum: I think it’s okay\, zones are getting closer together. Right? So from the pedestrian standpoint\, it’s not that big of a deal to move around. And sort of that’s fine. The idea again of walking around building. \nrwassum: Yes. \nrwassum: it’s an enhanced through this proposal that I would sort of see how far we could take them right now\, May\, Wdc\, add a comment to this conversation\, or do we keep these separate? \nrwassum: Go ahead. I just wanted to note\, and I’m hopeful that the team could work it out. But I not clear on how Ada is handled here\, and I think that may send you in different directions\, because if you have to have a strong edging for the whole length of that. \nrwassum: Then you’ve got \nrwassum: like cause. If if it’s able to be fluid with the where the striping is\, then I’m completely in agreement. But if you’ve got an edging that needs to be more controlled than what we’re seeing. \nand it’s forcing everyone to come across\, walk over and back. That would be my question of like attention to that. \nrwassum: How that is reconciled. \nrwassum: So\, Alma. \nrwassum: I was actually just gonna react to to the question. So the question was\, is it appropriate to have a more private zone or less public\, to say any other one? From from the point of view we were arguing earlier about with the ferry\, plus up sign was useful or necessary\, or whichever way is done \nrwassum: under that\, I think\, having something that is a little bit more dedicated\, presumably constantly more occupied by people servicing and eating\, or having coffee \nrwassum: in my mind\, works as another anchor to pull people into that or into that location rather than just to leave it all open\, ended as public\, fully public space in which you have to decide \nrwassum: how to activate \nrwassum: different countries\, different cultures. They do that differently. But in the Us. You do have to be more instructional. You have to say\, this is a good place for you to hang out. So I feel like\, from the perspective of that point of being at the embargo\, seeing that corner and seeing those people always there versus. Here’s people transiting and sitting occasionally. I do think that that’s a that’s a helpful thing to have now the proportion. \nrwassum: the axis\, how tight it is close to the building\, we need people more access to to your point. \nrwassum: I agree that in the proposal is chosen in the right place\, because this is what it gets narrow. So naturally you\, your movement is somebody who’s not interested in having a coffee \nrwassum: will be less abrupt than if you do it the other way around. So from the perspective of what they’re presenting to us\, I think this is more consistent to one of my questions I need to answer \nrwassum: from here that whether this is this maintains that the perception publicness\, but also\, we are asked to say\, are the features in the signage will add clarity\, and still permit views. And so I think in that perspective\, the answer to your question would be\, from my point of view\, probably this is the right balance. \nrwassum: Helpful? Yes. Good. \nrwassum: Okay. So I’m just going to briefly summarize where we’re at after the \nrwassum: dialogue before we ask for the. So \nrwassum: I think I’m just gonna look to the areas of consensus. So if we wanted to check off the the plaza\, I think everyone feels very positive about the enhancing that through additional lighting so. \nrwassum: and \nrwassum: consensus on that item on the south plus of the wedge\, I think there is consensus again. All of this is in the context of devils in the detail\, and take on all the comments they design. Ada. And you know the other things that we talk about \nrwassum: the the South Arcade. \nrwassum: I think everybody supports our market operator\, who was\, I think\, we really \nrwassum: very committed any\, and want to see their long term. We want to see the kitchen their long term he is not clear\, because we didn’t see any proposed details\, and we understand why\, from Hudson the city that this is not \nrwassum: on the front burner. Yes\, and I wanna pick up on something that Alma mentioned earlier\, too\, that I think \nrwassum: if this is some years down the track. \nrwassum: I think it gives a very good amount of time to be able to observe the experimentation on the north\, the success of the North Arcade and find out\, hey? Down the track. So I would say\, we can’t offer consensus on the South Arcade\, because\, in a way\, it’s not being presented in detail to us tonight. So I would put that aside and just say\, we don’t need to \nrwassum: really resolve that \nrwassum: tonight on the North Arcade. \nrwassum: I think there is general consensus that enhanced lighting is good activation drawing people into the building especially at night\, letting us know that \nrwassum: it’s a great place to be is very important. I think there’s general consensus that the you know\, having restaurants operations that activate the the North. Is a positive. \nrwassum: but you know\, very be brackets. After that the devil is in the detail. The operational complications and challenges the movement public movement through these areas of deception of publicness. \nrwassum: You know\, outstanding questions. And then\, of course\, the \nrwassum: And then the third point that I wrote down that I think this general consensus on is that cleaning up? What’s there at the moment\, which is really very modest and not really very attractive\, is a very positive thing\, and\, you know\, can only enhance \nrwassum: everyone’s experience of the of the free building. the unresolved issues. \nrwassum: Academy. \nrwassum: again\, the brackets\, the devils in the details. So design really needs to be looked at. Could the links be broken up. Can they be studies to convince\, to to have the designers and \nrwassum: port and BC. DC. Or feel very confident on the the the \nrwassum: character of the candidate. Lightness of the canopy is not going to impact the facade of this very important historic building. \nrwassum: The public access under the colonnade unresolved\, and I think that is also tied to the question of the restaurant. Layouts and operation are not resolved yet\, because that doesn’t get resolved until you have potential restaurant restaurants coming in. And so I think this\, you know\, that has to all be taken\, \nrwassum: you know\, into further study\, which is not really our role as advisers. Our role is to point out exactly what you know we’ve done tonight provide our concerns and hear the concerns of the community which we take very seriously \nrwassum: and then provide that guidance\, so that the really excellent professionals who are responsible for working with the proponent to advance. This can do a great job. \nrwassum: So there are definitely unresolved issues\, north canopy and I think\, I I’ll pause at this point\, and I think\, headed to the Department to or to make a comment. \nrwassum: Thank you\, I think. Thank you for tonight. I think your comments\, your both concerns and direction\, are helpful as we move forward\, and we just look forward to the opportunity to work with staff to evolve it. So it’s something we’re all proud of when it’s \nrwassum: eventually implemented. \nrwassum: Thanks. \nrwassum: So I think the question\, the final question before us is whether we would want to see this again or not. And \nrwassum: my view is that we have provided several hours of excellence. Analysis by really top class people. And we’ve listened to really thoughtful calls from the community. \nrwassum: and I don’t think it would be productive for us to sit here again and have the same conversation. So I want to recommend that we that this now moves\, we don’t see it again. Although I would say \nrwassum: I would ask that the \nrwassum: South Arcade is basically taken out of this for now\, and reserved for the future \nrwassum: a. \nrwassum: For some years down the track to\, you know\, be able to deal with it then\, and you know\, if Staff at that time feels that it should come back for further review\, then you know\, we should see that when there’s more detail on stuff. But otherwise I’d say\, \nrwassum: please go ahead\, and I am personally very excited to see \nrwassum: some improvement to to the very building. I think this this will go a long way to accomplishing some\, you know\, really important outcomes. So \nrwassum: I think that’s the conclusion on this item. \nrwassum: Okay\, so there is a second item on the agenda for tonight\, which is the briefing on the San Francisco waterfront coastal flats\, study draft plan. \nrwassum: And should we move straight into it? Given the time? \nrwassum: Okay. \nrwassum: okay\, we’re back back online here and \nrwassum: lease is with Communications guide. And he’s gonna give us a quick run through with the flood study. Thank you very much for waiting us out here. So \nI think you can hear me. \nrwassum: Yeah. \nrwassum: thank you. We still have full Design View Board pretty much full. \nrwassum: advisory committee over here. And why don’t you take it away with a summary of what the Flex study is up to. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: Thank you. Dan. Hello\, everyone. My name is Luis Barata. I’m a senior planner with the waterfront resource program\, and I think I I’m hearing some echo. \nrwassum: so we should. You can mute your \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: can. You hear me? Okay? So I will just go ahead and go through it. Well\, I wanna say thank you\, everybody for for having me here\, and so \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: I’m happy to see so many familiar faces\, and I’m sorry I could not be there in person. I had some family commitments\, but jump into the presentation. Let me share my screen. \nrwassum: Can you see it? \nrwassum: Alright. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: So I’m gonna talk about the water the San Francisco waterfront residence program the the draft plan of the flood study that we have been working on \nand \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: you know\, what is this flood study? II think I assume that a lot of you are aware. But it is a study to analyze the coastal flood risk and the tax of slab or ice in the San Francisco waterfront\, along with the 7 and a half miles of the. So it extends from aquatic park on the northern side all the way to Harold’s Head Park on the southern end. So basically covers the base side of the of the city shoreline. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: it is I still \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: it. It is a study to to address. You know\, Sila horizon and seismic risks. Right now\, the the estimated cost cost for this this project are adding up to 13.5 billion dollars in today’s value. And with this\, this study is a partnership with the undercups of engineer. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: this partnership is very important\, because if the project gets approved by Congress the Federal Government will will pay up to 65% of those costs\, and the city is gonna have to come up with the other 35% of those costs. We are also working with in collaboration with other city agencies under the climate Asf umbrella. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: including the office of resilience at capital planning. Mta. Public Works\, Poc and the San Francisco planning department \nrwassum: chair. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: This graphic here shows \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: the areas that are sus susceptible to flooding by 2\,100. So we expect 2050 that up to 500 structures and city assets will be vulnerable to flooding. And by 2140 those damages can add up to 23 billion dollars. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: They they do this scenario that is called the No action scenario to establish a baseline of costs for damages so that they can compare those costs with all the different alternatives that they’re proposing\, and see what? What is the to each one of those alternatives? \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: As many of you know. You know\, the services for line. A lot of data has been built in over Bayfield on the \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: using Baymad. And because of that\, a lot of that\, those areas are susceptible to British action. If you have a large earthquake. So this picture here shows some of those potential damages. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: If you have an earthquake of a large scale\, and you can see some of the utilities infrastructure\, you know the sea wall. And of course both the the peers and the the works are at risk. You can see. Here’s on the right hand side some of those pictures from the 1906 earthquake. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: and the the one on the bottom right is actually at the Mercadero. And you see that rupture. So if you have an earthquake that happens during the day at any given day\, we can have up to 40\,000 people at risk on pro property. For or earthquake events. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: This is showing like where we are in the process. We have been doing this work since 2\,018 doing this general investigation last year we released 7 adoptation strategies. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: We’ve been working with the army for 7 engineers\, and also visited agencies to come up with this square that was released at the end of January\, and we are in this 60 day. Public comment period that is part of the Nepa process. That we are\, you know\, reach out to the public doing a lot of community engagement workshops\, walking tours \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: and trying to get feedback from the public. The idea is that once we have additional public feedback. We are also working with them. They are doing further feasibility analysis. And we also are going. We are also working with the other further comments. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: And so the idea is to come up with a final plan. By the end of the next year\, 2025 and seek Congressional approval by 2\,026 if the project gets approved\, we we start this the process of the construction engineering design and that is \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: you know\, expected to take place\, you know\, starting 2020\, 26 until 2030\, and construction is is expected to start by 2030. We. We hope those first actions will be implemented by 2140\, and this 30 is to cover \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: between 2140 and 2040 and 2140. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: And so what is this plan? Is this trying to cover it is trying to cover where we’re going? Are we building them existing shoreline. Are we pushing Bay Ward? Are are you pulling inland? We also looking at how high? We are building defenses \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: that is in response to some of the the the projections\, but also also also to respond to the different conditions that we have along the shoreline across the the 7 and a half miles. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: And also we are looking at how much space is going to take for us to to update those our lines. One of the comments that we heard from the public. And I think also from this body\, was that nobody wants to have a a wall\, you know\, walking the connection from the city to the bay. And so we are looking at this transition space where you’re gonna have to create this \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: grading additional grade from the new elevated program to the existing grade. This space is also is the area that we are expected to have those seismic fits along the shoreline. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: and what is not being decided at this stage we are not deciding about the detail design for the full defenses. We are also not designing the waterfront streets or open spaces\, and all the infrastructure. This is a very high\, level plan. that is\, is looking at at the location of those line defenses. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: But we we also not not going to have the timing of construction because we don’t have those detail designs. Yet. \nrwassum: Also\, the plan does not\, including a funding plan. So at this moment the city \nrwassum: it is going come up with the funding to match the 35% of the 65% Federal government funding \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: so this plan is not a redesign for the future of the other front and wanna plan from the other district or those. But one of the things that is plan is trying to do it is trying to tie in existing city projects that are already on going such as Mission Rock or the Bay Front Park along Terry Francois\, and is trying to tie in all those projects in a more cohesive \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: defensive strategy to protect the the city shoreline. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: One of the things that we are very proud of this work is that is one of the first times that we have. A more robust\, comprehensive benefit analysis that is being included as part of this plan. The undercover engineers. Typically they\, they historically\, they have been taking into account only the national economic development which is dollar signs from the damages \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: in this case here there are also technical consideration\, economic impact\, including jobs\, environmental quality consequences and the compliance. But also we have taken into consideration the other social effects \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: that includes the disproportional disproportion affecting effects in our own. This disk here that you see on the right hand side shows some of those other social effects that have been taken into account and defining the discount\, and and the 100 years have metrics for each one of those effects. In order to compare different alternatives that have been looking at. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: The plan. We are one of the people working. Some of those early problems are not part of this plan. Those are the funded by the \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: first actions. There will be implemented Harding. 2030 to defend against 1.5 to 3.5 feet of celebrity. \nrwassum: Those actions are going to be prioritized the planning fields are robust that are going to. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: Are you guys hearing? Okay? Cause I’m hearing a lot of background noise. So I just wanna make sure that you can hear. \nrwassum: Yes\, we keep going then. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: one of the things that is important is that is that this plan? This should be adaptable over time. So we wanna make sure that that this plan can he can. Address the adaptation over time to include higher levels of adaptation. Passing beyond the the 7 feet \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: 7 feet of silver ice projections \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: this graph here shows\, in a very summarized way\, the what is the draft plan? So you see this orange line? Band across the the waterfront that extends from \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: Herons Head Park all the way through Pier 27\, or Telegraph Hill. More or less. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: It is the area that we are proposing to elevate the shoreline and doing such a retrofit along the shoreline. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: there is as I mentioned\, the the panic extends all the to the area as well as in Baccadero. We are proposing to improve some of the peers and and some of the select buildings \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: a along the area we are proposing to delegate some of the historic communities in the world. And I have some graphics that shows in more detail how that is gonna happen. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: And across the entire area\, we are trying to as much as much as possible some of those nature based solutions. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: another thing that that we are going to that is proposing is to propose a waterfront. Wide storm water management adaptation\, because elevated\, the shoreline is gonna increase the bathtub effect of\, you know\, trapping water that is trying to reach the bay. So management is gonna be pumping is gonna be needed. And it’s gonna have to be increased. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: Both pumping storage systems\, and and also storm water management\, you know\, through Greenway infrastructure. That is something that the the pen is considering. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: So we will take a closer look at each one of those reaches. The planet is divided in 4 reaches the first reach. Here the Fisherman’s wharf \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: in general this area has. A. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: It has a higher \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: ground. You see this dashed line\, and so the plan is proposing a lighter touch here in terms of what is proposing. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: So it is looking at footproofing. So those buildings along water sage and add those short walls around the piers. The idea here that those short walls will extend the last 10 of those piers until the port and the and the tenants and the the city. We can figure out what\, how we’re going to\, how we’re going to adapt those those peers in the future. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: So some of the subsequent actions that are have been identified here are\, includes the shoreline\, the works\, and the historic buildings with. So some of the seismic improvements. And of course defend the utility and the transportation networks. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: This graphic here shows \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: what do we mean by so happen can happen in several different ways\, you know. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: it could be happened by sealing some of those openings at the the lower levels. You know those and and bars. It could include also\, you know\, elevating some of the transformers\, or some of the more critical infrastructure of the building? And but one of the things that that the plan is proposing to add those short walls on the piers\, and that is to protect against\, you know\, wave action and and gain some time. Extend the life span the lifespan of those those peers \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: for them. Barcadero. Area. This is an area that we it is the depending\, identified as with a lot of critical city infrastructure. And this is it is an area that has some of the lower elevations along the line and therefore it is more at risk. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: So the the plan is proposing here to elevate to defend against 3.5 feet of celebrity\, all in one step in the in the first actions and that is to minimize disruption. due to construction. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: in this area\, we also find some of the buildings along the walls so the bulk bulkhead of the buildings\, and and some of the historical infrastructure\, including the ferry building. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: And I have a graphic that shows in more detail how that how that would work in this area\, we also adding\, the short walls around the piers\, so the piers themselves\, they will stay at their existing height. They will just receive those short walls to extend their lifespan. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: So in this area\, we\, the plan\, has identified any subsequent connection since the the first action here is already elevated through the fan against 3.5 feet of level rise \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: this graph here shows how we would elevate some of those worms and and bulkheads of the buildings. So that is showing here in the in this red color the areas that are being elevated\, the peers themselves. They will stay at the existing height\, and and they will receive those short walls around them. So you’re gonna have to create positional space between the bulkheads of the buildings and the piers themselves. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: Looking back towards back towards the city. Will create that transition to space\, you know. And there could be terrorists or \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: have a grad grad gradual Transition Office of this grading that to meet the existing city grade\, and that is the area that we will receive. The seismic retrofit \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: in South Beach and Mission Bay reach. This is the the third reach this is an area that depend identified\, that we have in general\, we have a little bit of more space. So the pen is proposing to have a more international route. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: and and that is to elevate the shoreline\, to defend against 1.5 feet of sliverize and that can be a a doctor in in the future. So you see here\, in this orange don’t color the areas that have been proposed for to elevate the shoreline with some of those brown improvements. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: The the planning within 5 areas where we could apply some of the nature based solutions. So you see in green areas marks here. You know. \nrwassum: towards the south\, and also along the the shorelines of the creek \nrwassum: for the the bridges in this area. Mission\, the Mission creek\, the bridges. Will \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: you remain at existing height? For the for doing this first actions. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: and they will receive those closure deploy voice structures that will be deployed. when we have storm events. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: and I have a graphic that will explain a little bit more how that could work. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: You see\, also\, seeing in the grease this bray area. The. So the areas that are not part of the this project such as the the Mission Rock and the the Bay Front Park along Mission Bay\, and that is so. But the plan here is to tie back in the this proposal with the existing mitigation measures that those projects are already. Including \nrwassum: this. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: the the peers along those along these areas is also will receive some of those short walls. And also to extend the the lifespan of the the peer of the peers. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: This graph here shows how those closure of the bridges could happen. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: You know\, once you relocate the the shoreline of the creeks the if the bridges stay at the existing heights\, they they they offer a risk\, because the water can sip through the bridges. So the idea here is to have this deployable. There will be deployed\, and we have stormwater events and and high tides. \nrwassum: and it is anticipated that that those \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: those bridges will have to be closed very frequent less than once a year for the first decades of the project over time the frequency and the intensity is is going to increase. And and eventually those bridges are gonna have to be elevated. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: Oh\, sorry! And I forgot to mention one thing here in Mission Bay. So some of the subsequent connections are \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: that we identified are to elevate the short line\, to withstand 3.4 kilos and and potentially add more nature based solutions. \nrwassum: Here. So this is the last. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: the last reach that we have with the is less quickly view. This is also an area that we haven’tified\, that has a a a little bit of more space. So we also approach 1.5 feet of lever eyes there is in orange. that we are proposing. The peers around the pier. 80 and Pier 96. We also receive those short walls and some of the petrol fits \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: along the creek. We are proposing some of the solutions\, particularly west of the Thirst Bridge and \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: and also closer to the mouth of the the tree. \nrwassum: and a long warm water. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: And the southern edge of the creek here in in red\, we are proposing to continue those operations that the port has over there. The Third Street Bridge here. Is not part of this plan\, because the public works is already working on on elevating that that bridge. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: But the even Illinois Street Bridge will receive those deploy deployable paper disposal structures. Similar to what the ones that are being deposited at John Creek. \nrwassum: And let’s see \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: So this is showing some of how those some of those solutions can be applied\, and the idea is that \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: is that those elevated short lines with natural burns can be part of the open space open space systems so they can include trails\, you know bike paths. promenades in in order to \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: also provide also needed benefits to the. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: to the neighborhoods. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: So just to finalize \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: the way that we are looking is\, it is our once in a century opportunity to defend the the communities and the assets including the solve\, those vital city infrastructure. \nrwassum: And \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: and why we can address some of the those seismic re risks. Improve that safety we. We can also see\, this is an opportunity to secure funding with collaboration with the Federal Government and invest in a great public waterfront. That we can\, where we can add some of those nature based solutions and adapt some of the historic resources to climate change. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: As I mentioned\, this is the last slide. As I mentioned this. We are in the public period comics. So we we have done \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: a lot of public outreach we just had \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: last week before last we had. we have been. We also offer walking tours to make as possible for the public to make comments. We have updated our website\, we added a lot of information on our website\, including story maps. We also there is\, that people can watch at their own time. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: And we have really reach out to all the different cbo’s and also going to bodies of decision makers in the city such as this one also\, we we go on to the entire Conservation Commission. we are \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: We are going to the planning commission this week. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: We are. We are going to empty board and the board supervisors and I’ll I believe also\, you see\, Board\, we are going there as well. So we’re trying to to cover as as much as possible this very short time and try to get feedback from from the community. \nrwassum: So with that. And thank you very much. Thank you\, Louise. That’s that’s a lot to present. But we appreciate your hanging around for. And so it’s just to get this straight. The you’re officially taking comments on the Army Chorus. Let’s study plan through the end of this month. \nrwassum: And tonight’s presentation was kind of a primer to let you know what’s going on with study. This is a very design based pair of groups. And this is not a design plan\, but it’s getting you ready\, for when these projects come through is a lot of what it’s about. But now we have. Now we can take some comments and see if we can address those even have an expert back here studies. And Bob Kelly. \nrwassum: can I? Yes\, please \nquestion \nrwassum: finally\, some engineering to talk about. \nrwassum: yeah\, this is really interesting and fascinating. I agree it is an opportunity. 1 one thought that occurs to me. \nrwassum: which you know is\, is\, you know\, I have to admit is is from a person that’s not in the room. So this may seem off the wall\, but it would seem to me that there should be opportunity to \nrwassum: realign the Short Line a bit\, and maybe have some natural areas that service buffers and transitions\, and not just wall off the waterfront\, which II know you have some edging. \nrwassum: some green edging. \nrwassum: but I think\, especially in the southern part of the waterfront. I think not sure port operations\, Guy\, but down around here\, instead\, I thought there might be some spaces there that \nrwassum: could be converted into wetlands or beaches\, or \nrwassum: and so the more natural shoreline is what I’m hearing there more natural solutions. And\, interestingly\, I know they’ve gotten a number of comments along that line\, and they’re looking at some options even in the central waterfront\, for how that could be consistent with some what I’ve grouped so far. Thank you\, Dan. And and I think aquatic part. Also there’s a beach there. And and so there’s other places where you might have some opportunities. \nrwassum: the problem with natural infrastructure that a lot of folks that haven’t actually been involved in design of that may not realize is that it takes space. \nrwassum: And this design is really kind of an edging. \nrwassum: And so I think\, fundamentally my point is. \nrwassum: it would be nice if you could go inland a little bit and not be \nrwassum: stuck with the existing shoreline\, which is somewhat arbitrary\, given\, you know\, relative to modern conditions and future conditions. \nrwassum: and uses\, etc. \nrwassum: Secondly\, I think the \nrwassum: project should be reviewed by the Engineering Criteria Review Board of Dcd. \nrwassum: Which I happen to be on. But there\, there are other people that I think are would have more valuable input. Geo\, technical seismic \nrwassum: and Geo structural structural. \nrwassum: So those are my comments. That’s great. Great. Thank you. \nrwassum: I don’t. I don’t know if you wanted to respond \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: to support \nrwassum: Louise. Let’s get through a couple of more questions here. First. Okay? No problem. \nrwassum: I was phone and could just scoop to wait in. On the design side. The core of engineers is known to be pretty much by the books. At least\, that’s what their primary purposes \nrwassum: there are exceptions to the rule. I like to quote the San Antonio corridor\, my first project actually\, I was involved in there. We challenge the quote engineer in a very significant way. \nrwassum: and we came up not with only the improvement of the Web Walk\, which is a public works project\, but how to extend the entire cross section over Wibblewobg walk from Flour Mill all the way to the very north. \nrwassum: That is a type of challenge I believe we have here\, and I believe\, picking up on what you said\, we should actively look at every aspect of port property\, and this tremendous amount of group that over the decades\, has gone into creating a fabulous reappointed shoreline\, and make sure that we can save it by doing other things to it. \nrwassum: That may either mean moving the line further in\, or finding different cross sections by which we meet different conditions and do different\, very public ways. I think it’s a great urban design project\, and I would encourage every landscape\, architect\, architect\, and engineer to roll up the sleeves and help support\, not to oppose them\, but helps them to do a better job than what they normally do. \nrwassum: And II strongly encourage participation. Could I follow up on that real quickly? \nrwassum: Sorry I’ll be. I’ll be brief. we’re in a good spot here in the San Francisco Bay area\, both with the San Francisco District Army Corps of engineers pretty flexible and innovative. \nrwassum: But yeah\, it’s not gonna happen unless people push\, because there’s millions of reasons. maybe a billion or $2. Why? It won’t happen. \nrwassum: So yeah\, people really have to push and have vision \nrwassum: beyond the existing lines. I think so. I really appreciate what what you said. \nrwassum: Others wanna comment on the presentation or where it’s going. \nrwassum: I mean\, for what is worth. I have to say that this is a very succinct and clear presentation for something that is \nrwassum: very difficult to explain. So II would like to recognize that this is pretty. \nrwassum: I’m encouraged by the fact that they have this whole \ncircle other benefits to be considered in the equation. \nrwassum: I would be looking forward to understanding how they applied to this different interventions the different color coded solutions. Because that’s actually what \nrwassum: I mean. I think the reason you mentioned it in the presentation that our record tends to just look at our numbers\, and \nrwassum: you know\, dollars\, and in this case\, having to add that other components\, I think it’s gonna be the super big challenge. But I’m encouraged by seeing that as part of the foundation of this work. So right \nrwassum: team is listening and taking notes. \nrwassum: Could I say something? \nrwassum: Also talk\, please\, about the fact that the challenge is not just the San Francisco Bay edge. There is a requirement for integration with other measures all along the bay that sets other constraints. I do not know exactly what they are\, but we should be aware of them if we choose\, or ultimately decide to be actively involved in it. Could you briefly explain that? \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: Yes\, yes\, so \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: so yes\, it. It is correct. And and one of the things one of the comments that we received now when we like last year\, when we went to the community is\, you know\, people are concerned about what’s happening. You know\, Southern Southern of the the House Head Park. That was among the comments that we received. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: you know in our project is is limited by the geography of the port on on the southern edge. We\, we have those development agreements. Both the the Bayview hunters Point and Kendall Stick point that they are \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: have their own set of or mitigation measures trying to address the\, the\, the sliverize \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: one of the things that we identify there. There is an area of the Yosemite Slue that is\, not that it was not. They didn’t have any planning for that part part of the of the city. And so we worked with the with the planning department. They got a grant\, and they are starting that work right now. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: But yes\, but that is only talking about San Francisco. Right? So there is a need to \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: to have more coordination. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: you know\, across the bay with the other efforts. And and we we have been\, you know. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: God. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: in conversations with Bcd. C. You know I’m a part of one of the Dcdc. Subgroups on equity. Adam Varad\, who is the the deputy director. He’s also part of the BC DC\, coordination effort. So we are looking at how? How this plan can \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: can not only can only like\, inform what’s gonna happen here\, but also maybe provide ideas for what other jurisdictions can do\, and and also \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: talk to people about ways to work with the army cops of engineers. Because this is a lot of this is very new. To the army cops of engineers as well. So we are kind of like. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: you know\, creating that path of of collaboration. And and one another thing that II didn’t mention in this presentation that \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: anything that is above and beyond what the army corps of engineers approve or the Co. The Congress approve\, that is\, on the Army Corps of engineers plan. The city can still do it. It’s just that the city is gonna have to come up with all the the funding for that. So what we’re trying to do is to leverage\, you know\, the maximum amount of dollars\, so we can try to bring the most amount of community benefits for the city. \nrwassum: Thank you\, Louise Kristen. Yeah\, I just had a question for Louise on. I know at least \nrwassum: I think 3\, if not 4 of the locations on our San Francisco waterfront. We’re studied by resilient by design. And I was wondering if that work needed into the \nrwassum: study and how it informed the \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: yeah. So so that was looked at the the area of the this. This list creek? because that we had a team working there there was looked at. I think \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: you know. when \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: back. Then\, when you start to look at these different alternatives\, I think\, inform some of those strategies that we had that in included a whole lot more of a retreat areas. One of the things that we we heard from the community\, and through this process of of looking at the equity as as one of the components is that you know that \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: retreating that area\, it seems to be not recommended\, because all the the equity impacts both on \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: you know the community\, but also the loss of jobs. And and you know\, loss of of affordable industrial light industrial space. So a lot of the those things were looked at. But they end up being vetted in the in the process of of coming to this plan \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: we are still there is still providing there is some areas that are identified as possible. Retreat. moving forward. And this is also something that you know we are working with the agencies. And and see if you can. Still\, push for those ideas forward. But but it is. It is complicated. Because yes\, again\, you know it\, it takes a lot of space and has impacts on economic impacts on on the on the some of the. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: you know the social infrastructure. \nrwassum: Thank you for that explanation. I also just want to say I don’t know how everybody else feels\, but looking at this plan. \nrwassum: it it’s very sad that we would be having all of these \nrwassum: walls and levies along the waterfront that we’ve been working so hard. A lot of you have been on this. I have\, but we’ve been working so hard to create this access to\, and I lived in New Orleans for a number of years\, and it’s a city that’s very confusing about where the water is. You can’t see it anywhere\, cause there’s always levy. So II you know\, I know that this is a very complex \nrwassum: topic\, and there’s a lot of brilliant minds working on it who have taken a lot into consideration. But I just want to say that I think that if we ended up with a plan where we’re raising \nrwassum: pretty much all of San Francisco’s waterfront\, so that we can’t really see it \nrwassum: or easily get to it. I really think that’s a poor outcome. And on on the Pcc. Side of the table over here. I would just encourage \nrwassum: the Commission to be exploring more ideas about changing the shape of the shoreline\, and some of the ideas that Bob was talking about and re looking at our policies so that we can. This is not \nrwassum: we\, the policy of no more fills was a response to a moment in time. And we’re now at a new moment in time\, and we need a new policy response\, and so I don’t know what the proper channels are\, whatever to say this\, but I think it’s an important conversation to be having \nrwassum: at the question. \nrwassum: and I can assure you\, being part of the ports I’m trying to review on this maintaining a relationship of the city to the bay\, being able to see that\, being able to observe that they\, making that a part of the experience is a high priority of the team. \nrwassum: putting this together and showing all options. How that continue to occur to avoid that wall \nrwassum: against one. Subsequent actions are between 3 and 7\, \nand a lot of the moves are to construct a 3 and a half with adaptability. 7. \nrwassum: Is there? Is there a year that is estimated to correspond to the 7 that you’re working towards? \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: So that’ll be at the end of the century. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: Yeah\, like 20 beyond 2\,100. \nrwassum: Luis\, do you want to acknowledge the monitoring\, though. that you mentioned? \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: I’m sorry \nrwassum: the the kind of monitoring that happens in between. And sorry. I\, Laura\, working. Say\, Lab is also working on the the Wrp program. \nrwassum: You wanna mention the kind of monitoring that comes in \nrwassum: in between the short they have near actions. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: Yes\, the the monitoring. you know. It starts\, you know\, from from the beginning of of \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: off from the for those those first actions you know\, between that is the defending between 1.5 and 3.5\, and depending on that monitoring that is\, gonna define those those subsequent actions that is. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: you know\, could be potentially from \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: defending from 3.5 all the way up to 7. you know it. There’s a lot of uncertainty in terms of of the curves that we are that the pennies range should be\, you know\, as flexible. And that’s the way as possible over time. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: it is. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: it is\, you know\, trying to cover between 2040 and 2140 but again\, I think\, I think because there is so much uncertainty\, we are trying to move away from from giving a specific dates of saying\, you know. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: by by this time we’re gonna have this amount of celebrity\, because we don’t know. \nrwassum: So \nrwassum: you know\, the reason I asked is because by the time any significant portion of this is implemented\, you know\, 2\,100 won’t look like it’s that far away. And so when you talk about levies. You talk about pumping. \nrwassum: It doesn’t end in 2\,100 like 2\,100. The problem solved. It just means nobody in this room is alive. But \nyou know it’s committing the city to endless pumping and \nrwassum: levy raising\, and \nrwassum: I thought the ferry building was a difficult problem. You know\, I don’t know where all this we’re all this leads\, and we’re all that money comes from. It sounds like the the funding is tied to engineering solutions\, I mean\, can you use Federal money for \nrwassum: manager tree\, or or it’s only when that money is being used by \nrwassum: the army corps\, and therefore you only get army corps. So the funding is tied to solutions that and they’re all engineering solutions. Some of them are software itself harder. \nrwassum: And if there’s determined to be a Federal interest. In other words\, that there’s more to save than spent. The fence will finance 65\, and then\, locally. \nrwassum: we’re required to come up with 35%. So there’s a it’s going to be a pick and chooses to which ones go forward\, and \nrwassum: where that 35 comes from is not identified\, I think\, for people that have ideas. But that’s why this is going to be a long running project here\, or \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: yes\, but II try to that then. The army corps is is much more open to nature based solutions today. From where they were maybe 2 years ago. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: I think you know. And this plan is\, it is we are \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: trying to add as much and \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: as much as possible of those nature based solutions. And you know\, I think retreating is\, it’s it’s it’s a little bit more complicated. That we are. Gonna have to to keep. Have those conversations. But \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: but but yeah\, but it is. It is something that we are trying to achieve \nrwassum: any other questions in the room here. \nrwassum: I still have a question. I’ll try to phrase this as a question. \nrwassum: Louise. Thank you very much for that presentation. It’s great to see you. \nrwassum: I have a question about \nrwassum: the the Board’s role. In commenting on or influencing or reviewing this plan? Moving forward. \nrwassum: And then I guess the related question to that is\, the \nrwassum: is\, maybe some more information about how the port is working with with the city. \nrwassum: Particularly where these issues of adjacency. \nrwassum: and land are constrained \nrwassum: and through what that process looks like\, and I think I would assume that that is also a place where. there aren’t a lot of good precedents for that. And so this sort of relationship building that leads to implementation is after ground breaking. Please\, could you comment on either one of those. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: Yeah\, no\, I think I think that \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: the way that we see you know we see the BCC. As partner of of on this on this effort\, and so we have presented to to a group of at Bcd. We got we we also got comments from them. You know\, from you\, but like from\, you know\, different people at BCC. And \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: you know we are \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: one of the things that we are. We are. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: We are \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: working on is it? Is to get coordination between the city agencies\, city agencies. So we can have like a city ladder\, that is gonna inform you know what is the the city’s position on this plan? Because it’s not only the port it’s has all the the\, you know\, all the different agencies. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: I think. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: moving forward\, II \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: I believe you’re gonna we’re gonna keep coming back to you. To to provide an update whenever we have those milestones? And and get comments and and see if we can. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: and see if you can address those comments as we move along. That’s my. that’s my personal opinion. But II don’t know exactly if there is. \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: If you need to establish like a mechanism of meeting frequently\, or have like a small sub group. That is \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: part of that that I don’t know \nrwassum: works with the different agencies. Mta\, public works. Poc city planning right now. Our consultant advise throughout this process coordinating comments on the flip study responses as well\, so that one \nrwassum: thank you. \nrwassum: The one thing that \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: the only thing I was gonna add is that we are lucky to have a great team of consultants\, and some of the consultants are\, are\, you know\, part of this body. So it’s but \nrwassum: from these species perspective\, I think they’re mostly coordinating with our planning division and not the regulatory. But when we start seeing actual projects that are impacting permits and then constructed. \nrwassum: that is\, when we start bringing it to the Board project related. \nrwassum: I think the the the fear in my mind is \nrwassum: is that the the levy is a project that is a reviewable stage where decisions about the constraints around that levy have already been determined. \nrwassum: And so like a nature based solution or \nrwassum: a a different kind of approach becomes outside the purview of our role in trying to guarantee public access. \nHey? Just also\, some combination of the 3 of us have been participating in the regulatory advisor working group \nrwassum: with the part of San Francisco and the army corps. We are currently also reviewing the \nrwassum: The name of a document is a \nLuiz Barata (he/him) | Port of San Francisco: thinking right now I can kind of find what the document is that we’re reviewing it. \nrwassum: Yeah\, yes. \nrwassum: On the yeah. Yeah. So we’re involved. And then I think we’ve also \nrwassum: we’ll be having a briefing at an upcoming commission meeting for the Commissioners. \nand we have to kind of continue trying to figure out how to \nrwassum: thank you. I’m not gonna do\, Ashley\, but we can \nthank you. \nrwassum: We have one remaining item this evening\, and that is to close in memory of partial item. We need someone to make motion in her honor to do so. \nrwassum: I’ll make a motion to closing your honor so moved \nrwassum: all in favor of closing in honor of the late\, I see unanimous. Thank you very much. \nrwassum: Thank you\, Lucy. Yeah\, thanks. \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/march-11-2024-design-review-board-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Design Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240314T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240314T120000
DTSTAMP:20260525T222126
CREATED:20240130T044513Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240610T214351Z
UID:10000129-1710408600-1710417600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:March 14\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Enforcement meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 544 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nPhysical Location \nMetro CenterYerba Buena Room375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, CA 94105415-352-3600 \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/84435087888?pwd=a0tEnzt0Vju1kmTZxvqOw1xuBSDRef.1 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers(816) 423-4282Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID844 3508 7888 \nPasscode710988 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic CommentThe Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda.\nApproval of Draft Minutes from the January 24\, 2024 Enforcement Committee meeting.\nHearing and Vote on Executive Director’s Recommended Enforcement Decision\, including Proposed Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order CCD2024.001.00 (BCDC Enforcement Case ER2021.080.00).The Committee will hold a public hearing and vote on whether to recommend to the full Commission the adoption of a proposed Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order to resolve two violations at 660 Bridgeway\, Sausalito\, Marin County.(Rachel Cohen) [415/352-3661; rachel.cohen@bcdc.ca.gov]Staff presentation\nBriefing to the Enforcement Committee on the Status of the City of Oakland’s Compliance with the Union Point Park Order.Compliance staff will report out to the committee on the current state of Union Point Park\, which is subject to remedial efforts by the City of Oakland under the terms of Commission Cease and Desist Order CCD2020.001.00.(John Creech) [415/352-3619; john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov]\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				March 14\, 2024 Minutes \nTranscript for item 5 \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				Audio recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2024/01/2024-03-14-EC-audio-recording.mp3 \nAudio transcript \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And please mute. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: please mute yourselves when you are not speaking. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Our first order of business today is to call the role Adrian. Would you please call the role commissioners. Please unmute yourselves while she does this to respond\, and then mute yourselves. After responding. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: you’re muted\, Adrian. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair Gilmore. Good morning. Chair\, Gilmore. I’ll start with you here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. Here. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Commissioner Vasquez\, here. \nBoardroom SX80: and I believe that’s it. We have a quorum of 3. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. We have a quorum present\, and are duly constituted to conduct business. Before we move on to item 3 on the agenda. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Please note that item 6 \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: has been postponed. We will not hear item 6 today. And so if you were here for an update on Union Point Park\, that item is postponed. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: we will reschedule that briefing for a future date. So that brings us to item 3 on our agenda public comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So\, in accordance with our usual practice\, and as indicated on the agenda. We will now have general public comment on items that are not on today’s agenda. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I believe we have not received any general comments in advance of this meeting\, Margie? \nBoardroom SX80: We did receive one general comment\, not on the agenda. and it will be posted today. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And I believe that Commissioner Blynn has just joined us. So welcome. And thank you. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Good morning. Morning. Sorry. I’m a little bit late. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: No worries. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. So for members of the public who are attending online. If you would like to speak\, either during the general public comment period or during the public comment period\, or an item on the agenda. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Please raise your hand in the zoom application by clicking on the participants. Icon at the bottom of your screen and look in the box where your name is listed under attendees. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Find the small palm icon on the left. If you click on that palm\, icon\, it will raise your hand. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: or if you are joining this meeting by phone\, you must dial Star 9 to raise your hand. Then Dial star 6 on your keypad to unmute your phone. When the host asks you in order to make a comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the meeting host will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order that they were raised. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: After you are called upon\, you will be unmuted\, so that you can share your comments. Please announce yourself. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: By first and last name for the record before making your comment for members of the public who are attending in person. Please queue up at the speaker’s podium and wait to be called upon to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commenters are limited to 3 min to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Please keep your comments respectful and focused. We are here to listen to any individual who requests to speak\, but each speaker has the responsibility to act in a civil and courteous manner\, as determined by the chair. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We will not tolerate hate\, speech\, direct threats\, indirect threats\, or abusive language. We will mute anyone who fails to follow those guidelines. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Margie\, do we have any commenters today? \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, we do. We have Chris Mckay. Mr. Mckay\, you have 3 min. \nBoardroom SX80: Mr. Mckay. \nBoardroom SX80: Mr. Mckay. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, I think he has a problem with his \nBoardroom SX80: speakers. So\, Chair Gilmore\, we have no other commenters. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. Do. We have anybody at a remote location that’s willing to speak. I don’t think so. But I should ask. \nBoardroom SX80: yeah\, we do not have actually\, we have another couple speakers online. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. \nBoardroom SX80: first up Brock\, the lab. \nBoardroom SX80: Mr. Dilap\, you have 3 min. \nBrock de Lappe: Good morning\, Commissioners. My name is Brock Dilap. \nBrock de Lappe: I’m extremely concerned about the fact that the Union Point Park matter \nBrock de Lappe: has been removed from today’s agenda. \nBrock de Lappe: I hope you both have. The Commissioners have had a chance to review the documentation that I’ve sent regarding the influx of encampments into Union Point Park \nBrock de Lappe: and the problems along the shoreline. \nBrock de Lappe: It was in 2019 \nBrock de Lappe: that the East parking lot at Union Point Park was totally packed with rbs. \nBrock de Lappe: This was a very dangerous situation. There was a bad fire that burned up several vehicles. A 7 year old boy was shot. \nBrock de Lappe: It was complete lawlessness. and in 2019 the city of Oakland \nmoved \nBrock de Lappe: those vehicles from the east parking lot. \nBrock de Lappe: The park itself was overrun with homeless encampments. and in march of 2012\, \nBrock de Lappe: under a cease and desist order. \nBrock de Lappe: the city of Oakland removed those encampments from Union Point Park. \nBrock de Lappe: At that time the park was deemed to be a closure area. \nBrock de Lappe: which meant that no reoccupation was to occur. \nBrock de Lappe: Unfortunately that has not \nBrock de Lappe: been supported \nBrock de Lappe: by the city of Oakland. The park now has numerous encampments \nBrock de Lappe: it’s not being tended to\, and I can imagine why the city of Oakland Park Service would not want to go into the park to try to cut the lawn or pick up the trash \nBrock de Lappe: because of the existing encampments. and as it is. it would not be used by the general public \nBrock de Lappe: on the shoreline. There’s an encampment in the old Crier boat yard site which has been their location for several stolen boats. \nBrock de Lappe: There are. boat anchored offshore illegally in the estuary off of the East parking lot \nBrock de Lappe: which people have seen stolen property stolen outboard motors \nBrock de Lappe: that cannot be recovered. \nBrock de Lappe: So once again the park\, for lack of enforcement. \nBrock de Lappe: Lack of involvement by the city of Oakland \nBrock de Lappe: has been allowed to go into disrepair\, and I think the public has a right to know \nBrock de Lappe: why this item was removed from the agenda. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. Next we have Chris Mckay. \nBoardroom SX80: Go ahead\, Mr. Mckay. \nChris McKay: Yes. Can you hear me. \nChris McKay: I’m not sure if you can hear me. Okay\, thank you very much. A year ago Union Point Park had encampment on the North end in the South End. But the center of the park was clear. At that time working with the Parks department. We brought in about 30 school kids for 2 days. \nChris McKay: and they picked up litter planted trees removed graffiti\, and just really got the part looking great\, and they enjoyed participating in it\, and it was a good exercise for them \nChris McKay: and it was at this time of the year when they were still in school. But it was time for planning and cleaning the park \nChris McKay: this year. A year later. They can’t come because the there’s encampments spread throughout the park\, and the school won’t allow them to come in as long as there’s encampments in the center of the park\, so nothing’s going on. The trees they planted are not being maintained \nChris McKay: litter is everywhere. People are driving through the the park in in vehicles and destroying the turf\, and the there’s a huge in structure built next to the playground. \nChris McKay: So what’s really frustrating about this is not so much. The city isn’t doing anything\, but they have 23 million dollars of unspent funds for measure queue that was specifically designed for the parks\, for litter\, for improvements\, for interventions in encampments\, and they’ve done nothing \nChris McKay: according to the agreement that was signed 3 years ago between the Park and BC. DC. BC. DC. Can now fine Oakland\, about 6.5 million dollars\, based on the $6\,000 a day fine for not keeping the part clear. I would ask Bcd. To enforce that fine. That may be the only thing that gets the city to take care of a park. \nChris McKay: and our Neighborhood association \nChris McKay: keeps all the areas clear\, and we have a nightly security patrol. But the one thing in our neighborhood that we can’t control is the park\, and the park is actually controlled by DC. DC. So we would ask you to enforce this and do it as soon as possible\, so we can get these kids back in and get them involved in using and taking care of their park. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Mr. Mckay. Next we have Mike Gorman. \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: Hello! This is Michael Gorman. Can you hear me? \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, you have 3 min. \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: Good morning\, Commissioners\, and especially Chair Gilmour. Good to hear you and see you again. I am director of the Install Yacht Club\, Junior Ceiling program in Alameda. \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: We’ve been severely impacted the last couple of years over theft and vandalism in our facility boats and neighborhood of 50 to $60\,000 stolen. \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: and many other boats from the Alameda Community Sailing center and \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: other private parties along the shoreline of Alameda and Oakland. Most of these vessels and motors have been recovered at the Union Point\, East Parking lot or the boats adjacent to the shoreline there. \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: Unfortunately\, we’ve had to do it on our own\, because the police response is not adequate and not quick enough to do anything. \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: I go by there almost every day because I work in the vicinity work at a facility that’s been severely impacted. Also by having its customers\, motes\, and motors stolen. \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: We have photographs of those at the Crier Yard \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: encampment next to the Coast Guard Bridge. \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: also on the beach right now. One of them is on the beach right now \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: this morning at the east parking lot. \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: and also. At the fake the \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: board boats off the sparking lot. The Oakland Police Department Marine unit has made progress in the last 6 months to get rid of some of the illegal anchor outs\, and many of them have been part of the problem. \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: but there are still a few left that don’t seem to be a have any action taken on in any timely matter. The park itself and the parking lots are a disgrace. There’s \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: large motor homes that have been there at least 6 months. People line up and buy something from the windows and doors most mornings\, not sure what they’re buying\, but it’s probably not hot dogs. \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: There’s structures and tents erected in the park itself. \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: and it’s very discouraging to any member of the public who wants to take a stroll along the boardwalk or the shoreline walkway\, or use the park. In fact\, I think most people would just turn around. Go the other way. \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: I\, too\, am very curious as to why this \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: very critical item. Lack of enforcement has been postponed. I can’t see any reason why it should be put off \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: so just like Mr. Delop. I’d like to know the answer to that. \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: Please please do something for our neighborhood and our waterfront community. \niPhone (6)Mike Gorman EYC: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. I believe that’s all we have here\, Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Margie. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: item number 4 is approval of the draft minutes from our last meeting\, and we have all been furnished with draft minutes from that meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So committee members\, I would appreciate a motion and a second to approve the minutes. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: So moved. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay\, so we have motion from Commissioner Eisen\, and a second from Commissioner Vasquez. Anybody opposed to approving the minutes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: hearing no objections\, the minutes are approved unanimously. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: so we move on to item number 5\, which is a hearing and a vote on recommended Enforcement decision to resolve \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: ER. 2021.0 8 0 point 0 0 \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Bayview\, one LLC. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: so our next. So it’s a presentation and a vote on a proposed recommended decision to adopt a cease and assist order to be issued to Bayview\, one Llc. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Owner of record of the subject property er 2021.0 8 0 point 0 0\, which is located at 6 60 Bridge way in Sausalito\, Marin County. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: If this committee votes to adopt this recommended enforcement decision\, which includes the proposed order\, it will be put up for a vote of approval or rejection by the full commission \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: at its April 4\, 2024\, meeting\, which is scheduled to be held online and in person at the Metro Center\, which is located at 3 75 Deal Street in San Francisco\, and the meeting will start at one Pm. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So after BC. DC. Staff gives its opening remarks\, the respondent will be invited to present their remarks. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Then I will allow public comment on this item\, and afterwards we\, the committee\, shall hold our discussion and vote on the staff’s recommendation. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this time will the representative or representatives for the respondent\, please identify themselves for the record \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: respondents. \nBoardroom SX80: They’re just being promoted to panelists. Now\, I believe \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: thank you. \nChris Henry: good morning. Can you hear me? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nChris Henry: good morning. My my name is Chris Henry. I’m I’m the owner of the building. and I’m I’m here a to respond and answer any questions\, and and to give you my side of the story. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Great. Thank you and welcome. Thank you for being here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. So we are now gonna hear presentations from the staff and the respondents. Each side will be allotted 20 min to deliver their presentations if needed. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Each side will summarize its position on the matters at hand with particular attention to those issues that are an actual controversy. where that exists between the staff and the response \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: presentations made by the parties\, as well as any public comments to follow\, shall be limited to responding to evidence already made as part of the Enforcement record. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: This committee shall not allow the introduction of any new evidence or oral testimony. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: so I will now invite enforcement. Analyst Rachel Cohen to give her opening remarks\, Rachel. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair Gilmour. just a second for me to share my screen. Please \nBoardroom SX80: see. \nBoardroom SX80: does that appear in full screen for you? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes\, it does. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay. Great thanks. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning. All to day. I’ll present Enforcement case number ER. 2021 dot 0 8 0\, for which the respondent is Mister Chris Henry and his company\, Bayview\, one Llc. This case involves a longstanding obstruction to permit required public access and unpermitted redevelopment activities in BC. D’s jurisdiction. \nBoardroom SX80: Mister Henry’s nearly 15 year history of failing to comply with the terms of his DC. DC. Permit\, and the Macketeer Petrus Act has caused Staff to commence a formal enforcement proceeding to restore public access. \nBoardroom SX80: Here’s our outline for today. We’ll go through the location of the violations\, history of noncompliance\, timeline of events\, violation\, summary defenses\, and rebuttals\, and finally\, the staff’s recommendation. \nBoardroom SX80: These 2 images are vicinity maps at 2 different scales of 6 60 Bridgeway Boulevard Sausalito\, Marin County\, originally a ferry terminal. This privately owned 2 story building is now the home to restaurants and shops in downtown Sausalito. \nBoardroom SX80: This is a clean scan of the plan which is\, exhibit A to permit. Bridgeway Boulevard is over here. If you can see my cursor to the west\, and the bay is over here on the eastern side. \nBoardroom SX80: And the building is here in the middle. \nBoardroom SX80: The there’s a faint red outline on the 1\,558 square foot public access area\, which wraps around the southern and the eastern sides of the building\, and also includes the staircase landing pad on the second floor\, which offers members of the public and elevated view of the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: The original permit in 1979 allowed for renovations to the ground floor restaurant\, Il Piccolo Cafe and repairs to the deck support structure and required landscaping public trash containers\, and no fewer than 2 benches to be made available to the public. \nBoardroom SX80: The access area provides sweeping bay views and a connection to the Yitak Chi Park to the immediate south \nBoardroom SX80: this dark blue polygon\, if you can follow my cursor approximately outlines the space which used to be used by ill piccolo Cafe. \nBoardroom SX80: and then moving on to this black rectangle. The second amendment to the 1\,979 permit allowed for 155 square feet of the public access area\, which is approximately outlined with this black rectangle to be used for outdoor dining with tables and chairs that were accessible to the public and to patrons of the cafe. The authorization to use. The public access area for outdoor dining ceased when the cafe closed around 2\,016. \nBoardroom SX80: This photo was taken in March of 2022 from south of the building facing north. The public access area is partially shown here. Under these overhangs. This plywood in the picture blocks part of the public access\, but it is meant to wrap around this eastern side of the building and go up the stairs here. \nBoardroom SX80: This photo was taken on March third 2024 from the south eastern corner of the building facing southwest. The public access area again includes this area under the overhangs and this walkway. \nBoardroom SX80: and then kind of in the same position. But just turning around. This photo faces northeast\, and these are those stairs that ascend to the second floor deck. \nBoardroom SX80: This slide shows where BC. DC’s shoreline banned and bay jurisdictions are. This is just to show you that nearly the entire building is within BCD. C’s jurisdiction. \nBoardroom SX80: So now that we’ve reviewed the permit required public access requirements\, I’ll review the history of noncompliance at this site before circling back to the current violations. \nBoardroom SX80: Mr. Henry took over ownership of 6 60 Bridgeway in 2\,007\, and\, as you can see from this long list of prior enforcement cases\, violations of the permit under Mister Henry’s ownership\, began in 2\,010\, and have regularly occurred since then. There were 6 cases between 2\,010 to 2\,016\, which dealt with restaurant staff\, refusing to allow members of the public to use the public outdoor dining tables. \nBoardroom SX80: restaurant staff were telling members of the public to either purchase food or leave the area. \nBoardroom SX80: For 2 of these cases Mister Henry was fined $100 for repeating the same violation. Within 5 years 2 cases dealt with the failure to post required public shore signage and a 2021 case addressed unauthorized outdoor dining tables. \nBoardroom SX80: I want to focus on ER. 2016 dot 0 1 3. When Mister Henry announced his intent to construct a new restaurant space by using the former ill piccolo cafe\, and demolishing and expanding into the neighboring business suites within the building. \nBoardroom SX80: Mister Henry was informed in April and September of 2016 that he must obtain A\, BCDC. Permit amendment prior to commencing this project\, however\, despite Staff’s warning\, their November 2016\, Site visit revealed that much of the public access space had been blocked off and construction of the restaurant renovation project had commenced without BCDC. Permits staff initiated standardized fines\, and Mister Henry submitted an incomplete permit application for the project. \nBoardroom SX80: After more than a year Mister Henry failed to complete his permit application\, and it was returned unfiled. \nBoardroom SX80: since construction had stopped and the public access was restored. Staff closed the case in June 2018\, and Mr. Henry was fined $21\,000 for the violations. When Staff notified Mr. Henry that the case was being closed\, they again reminded him that his property was within the Commission’s jurisdiction and governed by the 1979 permit\, and the Mccoy Petras Act \nBoardroom SX80: staff told him that he must seek and obtain A. BC. DC. Permit amendment prior to recommencing his project or a formal enforcement action would be initiated. Mr. Henry nonetheless reinitiated this project without obtaining approval. And this is one of the subject projects of today’s Enforcement case. \nBoardroom SX80: So\, moving on to our timeline for this case\, in August of 2\,021 staff received an Enforcement report which alleged that the respondent was again obstructing the public access pathway with plywood and tables. \nBoardroom SX80: In September of 2021 Enforcement Staff mailed a violation notice initiating an Enforcement action and standardized administrative fines staff of the second floor restaurant. The Barrel House Tavern replied and said that the public access path had been blockaded by plywood due to a fire\, and that staff of the fire department instructed them to close off the back patio \nBoardroom SX80: BCDC. Staff requested documentation of the fire marshal’s direction\, but never received it. Staff also informed Mister Henry that the city of Sausalito’s process is separate and distinct from BCD. C’s. Later that year in December\, Enforcement Staff asked for documentation from Mister Henry that the public access had been unblocked. \nBoardroom SX80: Mr. Henry’s response indicated that the public access remained blockaded\, and he provided no date by which he aimed to reopen the space. \nBoardroom SX80: In March and December of 2022\, and also in April of 2023 staff visited the site and documented the persistence of the violations. The shoreline public access had been completely blockaded and unauthorized. Work was occurring on the ground floor\, public access area and within the ground floor commercial space. \nBoardroom SX80: the entire public access area was being used to store furniture\, construction materials and trash bins\, making it unusable to the public. \nBoardroom SX80: In December of 2023\, a member of the public emailed staff photographs documenting that development activities had expanded again to include raised wooden flooring\, a high top bar\, and a new glass wall railing in the public access space\, appearing to Staff that Mister Henry intended to privatize the Public Access space for use by the new Restaurant \nBoardroom SX80: Enforcement staff then notified the respondent that the opportunity to resolve the case using standardized fines was no longer available. \nBoardroom SX80: On January 20\, fourth\, 2024\, Enforcement Staff issued a violation report in complaint for administrative civil penalties to Mister Henry\, and on January 30\, first he confirmed. He had received it \nBoardroom SX80: since the 1979 permit runs with the land\, and has not yet been formally assigned to Mister Henry on paper staff requested that Mister Henry complete a permit assignment form. He agreed to work on completing the permit assignment form on February sixth\, but we still have not received one. \nBoardroom SX80: On February ninth\, Mister Henry pledged to send documentation that he had made the public access area consistent with the permit. He also pledged to submit an after the fact permit application. \nBoardroom SX80: On February 20\, seventh\, 2024\, Staff spoke with Mister Henry Millard Arterbury\, the designer and architect\, for the renovation of the Restaurant Renovation project and Tim Gallucia\, Mister Henry’s friend\, who is a lawyer. \nBoardroom SX80: Staff explained the Enforcement Committee\, hearing process and the statement of defense form due date\, and Staff again advised Mr. Henry to apply for after the fact\, authorization for the fire repairs and interior restaurant renovations since both occurred in Bcd. Jurisdiction without Pcdc. Approval. Staff encouraged Mr. Henry to apply for a non material amendment to the 79 permit \nBoardroom SX80: instead of a region wide permit stating that permit. Staff may require additional public access in lieu of the years of closure and unauthorized work. \nBoardroom SX80: On February 2820\, 24\, staff received Mr. Henry’s application\, for\, after the fact\, approval of the Fire repair project\, despite Staff’s recommendation\, that Mr. Henry applied to amend the 1979 permit and include both the fire repair and restaurant renovation projects. The application was for an abbreviated region-wide permit for fire repairs only and excludes the restaurant renovation project completely \nBoardroom SX80: as noted earlier. On March third 2024 BCDC. Staff conducted a site visit and observed that wooden barricades were still being used to block much of the public access area and other portions of the public access area were being used for private storage of restaurant materials and rubbish and work on the interior of the restaurant appeared incomplete. \nBoardroom SX80: Despite Mr. Henry excluding the restaurant renovation project from the permit application\, he did submit the project plans. The image on the left shows the former ill-picolo space. \nBoardroom SX80: here an wine bar and retail space across the hallway\, and\, as you can see on the right. \nBoardroom SX80: The restaurant has expanded into the former wine bar and retail space\, and Phil has been placed internally consisting of new restrooms\, a new kitchen\, a new dining room\, a new office space\, and likely more\, there’s also red shading here to illustrate part of the public access area. \nBoardroom SX80: There’s a clear intent here to place tables and chairs for the restaurant throughout the public access space on the southern as well as the eastern sides of the building. \nBoardroom SX80: In sum violation\, one is for the unauthorized redevelopment activities on the ground floor of 660 Bridgeway Boulevard in Bcd’s Bay and Shoreline ban jurisdiction \nBoardroom SX80: and violation 2 is for closing blockading and removing the required public access amenities and intending to privatize the public access area for restaurant use. \nBoardroom SX80: Respondents submitted a statement of defense form with attachments. On February the 20 eighth\, 2\,024. In it. Mr. Henry admits to owning the property\, subject to the complaint \nBoardroom SX80: that work was performed to the back deck\, and that he installed Plywood to block access to it. \nBoardroom SX80: I’ll now move on to the 7 defenses and rebuttals defense. One is that respondent received building permits from the city of Sausalito for the restaurant remodel work\, however\, receiving a city of Sausalito building permit\, does not absolve respondent from his responsibility to consult BC. DC. Prior to performing work in BC. DC. Jurisdiction \nBoardroom SX80: to obtain BC. DC. Approval for the work\, and to comply with the Mcatir Petrus Act. Additionally\, the separation and distinction between Bcd. C. And the city of Sausalito’s processes was explained to Mr. Henry in writing in 2021\, and even if it had not been. Mr. Henry is still responsible for obtaining Bcd. C authorization prior to placing fill within or making any change in use of any area within BC. DC. Jurisdiction\, or any change to existing required public access. \nBoardroom SX80: Yep. \nBoardroom SX80: defense 2. Is that nobody mentioned anything to Mr. Henry about having to get Bcd. C. Approval for the restaurant remodel work\, despite it being solely Mister Henry’s responsibility to comply with the Mccoy Petrus Act and the regulations applicable to his property staff explicitly informed him 3 times in 2\,016 and 2\,018\, that he must obtain a Bcd. C. Permit amendment prior to commencing this project. \nBoardroom SX80: Defense 3. Is that nobody mentioned anything to Mr. Henry about having to go through BC. DC. To get approval for the Fire Restoration repair work. Mr. Henry should have known that he needed to consult Bcd. Staff repeatedly asked him for documentation\, that the fire department directed closure of the public access area\, and Staff informed him that the blockade was a violation\, and asked him to remove the sheet of plywood that was blocking public access \nBoardroom SX80: defence. 4. Is that Mister Henry was directed by the city of Sausalito Building Department and the fire marshal to install plywood and block access to the back deck. As it was unsafe from the fire. \nBoardroom SX80: The Macadar Petrus Act requires any person to receive BCDC. Authorization before making any substantial change in use of any water\, land or structure within BCD. C’s jurisdiction\, such as closing the public access. BCDC. Has procedures in place to respond to instances when emergency work is required. Yet there’s no record of Mister Henry proactively informing Mister BCDC. \nBoardroom SX80: About the fire and the need to close public access areas for emergency repairs prior to\, or just after the repairs occurred. There is a history of correspondence with Mister Henry that demonstrates that he should have known that he needed to inform BCDC. About the closure of the public access area\, and lastly\, we have never seen documentation that the fire department directed him to close the deck \nBoardroom SX80: defence. 5 is that Mister Henry went through the required channels of the city and was issued a permit. However\, Mister Henry did not go through all the required channels to receive approvals for the fire restoration and restaurant renovation work\, because BCDC. Is a required channel \nBoardroom SX80: the case. History demonstrates again that Mister Henry should have known that he needed to inform DCDC. About the closure of the public access area. \nBoardroom SX80: Yet Mister Henry did not voluntarily apply for A\, BCDC. Permit until he was subject to this Enforcement action\, and the permit application is not inclusive of all the work that was performed. \nBoardroom SX80: Defence 6. Is that Mister Henry did not add any fill\, and while Staff concedes that the footprint of the deck is the same now as as the same now as it was before the unauthorized work was performed\, Mister Henry expanded the original restaurant space by demolishing and utilizing the adjacent commercial spaces. Mister Henry changed the use of the area by reducing public access and views. \nBoardroom SX80: placing impediments within the public access space\, and intending to privatize the public access area for restaurant use\, he removed public trash containers\, removed a public bench\, added a standing bar in the benches place added\, raised wooden decking\, a new glass deck railing\, and the plans for the new restaurant illustrate his intention \nBoardroom SX80: to place restaurant\, dining tables and chairs throughout the public access area. All of these activities require Bcd consultation and authorization \nBoardroom SX80: defence 7. Is that the administrative civil penalty would possibly bankrupt the respondent or put him out of business\, and Bayview one Llc. Employs many different people\, and they and their families rely on the respondent for their living. \nBoardroom SX80: The statement of defense form allows respondents an opportunity to express whether they will be unable to pay the proposed penalty\, or whether paying the penalty would have a substantial adverse effect on their ability to continue in business. However\, since information relative to these considerations is exclusively in the possession and control of the violator\, appendix J. Of the Commission’s regulations require \nBoardroom SX80: violators to submit factual information and supporting documentation to enable staff in the Commission to evaluate their financial condition. \nBoardroom SX80: Examples of relevance supporting documentation that a violator should provide\, include audited financial statements\, balance sheets\, profit and loss statements\, statements of net worth\, tax returns\, and more. And since no factual information or documentation was submitted to support this claim. Staff cannot consider this as a viable defense\, and the responsibility’s ability to pay is not in question. \nBoardroom SX80: To review the proposed administrative civil penalty. Appendix J. Of the Commission’s regulations requires staff to assess certain \nBoardroom SX80: characteristics when settling on the appropriate fine amount\, including\, but not limited to the respondent’s degree of culpability\, history of violations\, any voluntary resolution efforts\, any economic benefit to the violator and other factors. Our analysis determined that for each violation the gravity of harm\, for this case is moderate\, and the extent of deviation \nBoardroom SX80: from the statutory requirement to provide the permit required public access and secure a permit or remove the unauthorized fill is major \nBoardroom SX80: daily penalty. Per violation was assessed for 937 days\, during which time the respondent failed to take voluntary action to correct violations. Fines for each of the 2 violations are capped at $30\,000\, so Staff proposes a penalty. Amount of $60\,000 \nBoardroom SX80: moving on to our recommended Enforcement decision. \nBoardroom SX80: we recommend that the Enforcement Committee recommends to the Commission to authorize the Executive Director to issue the proposed cease and desist\, and civil penalty. Order number Ccd\, 20202400100\, which would order the respondent to cease and desist from violating the permit\, and the Mcatir Petras Act to fully restore and maintain the public access area within 30 days of order\, issuance \nBoardroom SX80: to obtain a permit or permit amendment for all unauthorized work by the end of 2\,024 \nBoardroom SX80: to complete a permit assignment form for the 1979 permit within 45 days of order\, issuance to cease and desist from any development of the ground floor\, restaurant space\, formerly ill piccolo cafe\, and the adjacent wine bar and retail space\, and to not conduct any business or other use of the space until a commission permit \nBoardroom SX80: that authorizes such use is obtained\, and to pay $60\,000 in administrative civil liability within 30 days of order issuance. \nBoardroom SX80: And that concludes the staff’s presentation\, and I’ll stop sharing my screen now. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Rachel. I think I’m gonna hold questions until we hear from the respondent. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So is he still on the screen\, Mr. Henry? Could you please \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: make your presentation\, and I am just going to remind you that you are limited to discussing evidence. That’s already part of the Enforcement record. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So thank you\, sir\, and you may begin. \nChris Henry: Okay. First of all\, can everybody hear me? Okay. \nChris Henry: okay. Great. Thank you. Well\, thank you for being here today. And and thank you for having me. I appreciate that. \nChris Henry: I wanted to go over a few things with you here \nChris Henry: and and correct and and make clear a little bit more of actually what happened \nChris Henry: as this is not \nChris Henry: What what you previously heard is not all you know\, factual and true and kind of brushed over. \nChris Henry: First off. I’ve always comply with Bcd. C. \nChris Henry: You know requirements. If if there’s something that needed to be done. \nChris Henry: you know II always did it. And and there there was a problem with with the the previous tenant that was there. Pico cafe. \nChris Henry: He’s the the gentleman that that provided the the initial plans and he’s the one that did all the violations\, you know\, prior to him vacating\, you know. \nChris Henry: as mentioned back in 2\,016\, and all those previous violations they were his responsibility. He he did that. II did. I didn’t do that. So II just wanted to make that clear. And every time Vcdc. Stepped in \nChris Henry: II made the tenant comply\, and and\, as far as I know\, everything was cleared\, and and you know\, benches were. \nChris Henry: you know\, cleared off\, garbage cans were were installed \nChris Henry: The you know. The the previous tenant was was one that told the the public they had to sit there and \nChris Henry: you know\, buy a meal from from him what wasn’t me. I had nothing to do with that. and when I found out about II corrected that I just wanted to make that clear that I’ve always complied. \nChris Henry: There was. There was a problem with getting notifications as as I moved during Covid. It’s just been the restaurant business is just was just a disaster\, and and and I moved. \nChris Henry: and I didn’t receive any notifications from BC DC. \nChris Henry: From about 2\,020 when Covid hit I moved. and so I don’t. I didn’t know about all the notifications that \nthat were alleged in in this complaint. \nChris Henry: I didn’t find out about even this hearing until \nChris Henry: I was notified by my attorney that Rachel contacted him. \nChris Henry: This was the first that I heard about this whole situation about the hearing and the noncompliance for. \nChris Henry: you know\, going back to 2\,021\, because I never received any notification from you guys. \nChris Henry: During Covid II moved away and my address changed. \nChris Henry: and there there was a fire at the back of the building that that destroyed the whole back part of the building\, the deck. the back part. \nChris Henry: the restaurant part downstairs. \nChris Henry: the storage area and the back stairs were completely burned \nChris Henry: back in. \nChris Henry: I believe it was 1027 of 21 I went through the the process with the city for fire restoration \nChris Henry: complied\, you know. Hired an architect and engineer. We. We supplied all the plans. \nChris Henry: went through the process with the city. We had\, we had several hearings \nChris Henry: with through the historic Landmarks board \nChris Henry: we. We received approval after 2. I believe it was 2 hearings there. \nChris Henry: and we went through the the process. Nobody ever told me that I had to go through A\, A BC. DC. I was not aware of that\, otherwise I certainly would have. I hired. An architect submitted to plans \nChris Henry: the the application was approved\, and and we didn’t. We didn’t add any fill to the to the project. \nChris Henry: There was. It was all the all the area that burned. We were placed in kind. \nWe didn’t grab any extra space anywhere. \nChris Henry: The only thing that was different was. there was a a seating bench\, and on the back part we we put a standing rail there \nChris Henry: so actually\, you could get more people in there to stand and and and and view the bay. \nChris Henry: It was mentioned that we that we closed off the back portion of of the building \nChris Henry: during since 2021. And that that’s true. That’s because we were directed by the fire\, Marshal. It was unsafe. \nChris Henry: The back deck where there was holes in there. People\, you know\, if it was open to the public\, people would walk in there and fall in the bay\, and \nChris Henry: it would\, it would be just a disaster. I would get sued. And \nChris Henry: it just wasn’t safe. And I didn’t know that my manager didn’t supply the the proof from the fire marshal\, but I could certainly do that\, that they required that the billing\, the access there be closed off. \nChris Henry: So we we went through the the whole\, you know\, process with city \nChris Henry: and the and the Historical Landmarks board \nChris Henry: permit. A permit was issued. \nChris Henry: and and we’ve begun work\, and it’s just been super difficult. You know the restaurant business with Covid. And and you know all the regulations we but II wanna comply. \nChris Henry: And and I’d you know\, I wanna make sure everybody’s happy but the the the same. The same time II need to \nChris Henry: be given a fair shake\, and and I wasn’t notified\, you know\, due to my address. Change. And so this this hearing and all this is kind of brought on to me sort of a little bit by surprise. I was given\, you know\, short notice. Get to get ready for this \nChris Henry: and \nChris Henry: III welcome your input. I want to work with you. Like I like. I mentioned\, II \nChris Henry: applied for the permit. Now that I know that I had to do it. I applied to the permit\, for with you guys\, I submitted the the paperwork and the application fee I hand carried a $400 application fee down there\, and you and you guys were closed \nChris Henry: the Security Guards that nobody was around. So I put the check underneath the door\, and I’m hoping that you got it. But I’m still not 100% sure that you did get it. \nAnd I haven’t heard back \nChris Henry: anything from BC. DC. Regarding the the application. permit application that they put in. So III think that the the find is is is is \nChris Henry: is is heavy. \nChris Henry: II think. I don’t. I don’t think it’s fair. You know it was required to close the the building off. And II want to comply\, you know\, like I said\, I’ve hired an architect and engineer\, and and \nChris Henry: submitted the plans and and the fee. \nChris Henry: and I’m open to your your\, your your comments. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So are. Are you finished\, Mr. Henry. \nChris Henry: Did do I get a chance to speak again\, or is it? Is this it? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: This\, is it unless members of the committee have any questions for you? \nChris Henry: Okay. \nChris Henry: III don’t understand what the what cease and desist really means \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: immediately. \nChris Henry: Ye yeah\, all\, all the all the well\, III understand that. But all the \nChris Henry: all the repairs to the fire were have been made \nChris Henry: so. \nChris Henry: and and we we put it back in as it was \nChris Henry: that that’s all I have to say. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. Mr. Henry. We appreciate your comments. And so now I’m going to ask committee members for their questions\, or\, well\, actually\, their questions will\, we’ll get to the discussion after we ask for public comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So clarifying questions on behalf of committee members. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Anybody \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: question \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Buddy my question you said you you had no notification from BC. DC\, when when do you say that you first have notification for Bcd. \nChris Henry: when I received a an email from my attorney Bill Hatcher. \nHe. He sent me an email. \nChris Henry: And and that was. well\, it’s about 30 days before \nChris Henry: before before this hearing. It was a notification that this hearing was gonna happen. \nChris Henry: I got an email from Mr. Hatch\, my attorney just just saying. You know\, get in touch with Bcd. C. You know. Regarding this hearing. \nChris Henry: III moved away during Covid\, and and I didn’t get the the\, you know\, moved away. In 2\,020. And you guys had my pre my old address. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: So you you say that you had no notification from being Cdc until just \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: just like very\, very recently\, II mean\, that’s \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: I’m having trouble \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: see how that would work\, because it well\, anyway\, anything else to say and you’re you’re saying that you just heard from DC. DC\, just\, very\, very within the last few weeks. \nChris Henry: I would say within the the past. \nChris Henry: Well\, there there were. There was an extension Rachel gave us\, like\, I think\, a 30 day extension. He he! He sent me an email \nsaying\, you’re \nChris Henry: you know. Get in touch with Bcd. See? They’re gonna have this hearing. And then. \nChris Henry: I think Rachel went back\, or the BBC DC. Staff went back and Re. Noticed it again and gave another 30 days so it’s it’s yes\, it’s short notice. \nChris Henry: But all all through through Covid. I you know I didn’t receive any anything\, you know\, during that \nChris Henry: we\, you know\, when when the fire happened and burned the back of the building off I didn’t. I didn’t receive any written corresponds from BC. DC. At all. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: So it sounds like you. You basically know anything about who Pcdc is\, and what they do and \nChris Henry: no\, no\, no\, I wouldn’t say that. II I’ve II work with Bcd. Before during the the Pre. You know\, you know the issues with the previous tenant Pico Cafe when when he \nChris Henry: as that somebody from the public buy\, buy\, buy a sandwich\, or or leave. \nChris Henry: and and II have been in touch with Bcd. See over over the years. But during that period during Covid \nChris Henry: when I moved away that I didn’t have any. I didn’t receive any correspondence\, but prior prior to that\, when the previous tenant was there Mark tomorrow. \nChris Henry: who left on me a lot of rent\, by the way\, and and I had to evict \nChris Henry: But yeah\, during Covid\, I didn’t. I didn’t receive anything. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Okay\, go on. I see John\, who has his hand up. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Okay\, thank you. Just a question\, Mr. Henry. What did you? When did you employ your attorney on this issue. \nChris Henry: I think when we had the I haven’t actually employed him. \nbut when we had a call with Rachel I had him. I had him on the line\, but he’s I don’t. I don’t have an attorney per se he\, he’s \nChris Henry: \nChris Henry: He he was on the on the call with Rachel. We we did a sort of a compliance call. \nChris Henry: you know. I wanted to make sure that \nChris Henry: the the team was together to make sure the plans were together in in in order \nChris Henry: th that they were supposed to be\, and that so I had him on the call. I don’t. I don’t even know if he’s on the call today\, but I don’t. \nChris Henry: you can tell me \nChris Henry: I don’t. I haven’t talked to him. \nTim Galusha: This is Tim. II am I? Yeah\, hi! Cause I am on the call\, but I think Mr. Vasco is may have been asking about the the prior attorney. \nChris Henry: Oh\, he! He! He was! He! He’s just the the the process. And Ni notice person for the I’ll see\, that’s all. He. \nthat’s all his function\, is he? He was when I \nChris Henry: when I initiate the Llc. I don’t know. 13 years ago he he was the notice person. That’s it\, that’s all. The only involvement he has or has ever had. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Okay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Alright. Rebecca. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: yeah. So maybe Rachel can help clarify this. But it sounds as if \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: there was no assignment to an attorney to be the appointed person to receive notifications. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I don’t know what happened with. If you move\, obviously you usually submit something to the post office\, so that whatever is sent to you is forwarded. But the the notion that \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: responded\, and get any notifications\, Rachel. I wonder if you could just sort of respond to what you’ve just heard that? \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, thank you for the opportunity. \nBoardroom SX80: there were email communications between Bcd. C. Staff and Mr. Henry\, dating back to\, I believe\, 2\,021 which were made a part of the record their exhibits to the violation report and complaint and the recommended Enforcement decision that show that he was clearly notified about \nBoardroom SX80: the fire repair project and blocking public access. Being an issue with BC. DC\, we were requesting that documentation from him over email. And he was responding over email. \nBoardroom SX80: and then \nBoardroom SX80: there \nBoardroom SX80: was a a brief mailing issue with the violation reporting complaint that we mailed it was\, returned to us as undeliverable. So we did reissue it\, and we \nBoardroom SX80: by doing that? We did reschedule the hearing date to today. It was\, I believe\, previously scheduled for \nBoardroom SX80: Likely early February mister Henry got in contact with us when he did receive \nBoardroom SX80: the via the reissued violation\, reporting complaint. We’ve been in regular communications since January 30. First and \nBoardroom SX80: I believe also to respond to the question about when \nBoardroom SX80: he employed his attorney\, Bill Hatcher. Is just the agent of service\, so he acknowledged that he received it as well. \nBoardroom SX80: And Tim Galuca\, who’s on the phone. We had that compliance call on February 20\, seventh. and if I may. \nBoardroom SX80: the information about the tenant being responsible for all of those violations. That is new information to us and is not part of the record. So it would caution you to \nBoardroom SX80: consider it today. \nBoardroom SX80: and \nBoardroom SX80: yeah\, I think that’s all I have for now. \nBoardroom SX80: hopefully\, that answers your question. It does\, Rachel\, and thank you for bringing up the issue about the tenant\, because \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: and I see that Greg is on the call. But\, generally speaking\, if somebody owns a property that is subject to BC. DC. Jurisdiction. I don’t think that can be assigned. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Those obligations cannot be assigned to a tenant without Bcd’s permission. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: So I think I’m hearing you say that we don’t have anything in our files that says the tenant is hereby responsible for the permit requirements and not the owner. Is that right? Okay\, thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, Mister Henry\, was the respondent\, for all of those previous enforcement cases. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So my comment about that would be is\, yes\, the the permit does run with the land. He is the owner of record\, and so therefore he is responsible for \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: compliance with all aspects of permit. and I find it a little bit incredulous. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for him to say that he \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: didn’t know that he had to comply with BC. DC. Permits\, since the record clearly shows a past history. Of dealing with BC. DC. I think as far back as 2016 \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and so for him to say that I didn’t know I had to get \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: permits from BC. DC. Or I didn’t at least have to check with them. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Ii have a hard time. Really accepting that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I have a question\, and this is \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: very sort of esoteric\, but I want it for for my own edification. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So the record said that Staff urged \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the respondent\, to get a permit amendment as opposed to a regional permit. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Could you explain that thinking\, and I think\, did he apply for regional permit or a permanent amendment? I’m I’m not sure \nBoardroom SX80: Mr. Henry applied for region wi region wide permit instead of a permit amendment. And the application \nBoardroom SX80: was only for the fire repairs and not for the restaurant renovation. Region. Wide permits are for \nBoardroom SX80: essentially de minimis projects\, and they don’t require public access in order for us to issue them. \nBoardroom SX80: whereas an amendment to the region wide permit would allow us to consider new public access considerations in lieu of the years of closure and the unauthorized work. \nBoardroom SX80: and it would also be an opportunity to formally formally assign the permit to Mister Henry. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So in asking for region region wide\, permit \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: he was only seeking to bring into compliance the the fire portion\, but not the restaurant addition and not the public access. So \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: basically\, he was non-responsive to BC. DC’s requests. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Any other questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I see \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Mr. Henry’s hand up\, I will allow you one quick comment. \nChris Henry: Oh\, oh\, okay\, tha thank you. \nChris Henry: It it! \nChris Henry: Th th! This is the first time that I’ve been through this process and and the architect I’m not sure if he’s been through this process before\, or if he’s he’s on on the call \nChris Henry: but I that the permit application should have been for the the restaurant as well. Not not just the fire repair. So we we wanna we wanna make sure that we do that right. You know\, that was an oversight on either his part. And my part\, we wanna make sure that we’re clear \nChris Henry: that we we wanna it’s for the restaurant and the fire repair \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: while I appreciate that comment\, Mr. Henry. We are \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: charged with what is on the record. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and what is on the record is a permit for the fire repairs\, not the restaurant \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and so\, if you would want to bring the restaurant into compliance. That is clearly another permit\, and I urge you to have a discussion with Staff outside of this procedure. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, do I have any other clarifying comments from \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: committee members before I open it up for public comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Rebecca. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: II just wanna be sure I have some questions about the find\, and payments and things like that. But you’re saying that after public comment we’ll have a chance to discuss all of that \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: correct? Great thanks. \nOkay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Ms. Klein. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair. Gilmour apologies. If this is clear. But I just wanna make sure that we all understand. There is no permit for the fire repairs\, yet he has submitted an incomplete application. \nBoardroom SX80: so the fire repairs remain unauthorized along with all of the other work that has taken place at the site. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, thank you very much. That is a very good clarifying comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so going on to do\, we have any public comment on this matter. \nBoardroom SX80: We do not jog more. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so we’re gonna close the non-existent public comment. And okay\, committee members. It’s time for discussion. And\, Rebecca\, you said you had some questions. So I’m gonna start off with you. Yes\, I do so like. So just as a preface. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: you know when you own property on the edge of the bay \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: which is a public benefit the bay\, you know it carries with it these obligations\, and I understand that Covid and running a restaurant\, and all of that is difficult \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: but the \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: the \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: obligations to the public have to be considered always. When you are \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Lucky enough to own property on the edge of our beautiful bay. The 6 items that Rachel listed that we want to have happen to cease and desist\, etc.\, etc. What I am hoping is that with respect to each one\, so that there is no \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: no coming back and say\, I didn’t understand. I didn’t get it. I wasn’t aware that the consequences of not doing any one of those things is spelled out for the respondents. So if you don’t \nChris Henry: within 45 days pay the fine\, etc. The consequence is that the fines will continue\, or whatever the consequence is\, or consequences might be\, so that I’m afraid that some of the situations that we have people say\, Well\, you know what? What’s the worst that could happen if I don’t do that? \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I want them to understand. You know\, that penalties will continue. You know\, further action will be taken\, etc.\, so that we really have some solid compliance with the \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: with the decision we made today. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Is that is that something\, Greg or Rachel\, that we can make sure to spell out in the \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: in the decision \nBoardroom SX80: the terms of the proposed Commission cease and desist order\, do state that the respondent must strictly conform to the express terms of the order\, and that if Mr. Henry intentionally or negligently violates any part of the order that he may be liable for $6\,000 for each day\, that the violations persist. \nBoardroom SX80: and any failure to comply with the cease and desist. Order. \nBoardroom SX80: The the Attorney General may \nBoardroom SX80: petition the Superior Court for the issuance of a preliminary or permanent injunction\, or both restraining Mister Henry from continuing any activity. \nBoardroom SX80: In violation of the cease and desist order. So that’s probably about as as firmly as it’s written. So far\, I think that’s good. And is there a cap on the 6\,000 a day\, or does it just continue? Add infant? Item \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: it. It continues infinite. It’s fact for other people. It’s gone up over a couple of 1 million bucks at times. Okay? And one quick question\, there was a 21\,000 penalty that you described for us was that paid\, and was that paid timely? \nBoardroom SX80: It was paid. I believe that there was a settlement agreement at that time to allow for it to be paid in installments\, and I’m not sure over how long\, but I have no information about whether those installments were paid on time or not. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Anybody else. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: hey? If there are no other comments. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: can I have a motion\, and a second to approve. The Executive Director directors recommended Enforcement decision regarding the 2 proposed\, stipulated. Well\, actually\, hold on. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I’m ahead of myself. Staff recommendation \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: got that? \nBoardroom SX80: Would you like me to make the recommendation again\, please. Okay\, so we’re clear for the record. Sure. Should I share my screen or just read it? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: why don’t you just read it? \nBoardroom SX80: Okay. \nBoardroom SX80: Staff recommends that the Enforcement Committee votes to recommend that the Commission authorizes the executive director to issue the proposed cease and assistance. Civil penalty\, order number\, Ccd\, 202-02-4000ne dot 0 0. \nBoardroom SX80: Is it? Okay? If I paraphrase the or the order terms it would thank you. It would order the respondent\, Mr. Henry\, to cease and desist from violating BC. DC. Permit\, and 1979 dot 0 8 8 dot 0 2\, and the Mccoy Petrus act \nBoardroom SX80: to fully restore and maintain the public access area within 30 days of order issuance to obtain a permit or permit amendment for all unauthorized work. By December the 30 first by 2\,024 \nBoardroom SX80: to complete a permit assignment\, form for the 1 79 permit\, within 45 days of order\, issuance to cease and desist from any development of the ground floor space\, and to not conduct any business or other use of the space until a commission permit that authorizes such use is obtained\, and to pay $60\,000 in administrative civil liability within 30 days of order issuance. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. Now\, may I have a motion and a second on the recommended Enforcement decision. \nTim Galusha: Excuse me\, is it? I don’t know if it’s too late. But II was just was wondering if somebody could explain the 60\,000 where that number comes from? Like? Why\, why is it that the number? \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Who is that \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: that was on the \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: that was the respondent. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Rachel\, could you summarize just very quickly\, just before we Tim Gulu? Not the respondent\, but happy to summarize. So the Commission’s regulations require us to consider certain characteristics of the violation. \nBoardroom SX80: it’s helpful to take a look at Appendix J. Of the Commission’s regulations to help answer this question. There’s sort of a whole rubric that we go through\, and a whole process that we go through and analyzing the violations. So that helps us settle on the extent of deviation from the statutory requirements as well as the gravity of harm of the violations. And those \nBoardroom SX80: basically land us at a certain daily penalty\, and that daily penalty amount is then multiplied by the amount of days that \nBoardroom SX80: that the violation persisted. \nBoardroom SX80: so \nBoardroom SX80: that landed us at a daily penalty. Amount of $1\,600 per day. But since the violations persisted for 937 days they are capped at $30\,000 for each violation. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. Rachel. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay. Now\, I’m\, looking for a motion and A\, second to accept the staff recommendation. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I move to accept the staff recommendation. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay. It was moved by Commissioner Eisen\, and was it\, second\, by Commissioner Vasquez\, no delinquent. Thank you. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: move on\, can Greg\, explain the process after this is a recommendation. Full commission\, is it not? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: and that the Mister Henry will have an opportunity again to speak before full commission. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s correct\, you will. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Yes\, thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Adrienne. Would you please call the roll? \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, Commissioner Bailey. our committee member Bailey? Yes. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: alright. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Commissioner Vasquez. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. Yes. Commissioner Gilmore. Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Motion passes by a vote of 4\, 2 0. I wanna thank all the Commissioners and staff and the respondent. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So our next item on the agenda is adjournment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Does anybody object to adjourn adjurning this meeting? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Hearing no objections\, we are adjourned. Thank you\, everyone. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \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/march-14-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240315T100000
DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240315T120000
DTSTAMP:20260525T222126
CREATED:20240319T201701Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240610T213453Z
UID:10000177-1710496800-1710504000@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:March 15\, 2024 Sediment & Beneficial Reuse Commissioner Working Group
DESCRIPTION:Meeting Notice \nPresentation \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Summary\n				BCDC’s Sediment and Beneficial Reuse Working Group members met on March 15\, 2024\, for a virtual public meeting at 10 am.The meeting began with Maya McInerney\, BCDC’s project manager for the Sediment for Wetland Adaptation Project\, providing the group with a debrief of the recent sediment stakeholder workshops. One hundred and fifty individuals across sixty-seven different organizations were invited to help frame the issues and potential actions that will inform the structure of the project roadmap. The first day of the workshop focused on barriers and actions for sediment and soil sources\, storage\, and placement. The second day of the workshop was centered around source and placement action pathways\, governance\, and funding. \nOver fifty people attended each day of the workshop\, and contributed to conversations that will shape the roadmap and project going forward. The stakeholder workshops also served as the first step in building a coalition of those dedicated to increasing beneficial reuse in the Bay Area. The project team is now working on synthesizing all of the feedback from the stakeholders and create a draft roadmap from their input. \nMaya then explained in further detail how the project will transition from the workshops to constructing the roadmap. First\, the team will send a survey out to workshop participants. The core team will also be finalizing issue papers and hold further meeting with stakeholders to refine the actions described in the roadmap. \nThe presentation then shifted into a discussion of the roadmap itself. Maya described how the roadmap will be structured\, beginning with the statement of purpose and background\, followed by the goals and principles. The sediment to wetland pathways will come next and will describe the pathways to placement for each of the three primary sources of sediment: construction\, flood control dredging\, and navigation dredging. The roadmap will end with eight to ten action plans divided across several focus areas\, each with specific tasks achievable in the next five years.A group discussion of the roadmap followed and specifically focused on funding and governance models. The meeting then reached the public comment period\, and concluded.The next Sediment and Beneficial Reuse Commissioner Working Group is scheduled for May 17th.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/march-15-2024-sediment-beneficial-reuse-commissioner-working-group/
CATEGORIES:Sediment and Beneficial Reuse Commissioner Working Group
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240321T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240321T170000
DTSTAMP:20260525T222127
CREATED:20240118T072538Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240315T214538Z
UID:10000093-1711026000-1711040400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:March 21\, 2024 Commission Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				This  report lists the administrative matters that have been filed and are pending  with the Commission. Due to the  cancellation of the meeting of March 21\, 2024\, and pursuant to Commission  Regulation Section 10620(a)\, the Executive Director will take final action on  these matters unless a Commissioner requests full Commission consideration by  communicating with the staff prior to March 21\, 2024. In the absence of  such a request\, the listed matters will be executed administratively after March 21\, 2024. \nAdministrative Permit Applications \n\n\n	 Applicant\n\n\n\nRobert Feirman\n	  57  West Shore Road\n	  Belvedere\, CA 94920 \n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.033.00 \n \n\n\nFiled\n03/05/2024\n\n\n90th Day\n06/03/2024\n\n\n\n		Location \n\nIn the Bay and within the Commission’s 100-foot shoreline band jurisdiction\, at 57 West Shore Road\, in the City of Belvedere\, Marin County. \n \n\n\n\n		Description\n	\n\nInstall four galvanized steel beams  underneath the existing deck and house to reinforce two existing wooden beams  that are deflecting\, involving: \n\nIn the  Bay: \n\nTemporarily moor an approximately 10-foot by  20-foot barge to the existing dock; and\nInstall four new steel beams\, which range in  size from approximately 14 to 16 inches wide by approximately 22 to 50 inches  high. \n\nWithin the 100-foot shoreline band:\n\nTemporarily  place and use a 40-foot by 8-foot boom truck crane to transport the  construction materials onto the barge.\n\n\nThe project will be  conditioned to minimize impacts to sensitive fish and eelgrass habitat in Richardson Bay. \n \n \n\n\n	Tentative Staff Position\n\nRecommend  Approval with ConditionsJessica  Finkel\, Project Manager; 415/352-3614 or jessica.finkel@bcdc.ca.gov \n \n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				\nABC News 7 story on recent Nature story on subsidence and flooding\, featuring SFEI’s Warner Chabot and Nancy Pelosi\, with a shout out to our Funding and Investment Framework report\nSausalito’s $3 million plan to clear illegal boats from Richardson Bay is working
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/march-21-2024-commission-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240327T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240327T120000
DTSTAMP:20260525T222127
CREATED:20240130T044652Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240610T202145Z
UID:10000130-1711531800-1711540800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:March 27\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Enforcement meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 544 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \n9:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. \nPhysical Location \nMetro CenterYerba Buena375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, CA 94105415-352-3600 \nJoin the meeting via Zoomhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/84238175663?pwd=h5wM0q77lr20g6MGVMHwbJkxySP7jn.1 \nSee information on public participation \n\n\nTeleconference numbers(816) 423-4282Conference code374334 \n\n\nMeeting ID842 3817 5663Passcode659147 \n\n\nIf you call in by telephone: \n\nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourself\nPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak\n \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic CommentThe Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda. \nApproval of Draft Minutes from the March 14\, 2024 Enforcement Committee meeting.\nEnforcement Report.Staff will update the committee on the current status of the enforcement program’s activities.(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing and Vote on Recommended Enforcement Decision and proposed settlement agreement to resolve Enforcement Case ER2015.024.00\, City of San Rafael\, Marin County.The Committee will consider whether to recommend to the Commission that it adopt a Recommended Enforcement Decision and Proposed Settlement Agreement to cause the City by May 10\, 2024\, to: 1. Re-open a closed public restroom to public use by May 10\, 2024\, and; 2. Pay an administrative civil penalty of $30\,000 unless the restroom is re-opened by April 27\, 2024\, in which case the administrative civil liability will be $15\,000.(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov)Public Comment\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				March 27\, 2024 Minutes \nTranscript for Items 6-7 \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				Audio recording \n \nAudio Transcript\n[00:00:06] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: GOOD \n[00:00:07] MORNING\, EVERYONE. BY MY WATCH\, \n[00:00:09] IT IS 9:37. AND THIS MEETING OF \n[00:00:14] THE BCDC ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE \n[00:00:16] IS HEREBY CALLED TO ORDER. MY \n[00:00:20] NAME IS MARIE GILMORE AND I AM \n[00:00:21] THE CHAIR OF THIS COMMITTEE. FOR \n[00:00:23] COMMISSIONERS\, INCLUDING THOSE \n[00:00:25] ATTENDING AT BEALE STREET\, \n[00:00:27] PLEASE ENSURE YOUR VIDEO CAMERAS \n[00:00:28] ARE ALWAYS ON AND PLEASE MUTE \n[00:00:30] YOURSELVES WHEN YOU ARE NOT \n[00:00:31] SPEAKING. OUR FIRST ORDER OF \n[00:00:33] BUSINESS IS TO CALL THE ROLL. \n[00:00:36] MATTHEW\, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. \n[00:00:38] COMMISSIONERS\, PLEASE UNMUTE \n[00:00:40] YOURSELVES WHILE HE DOES SO TO \n[00:00:42] RESPOND AND THEN MUTE YOURSELVES \n[00:00:44] AFTER RESPONDING. \n[00:00:44] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: COMMISSIONER \n[00:00:46] EISEN. \n[00:00:47] >>REBECCA EISEN: HERE. \n[00:00:49] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: COMMISSIONER \n[00:00:52] VASQUEZ. \n[00:00:54] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: HERE. \n[00:00:56] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: HERE. WE \n[00:01:00] HAVE A QUORUM PRESENT AND ARE \n[00:01:02] DULY CONSTITUTED TO CONDUCT \n[00:01:03] BUSINESS. AND THAT BRINGS US TO \n[00:01:03] ITEM THREE ON OUR AGENDA\, PUBLIC \n[00:01:06] COMMENT PERIOD. SO\, IN \n[00:01:09] ACCORDANCE WITH OUR USUAL \n[00:01:10] PRACTICE AND AS INDICATED ON THE \n[00:01:11] AGENDA\, WE WILL NOW HAVE GENERAL \n[00:01:12] PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON \n[00:01:14] TODAY’S AGENDA. AND I DON’T \n[00:01:17] BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED \n[00:01:19] ANY GENERAL COMMENTS IN ADVANCE \n[00:01:21] OF THIS MEETING\, MARGIE? \n[00:01:26] >>MARGIE MALAN\, CLERK: YES\, THAT \n[00:01:27] IS CORRECT. \n[00:01:28] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:01:29] YOU. FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC \n[00:01:30] ATTENDING ONLINE\, IF YOU WOULD \n[00:01:31] LIKE TO SPEAK EITHER DURING THE \n[00:01:33] GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OR \n[00:01:38] FOR AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA\, \n[00:01:41] PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND IN THE \n[00:01:43] ZOOM APPLICATION BY CLICKING ON \n[00:01:44] THE PARTICIPANTS ICON AT THE \n[00:01:47] BOTTOM OF YOUR SCREEN AND LOOK \n[00:01:49] IN THE BOX WHERE YOUR NAME IS \n[00:01:53] LISTED UNDER ATTENDEES. FIND A \n[00:01:55] SMALL PALM ICON ON THE LEFT. IF \n[00:01:57] YOU CLICK ON THAT PALM ICON\, IT \n[00:02:00] WILL RAISE YOUR HAND\, OR IF YOU \n[00:02:02] ARE JOINING THIS MEETING BY \n[00:02:03] PHONE\, YOU MUST DIAL STAR 9 TO \n[00:02:06] RAISE YOUR HAND THEN DIAL STAR 6 \n[00:02:08] ON YOUR KEYPAD TO UNMUTE YOUR \n[00:02:11] PHONE WHEN THE HOST ASKS YOU IN \n[00:02:14] ORDER TO MAKE A COMMENT. THE \n[00:02:15] MEETING HOST WILL CALL \n[00:02:17] INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE RAISED \n[00:02:19] THEIR HANDS IN THE ORDER THEY \n[00:02:21] WERE RAISED. AFTER YOU ARE \n[00:02:22] CALLED UPON\, YOU WILL BE UNMUTED \n[00:02:24] SO THAT YOU CAN SHARE YOUR \n[00:02:25] COMMENTS. PLEASE ANNOUNCE \n[00:02:27] YOURSELF BY FIRST AND LAST NAME \n[00:02:29] FOR THE RECORD BEFORE MAKING \n[00:02:30] YOUR COMMENT. FOR MEMBERS OF THE \n[00:02:33] PUBLIC ATTENDING IN PERSON\, \n[00:02:34] PLEASE QUEUE UP AT THE SPEAKER’S \n[00:02:37] PODIUM AND WAIT TO BE CALLED \n[00:02:38] UPON TO SPEAK. COMMENTERS ARE \n[00:02:41] LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES TO \n[00:02:42] SPEAK. PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS \n[00:02:45] RESPECTFUL AND FOCUSED\, WE’RE \n[00:02:46] HERE TO LISTEN TO ANY INDIVIDUAL \n[00:02:48] WHO REQUESTS TO SPEAK\, BUT EACH \n[00:02:51] SPEAKER HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY \n[00:02:52] TO ACT IN A CIVIL AND COURTEOUS \n[00:02:55] MANNER AS DETERMINED BY THE \n[00:02:56] CHAIR. WE WILL NOT TOLERATE HATE \n[00:02:59] SPEECH\, DIRECT THREATS\, INDIRECT \n[00:03:02] THREATS OR ABUSIVE LANGUAGE. WE \n[00:03:05] WILL MUTE ANYONE WHO FAILS TO \n[00:03:06] FOLLOW THOSE GUIDELINES. MARGIE\, \n[00:03:09] DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTERS? \n[00:03:13] >>CLERK: WE DO NOT HAVE — NONE\, \n[00:03:17] CHAIR GILMORE. \n[00:03:19] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:03:20] YOU. I ASSUME THAT MEANS THERE’S \n[00:03:22] NOBODY AT THE REMOTE LOCATIONS \n[00:03:24] WILLING TO SPEAK\, READY TO \n[00:03:26] SPEAK? \n[00:03:27] >>CLERK: CORRECT. \n[00:03:30] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: GREAT. \n[00:03:31] THANK YOU. OKAY. ON TO ITEM \n[00:03:33] NUMBER 4. WE’VE ALL BEEN \n[00:03:35] FURNISHED WITH DRAFT MINUTES \n[00:03:36] FROM OUR LAST MEETING. COMMITTEE \n[00:03:38] MEMBERS\, I WOULD APPRECIATE A \n[00:03:39] MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE \n[00:03:41] THOSE. \n[00:03:42] >>REBECCA EISEN: SO MOVED. \n[00:03:44] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: SECOND. \n[00:03:45] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OKAY. WE \n[00:03:46] HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER \n[00:03:48] EISEN AND A SECOND FROM JOHN \n[00:03:50] VASQUEZ. ARE THERE ANY \n[00:03:50] OBJECTIONS TO THE MOTION? ANY \n[00:03:51] ABSTENTIONS? MOTION CARRIES \n[00:03:53] UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU ALL. ITEM \n[00:03:56] FIVE ON THE AGENDA IS OUR \n[00:03:57] ENFORCEMENT REPORT. THE \n[00:03:59] ENFORCEMENT POLICY MANAGER\, \n[00:04:02] MATTHEW TRUJILLO\, WILL NOW \n[00:04:03] PROVIDE THE ENFORCEMENT REPORT. \n[00:04:04] MATTHEW? \n[00:04:05] >>REBECCA EISEN: YOU’RE MUTED. \n[00:04:07] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: MATTHEW\, \n[00:04:10] YOU’RE MUTED. \n[00:04:13] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: SORRY ABOUT \n[00:04:29] THAT. GOOD MORNING\, CHAIR\, \n[00:04:31] COMMITTEE MEMBERS\, AND GREETINGS \n[00:04:33] TO ALL THE PUBLIC IN ATTENDANCE. \n[00:04:34] I HAVE A VERY SHORT UPDATE \n[00:04:37] REPORT TODAY\, BUT REST ASSURED \n[00:04:39] THAT WE ARE WORKING HARD EVERY \n[00:04:40] DAY CONDUCTING SITE VISITS AND \n[00:04:42] PATROLS\, DISCUSSING AND \n[00:04:45] EVALUATING CONTINUOUS PROGRAM \n[00:04:47] IMPROVEMENTS AND PUSHING \n[00:04:48] PROGRESS ON OUR CASE QUEUES AND \n[00:04:51] DOING BUSINESS AS USUAL. FIRST \n[00:04:53] I’D LIKE TO WELCOME STAFF \n[00:04:56] ATTORNEY MICHAEL NG\, WHO IS \n[00:05:03] SITTING IN FOR GREG\, WHO IS \n[00:05:05] UNAVAILABLE THIS MORNING. THANK \n[00:05:07] YOU FOR BEING HERE\, MICHAEL. THE \n[00:05:09] ONLY ITEM I HAVE TODAY IS A CASE \n[00:05:12] UPDATE SINCE MY LAST UPDATE THAT \n[00:05:14] I DELIVERED ON JANUARY 24th OF \n[00:05:16] 2024. IN THE PAST TWO MONTHS WE \n[00:05:18] OPENED 11 NEW CASES AND RESOLVED \n[00:05:20] 8 CASES. AS OF TODAY\, THERE ARE \n[00:05:21] 78 UNRESOLVED CASES IN THE \n[00:05:22] QUEUE. THAT’S ALL I HAVE TO \n[00:05:23] REPORT OUT TODAY. SO\, I’LL BE \n[00:05:25] GLAD TO ENTERTAIN ANY FOLLOW UP \n[00:05:26] QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STATUS OF \n[00:05:28] THE PROGRAM FROM THE COMMITTEE \n[00:05:30] AT THIS TIME. \n[00:05:31] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: ANY \n[00:05:32] MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE WITH \n[00:05:33] QUESTIONS? THAT WAS ALMOST AT \n[00:05:37] THE SAME TIME\, BUT I THINK I SAW \n[00:05:39] JOHN FIRST. \n[00:05:41] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: MATTHEW\, THE \n[00:05:42] QUESTION OF WHITE SLOUGH IN \n[00:05:44] VALLEJO\, YOU KNOW\, THERE’S A LOT \n[00:05:48] OF HOMELESS ENCAMPMENT IN THE \n[00:05:50] CITY\, THE COUNTY\, CALTRANS\, I’M \n[00:05:52] NOT SURE WHO’S RESPONSIBLE \n[00:05:53] FOR — WHAT’S THE WORD — \n[00:05:59] HELPING TO CLEAN THE PLACE UP. \n[00:06:00] DOES THAT FALL UNDER BCDC’S \n[00:06:03] JURISDICTION? \n[00:06:05] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: YES\, IT \n[00:06:06] DOES. YES\, WE HAVE AN \n[00:06:10] ENFORCEMENT CASE PENDING THAT WE \n[00:06:12] ARE WORKING ON. IT’S A VERY \n[00:06:16] LARGE-SCALE PROBLEM AT WHITE \n[00:06:19] SLOUGH. \n[00:06:21] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: YES. \n[00:06:22] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: IN TERMS OF \n[00:06:25] THE EXTENT OF THE HOMELESS. THE \n[00:06:30] JURISDICTIONAL QUESTIONS ARE \n[00:06:31] VERY KIND OF NUANCED. FOR \n[00:06:32] EXAMPLE\, BECAUSE WHITE SLOUGH IS \n[00:06:36] REALLY AN OFFSHOOT OF THE NAPA \n[00:06:40] RIVER OR IT ORIGINATES FROM \n[00:06:44] THE NAPA RIVER\, WHICH IS A \n[00:06:46] CERTAIN WATERWAY BY \n[00:06:47] EXTENSION. WHITE SLOUGH\, \n[00:06:48] ITSELF\, IS CONSIDERED PART OF \n[00:06:50] THAT CERTAIN WATERWAY REGIME \n[00:06:52] WHICH MEANS WE DO NOT HAVE \n[00:06:53] SHORELINE BAND\, WHICH MEANS \n[00:06:54] THAT ANYTHING OCCURRING ON \n[00:06:58] THE SHORELINE IS\, TECHNICALLY\, \n[00:06:59] WHAT DOES NOT FALL WITHIN A \n[00:07:01] TRADITIONAL JURISDICTION. \n[00:07:03] THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS \n[00:07:04] BECAUSE WHITE SLOUGH \n[00:07:06] HAS ITS OWN LAW AND IT HAS ITS \n[00:07:10] OWN AREA. SO\, THERE \n[00:07:16] ARE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW \n[00:07:17] FAR WE CAN — \n[00:07:19] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: OKAY. \n[00:07:21] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: — GO IN \n[00:07:22] TERMS OF ENFORCEMENT. \n[00:07:24] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: CAN YOU SEND ME \n[00:07:25] AN EMAIL ON THAT SO I CAN HELP \n[00:07:27] OUR FOLKS TRY TO WORK THROUGH \n[00:07:28] IT? \n[00:07:29] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: OKAY. I DO \n[00:07:30] WANT TO MAKE ONE MORE POINT IF I \n[00:07:31] MAY. \n[00:07:32] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: YES. \n[00:07:33] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: ABOUT THE \n[00:07:34] OWNERSHIP. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF \n[00:07:35] OWNERS — PRIVATE OWNERS AND \n[00:07:39] PUBLIC OWNERS\, SO THAT FURTHER \n[00:07:42] COMPLICATES THIS MATTER. THERE’S \n[00:07:43] ONLY ONE PARCEL OR ONE OWNER \n[00:07:46] THAT HAS A PERMIT THAT WE CAN \n[00:07:49] ACTUALLY TAKE ACTION ON. THAT \n[00:07:52] HAPPENS TO BE WE BELIEVE THE \n[00:07:56] STATE OF CALIFORNIA\, EITHER THEM \n[00:07:57] OR THE CITY\, THERE’S SOME \n[00:08:00] DISAGREEMENT ABOUT THAT\, \n[00:08:01] DEPENDING ON WHAT THEIR CONTRACT \n[00:08:02] WITH ONE ANOTHER SAYS. AND WE \n[00:08:04] MAY BE ABLE TO TAKE MORE \n[00:08:06] ASSERTIVE ACTION IN THE \n[00:08:08] SHORELINE\, BASED ON THAT \n[00:08:10] PERMIT. \n[00:08:11] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: WELL\, THANK YOU. \n[00:08:12] WE’RE LOOKING FOR HELP. \n[00:08:14] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: OKAY. \n[00:08:15] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: NOBODY SEEMS TO \n[00:08:16] KNOW WHO’S ON FIRST AND — I \n[00:08:19] THINK WHO’S ON FIRST\, ISN’T IT? \n[00:08:23] THANK YOU. \n[00:08:24] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: ISN’T \n[00:08:26] OPENING DAY TOMORROW? JUST — \n[00:08:29] ANYWAY\, REBECCA? \n[00:08:31] >>REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU. \n[00:08:33] MATTHEW\, I CAN’T REMEMBER FROM \n[00:08:36] THE LAST TIME YOU REPORTED TO US \n[00:08:39] ON THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES \n[00:08:42] PENDING\, IS 78 MORE OR LESS? \n[00:08:44] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: 78 IS MORE. \n[00:08:45] I BELIEVE THE LAST TIME I \n[00:08:47] REPORTED OUT — WELL\, \n[00:08:49] UNFORTUNATELY\, STRICTLY \n[00:08:51] SPEAKING\, THE JANUARY 24TH \n[00:08:53] ENFORCEMENT REPORT WOULD NOT \n[00:08:56] OPEN FOR ME THIS MORNING. I HAD \n[00:08:58] TO GO BACK ONE. THAT WAS AT 71. \n[00:09:00] SO IT WAS AROUND THAT. WE’VE \n[00:09:01] GONE UP A LITTLE\, UNFORTUNATELY. \n[00:09:03] >>REBECCA EISEN: IS IT POSSIBLE \n[00:09:05] TO HAVE SOME KIND OF A DYNAMIC \n[00:09:08] REPORT THAT IS JUST CURRENT AT \n[00:09:10] ALL TIMES? YOU KNOW\, YOU ADD AND \n[00:09:12] SUBTRACT FROM IT AND HAVE IT \n[00:09:15] AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE? IS \n[00:09:17] THAT POSSIBLE? IS THERE SOME \n[00:09:19] CONCERNS ABOUT DOING IT THAT \n[00:09:21] WAY? \n[00:09:23] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: I THINK THE \n[00:09:25] ANSWER TO BOTH THOSE QUESTIONS \n[00:09:28] IS YES. I THINK WE HAVE TALKED \n[00:09:30] ABOUT MAYBE TRYING TO DO \n[00:09:32] SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE\, HAVING \n[00:09:34] A REALTIME COUNT. THE PROBLEM IS \n[00:09:36] IT WOULD BE — BECAUSE WE DON’T \n[00:09:38] HAVE A VERY ROBUST SYSTEM THAT \n[00:09:39] WE CAN AUTOMATE\, WE HAVE TO DRAW \n[00:09:40] FROM A NUMBER OF RESOURCES AND \n[00:09:42] IT WOULD TAKE A LOT OF CURATING\, \n[00:09:43] WHICH MEANS A LOT OF TIME. AND \n[00:09:45] SO\, I’M NOT SURE IF IT’S \n[00:09:46] SOMETHING WE COULD REALISTICALLY \n[00:09:47] PULL OFF OR MAINTAIN FOR THE \n[00:09:49] LONG TERM. \n[00:09:50] >>REBECCA EISEN: AND I KNOW THAT \n[00:09:51] THE FOLKS ARE LOOKING AT OUR \n[00:09:52] PROCESSES AND TRYING TO FIGURE \n[00:09:54] OUT WAYS THAT WE CAN IMPROVE. I \n[00:09:55] DON’T KNOW IF THAT REPORTING \n[00:09:59] ASPECT OF IT IS PART OF WHAT \n[00:10:01] THEY’RE LOOKING INTO. MAYBE \n[00:10:03] THEY’LL HAVE SOME SUGGESTIONS TO \n[00:10:05] MAKE IT EASIER. GOD KNOWS WE \n[00:10:07] DON’T NEED ANYBODY SPENDING MORE \n[00:10:09] TIME ON MATTERS LIKE THAT. THANK \n[00:10:11] YOU. \n[00:10:13] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: SURE. \n[00:10:15] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: I HAVE A \n[00:10:16] QUESTION. WE HAD TALKED QUITE \n[00:10:19] AWHILE AGO ABOUT GETTING A NEW \n[00:10:26] COMPUTER PROGRAM TO HELP WITH \n[00:10:27] TRACKING OUR PERMITS AND JUST \n[00:10:30] BASICALLY TRACKING WHAT’S GOING \n[00:10:35] ON. I KNOW THAT WE HAD ISSUES \n[00:10:38] BECAUSE OF\, ONE\, OBVIOUSLY \n[00:10:41] FUNDING\, BUT\, TWO\, NOT WANTING \n[00:10:45] TO REINVENT THE WHEEL AND TO SEE \n[00:10:48] WHO HAD MAYBE OTHER SYSTEMS IN \n[00:10:51] PLACE FOR TRACKING SIMILAR \n[00:10:54] THINGS TO WHAT WE DO. SO\, AT \n[00:10:58] SOME FUTURE MEETING\, CAN WE GET \n[00:11:01] JUST A BRIEF UPDATE ON WHAT’S \n[00:11:04] GOING ON WITH ALL OF THAT? I’M \n[00:11:06] SURE IT’S A COMPLEX SUBJECT AND \n[00:11:09] I’M NOT SURE YOU HAVE TIME TO DO \n[00:11:11] IT NOW. \n[00:11:12] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: THIS IS \n[00:11:13] TRUE. ALSO\, I DON’T HAVE MUCH IN \n[00:11:15] THE WAY OF INFORMATION. I CAN \n[00:11:16] TELL YOU THAT THERE IS — THAT’S \n[00:11:17] AN ONGOING DISCUSSION. THERE’S \n[00:11:19] ONGOING WORK. I’M NOT PERSONALLY \n[00:11:20] INVOLVED WITH THAT. I BELIEVE WE \n[00:11:22] ACTUALLY HAVE MAYBE A DEDICATED \n[00:11:24] TEAM\, IF NOT A DEDICATED STAFF \n[00:11:26] PERSON BRINGING THAT INTO \n[00:11:28] FRUITION. I’M THINKING IF THERE \n[00:11:30] IS A BRIEFING\, I CAN BRING ONE \n[00:11:32] HERE\, BUT IT MIGHT BE SOMETHING \n[00:11:33] WE WOULD WANT TO BRING TO THE \n[00:11:35] COMMISSION AS A WHOLE. I’LL TAKE \n[00:11:36] THAT BACK — THAT FEEDBACK BACK \n[00:11:38] TO MY BOSSES AND LET THEM KNOW. \n[00:11:40] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THAT \n[00:11:41] WOULD BE GREAT. EITHER HERE OR \n[00:11:43] FOR THE FULL COMMISSION\, I FEEL \n[00:11:44] LIKE WE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS \n[00:11:46] ABOUT IT AT ONE POINT IN TIME. I \n[00:11:48] FEEL LIKE IT JUST DROPPED OFF \n[00:11:50] THE RADAR. SO — \n[00:11:52] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: OH\, NO. \n[00:11:53] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: I MEAN \n[00:11:55] FOR THE COMMISSION AND THE \n[00:11:56] COMMITTEE. I’M SURE THERE’S A \n[00:11:58] LOT OF WORK GOING ON BEHIND THE \n[00:11:59] SCENES. I FEEL LIKE IT’S BEEN A \n[00:12:01] LONG TIME SINCE ANYBODY’S \n[00:12:03] BRIEFED US ON WHAT — WHAT THE \n[00:12:04] PROGRESS IS\, WHAT THE POTHOLES \n[00:12:06] ARE\, AND THINGS LIKE THAT. \n[00:12:08] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: I TOTALLY \n[00:12:10] UNDERSTAND. YES\, I WILL — OKAY. \n[00:12:12] I WILL TAKE THAT BACK. \n[00:12:13] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:12:15] YOU. DO ANY MEMBERS OF THE \n[00:12:17] PUBLIC HAVE QUESTIONS ON THE \n[00:12:20] ENFORCEMENT REPORT? SEEING \n[00:12:25] NONE — \n[00:12:27] >>MARGIE MALAN\,CLERK: NONE. \n[00:12:29] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:12:31] YOU\, MARGIE. WE’RE GOING ON TO \n[00:12:34] ITEM NUMBER SIX\, WHICH IS A \n[00:12:36] HEARING AND VOTE ON THE \n[00:12:38] RECOMMENDED ENFORCEMENT DECISION \n[00:12:39] TO RESOLVE ER 2015.024.00\, THE \n[00:12:41] CITY OF SAN RAFAEL. SO IT’S — \n[00:12:43] WE’LL HAVE A PRESENTATION AND \n[00:12:44] VOTE ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO \n[00:12:51] ADOPT A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT \n[00:12:56] AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF SAN \n[00:12:58] RAFAEL\, WHO IS THE OWNER OF \n[00:13:00] RECORD OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY \n[00:13:02] OF ER 2015.024.00 STARKWEATHER \n[00:13:05] PARK IN SAN RAFAEL\, MARIN \n[00:13:11] COUNTY. THE CITY HAS CLOSED THE \n[00:13:14] REQUIRED PUBLIC RESTROOM AT THE \n[00:13:18] PARK FOR APPROXIMATELY 38 YEARS \n[00:13:21] AND COUNTING. IF THIS COMMITTEE \n[00:13:25] VOTES TO ADOPT THIS RECOMMENDED \n[00:13:27] ENFORCEMENT DECISION\, WHICH \n[00:13:30] INCLUDES A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT \n[00:13:34] AGREEMENT\, THEN IT WILL BE PUT \n[00:13:35] UP FOR A VOTE OF APPROVAL OR \n[00:13:37] REJECTION BY THE FULL COMMISSION \n[00:13:39] AT ITS APRIL 18\, 2024 MEETING\, \n[00:13:41] WHICH IS SCHEDULED TO BE HELD \n[00:13:43] ONLINE AND IN PERSON AT THE \n[00:13:45] METRO CENTER LOCATED AT 375 \n[00:13:47] BEALE STREET IN SAN FRANCISCO \n[00:13:50] COMMENCING AT 1:00 P.M. \n[00:13:52] AFTER BCDC STAFF GIVES ITS \n[00:13:54] PRESENTATION\, THE RESPONDENT \n[00:13:58] WILL BE INVITED TO PRESENT ANY \n[00:14:01] REMARKS IT WISHES TO ENTER INTO \n[00:14:03] THE RECORD. THEN I’LL ALLOW \n[00:14:05] PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM. AND \n[00:14:06] AFTERWARDS\, WE THE COMMITTEE\, \n[00:14:08] SHALL HOLD OUR DISCUSSION AND \n[00:14:10] VOTE ON STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION. \n[00:14:13] PRESENTATIONS MADE BY THE \n[00:14:15] PARTIES AS WELL AS PUBLIC \n[00:14:18] COMMENTS TO FOLLOW SHALL BE \n[00:14:21] LIMITED TO RESPONDING TO THE \n[00:14:24] EVIDENCE ALREADY MADE PART OF \n[00:14:27] THE ENFORCEMENT RECORD. THIS \n[00:14:30] COMMITTEE SHALL NOT ALLOW THE \n[00:14:32] INTRODUCTION OF NEW EVIDENCE OR \n[00:14:34] ORAL TESTIMONY. SO\, AT THIS \n[00:14:35] TIME\, WILL THE REPRESENTATIVE OR \n[00:14:37] REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE CITY OF \n[00:14:39] SAN RAFAEL PLEASE IDENTIFY \n[00:14:40] THEMSELVES FOR THE RECORD? \n[00:14:41] >>CONNOR MACLEAN: I’M CONNOR \n[00:14:43] MACLEAN\, ATTORNEY ON BEHALF OF \n[00:14:45] SAN RAFAEL. \n[00:14:47] >>FABIOLA GUILLEN: I’M FABIOLA \n[00:14:49] GUILLEN\, I’M WITH THE DEPARTMENT \n[00:14:50] OF PUBLIC WORKS AND THE CITY OF \n[00:14:51] SAN RAFAEL. \n[00:14:54] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:14:55] YOU SO MUCH AND WELCOME. NOW \n[00:14:57] WE’LL HEAR PRESENTATION BY \n[00:14:59] STAFF. I’M GOING TO INVITE \n[00:15:00] ENFORCEMENT ANALYST ADRIENNE \n[00:15:04] KLEIN TO GIVE HER REMARKS. \n[00:15:06] >>ADRIENNE KLEIN: GOOD MORNING\, \n[00:15:11] CHAIR GILMORE\, COMMISSIONERS. \n[00:15:15] NICE TO MEET YOU CONNOR AND FABI \n[00:15:17] IN PERSON. I HAVE A SLIDE \n[00:15:21] PRESENTATION\, I BELIEVE IT WILL \n[00:15:23] BE — THERE IT IS. THANK YOU \n[00:15:27] VERY MUCH. SO\, WE CAN GO TO THE \n[00:15:29] NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. THIS FORMAL \n[00:15:31] ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING AS NOTED \n[00:15:34] IS TO RESOLVE A SINGLE PERMIT \n[00:15:36] VIOLATION INVOLVING A CLOSED \n[00:15:38] PUBLIC RESTROOM AT STARKWEATHER \n[00:15:40] PARK IN — ON FRANCISCO \n[00:15:41] BOULEVARD IN THE CITY OF SAN \n[00:15:43] RAFAEL. SO\, THE PRESENTATION IS \n[00:15:45] NOT LONG. LESS THAN TEN MINUTES. \n[00:15:49] IT WILL IDENTIFY THE SITE WHERE \n[00:15:51] THE VIOLATION IS OCCURRING\, \n[00:15:53] BRIEFLY REVIEW THE PERMIT AND \n[00:15:55] ENFORCEMENT HISTORY\, SUMMARIZE \n[00:15:56] THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT \n[00:15:57] AGREEMENT THAT WILL RESOLVE THE \n[00:15:59] VIOLATIONS\, AND AS NOTED BY \n[00:16:00] CHAIR GILMORE\, CONCLUDE WITH THE \n[00:16:01] STAFF RECOMMENDATION. NEXT \n[00:16:02] SLIDE. SO\, THE NEXT THREE SLIDES \n[00:16:04] IDENTIFIES STARKWEATHER PARK IN \n[00:16:05] THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL NEAR THE \n[00:16:07] WESTERN TERMINUS OF THE \n[00:16:09] RICHMOND-SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE. YOU \n[00:16:11] CAN SEE A RED CIRCLE THERE. NEXT \n[00:16:13] SLIDE ZOOMS IN. ANOTHER RED \n[00:16:15] CIRCLE SHOWING THE OFFICE PARK. \n[00:16:18] AND NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. SO\, WITH \n[00:16:20] THIS THIRD IMAGE\, THERE IS \n[00:16:25] ADEQUATE DETAIL THAT THE \n[00:16:32] RESTROOM BUILDING IS VISIBLE \n[00:16:34] INSIDE THE RED CLOUD-SHAPED \n[00:16:35] BUBBLE AT THE BOTTOM LEFT IN THE \n[00:16:38] IMAGE. FRANCISCO BOULEVARD IS \n[00:16:42] LOCATED BELOW THE BOTTOM OF THE \n[00:16:44] IMAGE\, AND THE SHORELINE TRAIL \n[00:16:46] THAT YOU CAN SEE BETWEEN THE \n[00:16:49] RESTROOM BUILDING AND THE BEACH \n[00:16:52] CONTINUES TO THE NORTH AND WEST \n[00:16:54] ABOVE THE TOP OF THE IMAGE. SO\, \n[00:16:57] AS YOU CAN SEE AND AS NOTED IN \n[00:16:58] THE PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED FROM \n[00:17:00] BRUCE BEYAERT FROM THE TRAILS \n[00:17:02] FROM RICHMOND ACCESS COMMITTEE\, \n[00:17:04] THIS IS AN IMPORTANT PUBLIC \n[00:17:05] ACCESS SITE NOT JUST FOR THE \n[00:17:06] LOCAL MARIN COUNTY COMMUNITY\, \n[00:17:07] BUT ALSO FOR EAST BAY RESIDENTS \n[00:17:09] WHO MAY CHOOSE TO USE THE \n[00:17:10] RICHMOND-SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE \n[00:17:12] PUBLIC ACCESS. AND THE RESTROOM \n[00:17:13] IS A VALUABLE PUBLIC BENEFIT \n[00:17:17] WHICH HAS BEEN ABSENT FOR TOO \n[00:17:20] LONG. NEXT SLIDE. THIS IMAGE \n[00:17:23] FROM GOOGLE EARTH IS A STREET \n[00:17:26] VIEW OR GROUND VIEW OF THE \n[00:17:30] RESTROOM LOOKING TO THE NORTH. \n[00:17:33] THE BEACH IS TO THE RIGHT. \n[00:17:35] FRANCISCO BOULEVARD IS BEHIND \n[00:17:38] THE IMAGE. AND THE PARK\, THE \n[00:17:40] PUBLIC PARKING REQUIRED BY THIS \n[00:17:41] PERMIT IS LOCATED JUST TO THE \n[00:17:43] RIGHT OF THE IMAGE THAT WE SAW \n[00:17:45] IN THE LAST — THE LAST IMAGE \n[00:17:48] THAT I SHOULD HAVE POINTED OUT \n[00:17:53] THERE. SO\, GO AHEAD TO THE NEXT \n[00:17:57] SLIDE\, PLEASE. THE FORMAL \n[00:18:00] ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING SEEKS TO \n[00:18:02] RESOLVE A SINGLE VIOLATION\, THE \n[00:18:05] FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A PUBLIC \n[00:18:07] RESTROOM IN VIOLATION OF PERMIT \n[00:18:11] CONDITION II.B.4 OF THE \n[00:18:13] 1978.028.05 PERMIT. NEXT SLIDE. \n[00:18:15] SO\, WE’LL SPEND MOST OF THE TIME \n[00:18:20] HERE. VERY BRIEFLY\, THE PERMIT \n[00:18:26] AUTHORIZES A PORTION OF TWO \n[00:18:29] COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND FILL \n[00:18:32] PLACEMENT FOR PAVED ROADS AND \n[00:18:33] PARKING IN THE COMMISSION’S \n[00:18:35] 100-FOOT SHORELINE BAND \n[00:18:37] JURISDICTION. AS JUST NOTED\, THE \n[00:18:40] PERMIT REQUIRES A SERIES OF \n[00:18:43] PUBLIC ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS AS \n[00:18:45] USUAL. AND AGAIN\, AS USUAL\, \n[00:18:47] REQUIRES THOSE IMPROVEMENTS TO \n[00:18:49] BE MAINTAINED. AND IN THIS CASE\, \n[00:18:51] THE RESTROOM WAS OPENED\, BUT \n[00:18:54] CLOSED AND THEN FROM THAT POINT \n[00:18:57] NOT MAINTAINED OPEN. THE \n[00:19:01] COMMERCIAL FACILITY HAS BEEN IN \n[00:19:06] USE SINCE AT LEAST 1987\, AND \n[00:19:08] WHILE THE PUBLIC RESTROOM\, AS I \n[00:19:10] JUST NOTED WAS OPENED AND \n[00:19:12] CONSTRUCTED PURSUANT TO APPROVED \n[00:19:15] PLANS IN SEPTEMBER OF 1985\, IT \n[00:19:17] WAS CLOSED SIX MONTHS LATER IN \n[00:19:19] MARCH 1986\, AND HAS REMAINED \n[00:19:20] CLOSED SINCE THEN. BCDC BECAME \n[00:19:23] AWARE OF THIS CLOSURE IN 2015\, \n[00:19:25] AND OPENED AN ENFORCEMENT CASE \n[00:19:29] AND NOTIFIED RESPONDENT OF ITS \n[00:19:32] PERMIT VIOLATION. DESPITE MORE \n[00:19:35] THAN SEVEN YEARS OF EFFORT BY \n[00:19:38] BOTH CITY STAFF AND BCDC STAFF\, \n[00:19:40] ESPECIALLY CITY STAFF\, THE \n[00:19:43] RESTROOMS REMAINED CLOSED. AS A \n[00:19:46] RESULT\, BCDC ISSUED A VIOLATION \n[00:19:49] REPORT ON JANUARY 30\, 2024 TO \n[00:19:51] CAUSE RESOLUTION OF THIS \n[00:19:54] LONGSTANDING VIOLATION. I’M NOT \n[00:19:57] SPENDING TIME ON THE DETAILS \n[00:20:00] DURING THAT SEVEN-YEAR PERIOD. \n[00:20:03] THEY ARE LAID OUT IN THE \n[00:20:05] FINDINGS WITH THE SETTLEMENT \n[00:20:08] AGREEMENT AND THEN THE VIOLATION \n[00:20:10] REPORT THAT WAS PUBLISHED. IF \n[00:20:13] THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS\, THEY \n[00:20:15] CAN BE ANSWERED\, IF RELEVANT. \n[00:20:17] SO\, COMING RIGHT UP TO THE \n[00:20:19] PRESENT\, A WEEK PRIOR TO ISSUING \n[00:20:21] THE VIOLATION REPORT\, I MADE \n[00:20:23] CONTACT WITH FABIOLA\, AND GOT A \n[00:20:26] VERY POSITIVE UPDATE WHICH WAS \n[00:20:29] THAT IN THE INTERVENING TIME \n[00:20:32] BETWEEN THE LAST ENFORCEMENT \n[00:20:34] ANALYST AND MYSELF WORKING ON \n[00:20:37] THE CASE\, THE RESTROOM\, IN FACT\, \n[00:20:40] HAD BEEN RESTORED ACCORDING TO \n[00:20:42] STAFF-APPROVED PLANS. SO\, THAT \n[00:20:46] STEP HAD BEEN ACHIEVED. HOWEVER\, \n[00:20:49] THE NOT SO GOOD NEWS WAS THAT \n[00:20:51] THERE WAS ANOTHER ISSUE\, WHICH \n[00:20:55] WAS THAT THE ELECTRICAL CONDUIT \n[00:20:57] WAS INSTALLED ON PRIVATE\, NOT \n[00:21:00] PUBLIC PROPERTY\, RENDERING PG&E \n[00:21:02] UNWILLING TO TURN POWER ON TO \n[00:21:04] THE RESTROOM UNTIL THAT PRIVATE \n[00:21:07] PROPERTY OWNER HAD PROVIDED AN \n[00:21:09] EASEMENT TO THE CITY. IN ORDER \n[00:21:12] TO SPEED THAT PROCESS UP\, THE \n[00:21:15] CITY NEGOTIATED WITH PG&E AND \n[00:21:18] THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER TO \n[00:21:22] ACCEPT A LETTER WHILE AN \n[00:21:25] EASEMENT IS IN PROCESS. SO\, PG&E \n[00:21:28] AGREED THAT A LETTER WOULD \n[00:21:31] SUFFICE WITH THE COMMITMENT THAT \n[00:21:34] AN EASEMENT WOULD BE \n[00:21:37] FORTHCOMING. AND THAT RESULTED \n[00:21:40] IN PG&E BEING WILLING TO \n[00:21:42] SCHEDULE AN APPOINTMENT\, SITE \n[00:21:44] VISIT TO TURN ON THE POWER ON \n[00:21:47] APRIL 10TH. SO\, THAT IS ALL \n[00:21:50] POSITIVE NEWS. SO\, WITH THAT\, ON \n[00:21:55] MARCH 4TH\, BCDC COUNSEL AND CITY \n[00:22:00] OF SAN RAFAEL COUNSEL HELD A \n[00:22:04] CONFIDENTIAL NEGOTIATION THAT \n[00:22:06] RESULTED IN AN AGREEMENT TO \n[00:22:09] SETTLE THIS MATTER AS FOLLOWS. \n[00:22:11] WE CAN NOW MOVE TO THE NEXT \n[00:22:14] SLIDE. AND\, SO\, THE SETTLEMENT \n[00:22:16] AGREEMENT — IN THE SETTLEMENT \n[00:22:20] AGREEMENT\, THE CITY AGREES BY \n[00:22:24] THE 10TH TO OPEN THE RESTROOM TO \n[00:22:26] THE PUBLIC AND SUBMIT EVIDENCE \n[00:22:29] OF HAVING DONE SO. PHOTOGRAPHIC \n[00:22:32] EVIDENCE AND A PERMIT NOTICE OF \n[00:22:35] COMPLETION THAT CONFIRMS THAT \n[00:22:37] THE FACILITIES HAVE BEEN \n[00:22:40] INSTALLED CONSISTENT WITH THE \n[00:22:43] APPROVED PLANS. AS PART OF THIS \n[00:22:46] SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT\, THE CITY \n[00:22:49] HAS AGREED TO PAY CIVIL PENALTY. \n[00:22:51] THE FULL PENALTY WOULD BE \n[00:22:54] $30\,000 BY MAY 10TH\, OR IF THE \n[00:22:56] CITY DEMONSTRATES THAT IT HAS \n[00:22:58] OPENED THE PUBLIC RESTROOM AS \n[00:23:01] PER THE PRIOR COMMITMENT\, \n[00:23:04] ACCORDING TO APPROVED PLANS AND \n[00:23:06] ALL BY APRIL 27TH\, THEN THE \n[00:23:09] CIVIL PENALTY WOULD BE HALF OF \n[00:23:12] 30\,000\, 15\,000 WOULD BE DUE BY \n[00:23:14] MAY 6TH. IN ADDITION TO OPENING \n[00:23:17] THE PUBLIC RESTROOM\, THERE IS A \n[00:23:19] TEMPORARY PORTA-POTTY\, THAT \n[00:23:24] SHOULD BE REMOVED\, AND THERE IS \n[00:23:27] SOME MISSING LANDSCAPING THAT \n[00:23:29] WILL ALSO BE RESTORED. WITH \n[00:23:32] THAT\, NEXT SLIDE\, STAFF IS \n[00:23:34] THEREFORE RECOMMENDING THAT THE \n[00:23:36] COMMITTEE RECOMMEND THAT THE \n[00:23:39] FULL COMMISSION ADOPT THE \n[00:23:41] PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TO \n[00:23:44] RESOLVE ENFORCEMENT CASE \n[00:23:47] 2015.024. THAT CONCLUDES THE \n[00:23:49] STAFF PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. \n[00:23:52] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:23:54] YOU\, ADRIENNE. I WOULD LIKE TO \n[00:23:57] INVITE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE \n[00:24:01] CITY OF SAN RAFAEL TO MAKE THEIR \n[00:24:03] PRESENTATION OR WHATEVER \n[00:24:06] COMMENTS YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE. \n[00:24:09] >>CONNOR MACLEAN: HI THERE\, \n[00:24:11] CONNOR MACLEAN\, ATTORNEY ON \n[00:24:13] BEHALF OF CITY OF SAN RAFAEL. \n[00:24:16] ADRIENNE\, THANKS SO MUCH FOR \n[00:24:18] WORKING WITH US ON THIS. WE \n[00:24:21] REALLY APPRECIATE IT. I THINK \n[00:24:23] THIS IS A RESULT — THIS \n[00:24:24] SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS A RESULT \n[00:24:25] THAT IS GOOD FOR EVERYONE. IT’S \n[00:24:27] GOOD FOR THE CITY BECAUSE IT \n[00:24:29] SAVES THE CITY MONEY THAT THE \n[00:24:30] CITY CAN USE TO ACTUALLY OPEN \n[00:24:31] THIS RESTROOM\, WHICH IS WHAT \n[00:24:33] EVERYONE HERE WANTS. YOU KNOW\, \n[00:24:35] THE CITY IS ON THE VERGE OF \n[00:24:36] OPENING IT\, AND IT’S A RESULT \n[00:24:38] THAT IS BENEFICIAL TO THE \n[00:24:41] PUBLIC\, TO BCDC AND TO THE CITY. \n[00:24:43] I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY REALLY \n[00:24:45] QUICK\, LET ME KNOW\, MICHAEL\, IF \n[00:24:47] THIS IS YOUR READING OF THE \n[00:24:49] AGREEMENT\, TOO. ADRIENNE\, I \n[00:24:54] THINK SOME OF THE TIMELINE WAS A \n[00:24:58] LITTLE BIT OFF. THE AGREEMENT IS \n[00:25:01] APRIL 27TH\, OPEN THE BATHROOM\, \n[00:25:06] RESTORE — REMOVE THE TEMPORARY \n[00:25:13] TOILET\, HAVE THE WATER FOUNTAINS \n[00:25:16] AVAILABLE\, THEN — SORRY\, APRIL \n[00:25:23] 27TH IS OPEN BATHROOM AND OPEN \n[00:25:25] WATER FOUNTAIN AND WATER BOTTLE \n[00:25:26] FILLING STATION. MAY 6TH IS \n[00:25:28] REMOVE TEMPORARY TOILET\, THERE \n[00:25:31] IS CURRENTLY A PORTA-POTTY \n[00:25:34] THERE\, HAND WASHING STATION\, \n[00:25:36] RESTORE LANDSCAPING. THAT’S BY \n[00:25:38] MAY 6TH. MAY 10TH IS PAYMENT \n[00:25:40] DATE IN ANY CASE. SO MAY 10TH IS \n[00:25:41] IF THAT STUFF DOESN’T HAPPEN\, \n[00:25:45] THEN ON MAY 10TH THE CITY OWES \n[00:25:46] $30\,000. IF THOSE THINGS \n[00:25:48] HAPPENED BY APRIL 27TH AND MAY \n[00:25:50] 6TH\, THEN ON MAY 10TH THE CITY \n[00:25:51] OWES $15\,000. I JUST WANTED TO \n[00:25:53] CONFIRM THAT IS THE — THE \n[00:25:55] CORRECT TIMELINE. \n[00:25:57] >>ADRIENNE KLEIN: I’LL PULL UP \n[00:26:01] THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. I \n[00:26:04] DIDN’T NEGOTIATE IT\, SO MAYBE I \n[00:26:07] READ IT INCORRECTLY. \n[00:26:09] >>CONNOR MACLEAN: YEAH. IT’S ON \n[00:26:12] — IF YOU WANT TO PULL UP THE \n[00:26:14] SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT\, IT’S PAGE \n[00:26:15] SEVEN\, POINT THREE. \n[00:26:27] >>MICHAEL NG: MICHAEL NG\, STAFF \n[00:26:29] ATTORNEY. I ALSO WAS NOT \n[00:26:31] INVOLVED IN THE DRAFTING OF \n[00:26:34] THIS\, I DID READ IT LAST NIGHT. \n[00:26:36] I THINK MY RECOLLECTION — I’M \n[00:26:38] PULLING IT UP. ADRIENNE’S ON MY \n[00:26:41] COMPUTER AT THE MOMENT SO I’M \n[00:26:43] PULLING IT UP ON MY PHONE. MY \n[00:26:46] RECOLLECTION IS THAT CONNOR’S \n[00:26:47] CHARACTERIZATION OF THE TIMING \n[00:26:49] REQUIREMENTS IS ACCURATE. LET ME \n[00:26:50] JUST TAKE A MINUTE TO JUST TAKE \n[00:26:52] A LOOK AT IT AGAIN. SO\, MAY 10TH \n[00:26:54] BEING THE DATE THAT EITHER THE \n[00:27:04] 30\,000 OR THE 15\,000 IS PAID \n[00:27:11] DEPENDING ON WHAT CORRECTIVE \n[00:27:15] ACTION — IF THE CORRECTIVE \n[00:27:18] ACTION IS TAKEN BY APRIL 27TH \n[00:27:22] WITH REGARD TO MAKING THE \n[00:27:28] PERMANENT RESTROOM FACILITIES \n[00:27:31] AND WATER FOUNTAIN/BOTTLE \n[00:27:33] FILLING STATION AVAILABLE BY \n[00:27:35] APRIL 27TH\, AND BY MAY 6TH \n[00:27:37] RESTORING AND REMOVING THE \n[00:27:39] TEMPORARY TOILET AND HAND \n[00:27:41] WASHING STATION AND RESTORING \n[00:27:43] THE LANDSCAPE BEHIND THE \n[00:27:45] RESTROOM. IS THAT YOUR — I \n[00:27:47] THINK THAT’S CONSISTENT WITH \n[00:27:48] WHAT YOU JUST SAID? \n[00:27:50] >>CONNOR MACLEAN: THAT’S RIGHT. \n[00:27:51] THAT’S THE CITY’S UNDERSTANDING \n[00:27:52] AS WELL. \n[00:27:54] >>MICHAEL NG: YEAH. THIS — \n[00:27:56] OBVIOUSLY THIS GOES WITHOUT \n[00:27:58] SAYING\, BUT IF THOSE\, I GUESS\, \n[00:28:01] MILESTONES ARE NOT MET\, PAYMENT \n[00:28:06] BY MAY 10TH OF THE 30\,000 IS \n[00:28:12] ALSO THE DATE BY WHICH THE CITY \n[00:28:15] WOULD HAVE THE PERMANENT \n[00:28:18] RESTROOM OPEN? \n[00:28:23] >>CONNOR MACLEAN: YEAH. YEAH\, I \n[00:28:26] MEAN — \n[00:28:28] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: WAIT A \n[00:28:29] MINUTE. I’M CONFUSED NOW. IT \n[00:28:32] SOUNDS LIKE THE RESTROOM HAD TO \n[00:28:34] BE OPENED BY THE 27TH\, AND IF \n[00:28:36] THAT DIDN’T HAPPEN\, THE 30\,000 \n[00:28:38] WAS DUE — HOLD ON HERE. \n[00:28:40] >>CONNOR MACLEAN: ON THE 10TH. \n[00:28:48] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: ON MAY \n[00:28:50] 10TH. BUT THERE’S NOTHING THAT \n[00:28:51] SAYS THAT IF YOU MISS THE APRIL \n[00:28:52] 27TH DATE THAT THE RESTROOM HAS \n[00:28:55] TO BE OPEN BY MAY 10TH. IS THAT \n[00:28:57] TRUE? \n[00:28:59] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: NO\, THAT’S \n[00:29:01] NOT TRUE. PART ONE OF PAGE SEVEN \n[00:29:04] CEASE AND DESIST CONTAINS THE \n[00:29:07] PHRASE — \n[00:29:10] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: I SEE IT \n[00:29:13] NOW. THANK YOU. \n[00:29:15] >>MICHAEL NG: SO I THINK WE’RE \n[00:29:17] COVERED. \n[00:29:19] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OKAY. \n[00:29:22] SO\, I’M GOING TO ASK THE CITY OF \n[00:29:24] SAN RAFAEL\, DO YOU AGREE TO THE \n[00:29:26] TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT \n[00:29:28] AGREEMENT? \n[00:29:30] >>CONNOR MACLEAN: YEAH. WE’RE AT \n[00:29:33] A SIMILAR PLACE IN ACCEPTING \n[00:29:35] THIS AGREEMENT AS YOU ARE. STAFF \n[00:29:40] RECOMMENDED THE APPROVAL. THE \n[00:29:42] CITY MANAGER SIGNED\, BUT THE \n[00:29:44] CITY MANAGER ONLY HAS AUTHORITY \n[00:29:46] TO SIGN FOR THINGS UP TO \n[00:29:47] $20\,000. SO\, THIS WILL BE ON THE \n[00:29:49] CITY’S AGENDA FOR THE APRIL 15TH \n[00:29:51] CITY COUNCIL HEARING\, AT WHICH \n[00:29:53] STAFF WILL RECOMMEND THE CITY \n[00:29:57] COUNCIL ENTER INTO AND APPROVE \n[00:29:59] THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND WE \n[00:30:01] EXPECT THE CITY COUNCIL WILL \n[00:30:04] ACCEPT. \n[00:30:06] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OKAY. \n[00:30:08] GREAT. DO ANY MEMBERS OF THE \n[00:30:10] ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE HAVE \n[00:30:13] CLARIFYING QUESTIONS OR ANY \n[00:30:15] QUESTIONS FOR EITHER STAFF OR \n[00:30:17] THE CITY? \n[00:30:19] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: MARIE\, THIS IS \n[00:30:21] JOHN. \n[00:30:22] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: YEAH. \n[00:30:23] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: WHAT IF NOTHING \n[00:30:25] HAPPENS? \n[00:30:26] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: DO YOU MEAN \n[00:30:27] IF THE CITY JUST — DO YOU MEAN \n[00:30:29] IF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS \n[00:30:33] NOT APPROVED OR IF THE CITY DOES \n[00:30:34] NOT LIVE UP TO THE TERMS OF THE \n[00:30:35] SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT? \n[00:30:37] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: DOES NOT LIVE UP \n[00:30:38] TO THE TERMS. SOMETHING HAPPENS. \n[00:30:39] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: IN THAT \n[00:30:40] EVENT\, WE HAVE A COUPLE OF \n[00:30:43] OPTIONS. I’M CHANNELING A \n[00:30:45] DISCUSSION WITH GREG I HAD ABOUT \n[00:30:47] THIS YESTERDAY. OPTION — THE \n[00:30:49] POTENTIAL OPTION WOULD BE TO \n[00:30:51] THEN REFER THE MATTER DIRECTLY \n[00:30:53] TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR TO \n[00:30:55] ISSUE AN ORDER THAT ORDERS THE \n[00:30:58] CITY TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF \n[00:31:01] THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. \n[00:31:08] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: DOES THE FINE \n[00:31:10] INCREASE THEN? \n[00:31:11] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: FROM OUR \n[00:31:15] PERSPECTIVE\, NO. BECAUSE WE’RE \n[00:31:17] ALREADY MAXED OUT. WE CAN’T \n[00:31:19] CHARGE MORE THAN 30\,000. \n[00:31:21] HOWEVER\, I’M LESS CLEAR ABOUT \n[00:31:23] HOW IT WORKS IF THIS WERE TO GO \n[00:31:25] TO COURT. \n[00:31:27] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: IT STARTED IN \n[00:31:28] 2015. IT’S BEEN NOW NINE YEARS? \n[00:31:30] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: YES. \n[00:31:32] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: ALL RIGHT. THANK \n[00:31:33] YOU. \n[00:31:38] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: ANY \n[00:31:42] OTHER — REBECCA? \n[00:31:44] >>REBECCA EISEN: SO\, THIS MAY BE \n[00:31:48] FOR MICHAEL\, BUT DOES THE FULL \n[00:31:50] COMMISSION NEED TO ALSO APPROVE \n[00:31:51] THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND IF \n[00:31:53] SO\, IN THE PRESENTATION TO THE \n[00:31:56] COMMISSION\, I THINK THERE SHOULD \n[00:31:59] BE SOME DESCRIPTION\, SUMMARY \n[00:32:02] DESCRIPTION OF WHAT HAPPENED \n[00:32:05] BETWEEN ’86 AND 2015. WHY THERE \n[00:32:10] WAS NO EFFORT TO ENFORCE THE \n[00:32:16] PERMIT DURING THAT 20-SOME-YEAR \n[00:32:19] PERIOD. ALSO\, A SUMMARY \n[00:32:20] DESCRIPTION OF WHY THE \n[00:32:23] NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN 2015 AND \n[00:32:28] NOW HAVE TAKEN THIS LONG. \n[00:32:29] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: OKAY. WE CAN \n[00:32:31] DO THAT. \n[00:32:34] >>REBECCA EISEN: AM I RIGHT THAT \n[00:32:35] THE COMMISSION NEEDS TO APPROVE \n[00:32:37] THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ALSO? \n[00:32:39] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: YOU ARE \n[00:32:40] CORRECT. YES. \n[00:32:42] >>REBECCA EISEN: I THINK WE \n[00:32:43] SHOULD. PEOPLE ARE GOING TO ASK. \n[00:32:45] I WOULD — I WOULD BE ASKING \n[00:32:46] NOW\, BUT I — I GATHER — GO \n[00:32:50] AHEAD. \n[00:32:51] >>ADRIENNE KLEIN: I APOLOGIZE IF \n[00:32:52] I DID NOT PROVIDE ENOUGH \n[00:32:57] BACKGROUND. WE WERE — STAFF WAS \n[00:33:02] NOT AWARE\, COMMISSIONER EISEN\, \n[00:33:04] BEFORE 2015 THAT THE RESTROOM \n[00:33:05] WAS CLOSED. THE CITY\, IN FACT\, \n[00:33:10] SUBMITTED A REQUEST TO AMEND \n[00:33:15] THEIR PERMIT TO REMOVE THE \n[00:33:18] PUBLIC RESTROOM REQUIREMENT IN \n[00:33:20] 2015. AND THAT IS HOW THE BCDC \n[00:33:22] FOUND OUT THAT THE RESTROOM WAS \n[00:33:26] CLOSED. STAFF — THE CITY\, I \n[00:33:28] BELIEVE\, EVENTUALLY WITHDREW \n[00:33:30] THAT REQUEST BASED ON DIRECTION \n[00:33:31] FROM STAFF THAT THEY WERE \n[00:33:32] UNLIKELY TO MAKE A \n[00:33:34] RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO \n[00:33:35] THE COMMISSION AS THAT AMENDMENT \n[00:33:37] WAS CONSIDERED TO BE — LIKELY \n[00:33:42] TO BE A MATERIAL PERMIT \n[00:33:44] AMENDMENT. WE THEN — THIS WAS \n[00:33:47] ACTUALLY MATTHEW’S ENFORCEMENT \n[00:33:49] CASE. SO\, WE USED THE 35-DAY \n[00:33:54] STANDARDIZED FINE LETTER AS THE \n[00:33:55] FIRST TOOL ALONG WITH A LOT OF \n[00:33:58] COMMUNICATION. MATTHEW \n[00:34:00] NEGOTIATED THE PORTA-POTTY\, SO \n[00:34:02] THAT AT LEAST THERE WOULD BE A \n[00:34:06] PUBLIC RESTROOM FACILITY WHILE \n[00:34:08] THE PERMANENT RESTROOM FACILITY \n[00:34:09] WAS BEING REFURBISHED. SO\, IT \n[00:34:11] HAD BEEN CLOSED FOR SO LONG\, I \n[00:34:14] DON’T THINK I EVER KNEW EXACTLY \n[00:34:16] THE DETAILS FROM READING THE \n[00:34:18] RECORD OF THE CONDITION OF THE \n[00:34:20] RESTROOM\, BUT IT WASN’T ABLE TO \n[00:34:22] BE SIMPLY OPENED. I THINK IT \n[00:34:24] NEEDED TO BE WHOLLY \n[00:34:27] RECONSTRUCTED. AND SO THERE WERE \n[00:34:29] A SERIES OF EVENTS THAT I MIGHT \n[00:34:31] CHARACTERIZE AS A BIT OF A \n[00:34:33] TRAGIC COMEDY IN THAT THE CITY\, \n[00:34:35] I BELIEVE\, WITH FULL GOOD FAITH \n[00:34:37] INTENDED ON MANY DIFFERENT \n[00:34:38] OCCASIONS TO TAKE STEP X AND \n[00:34:40] OPEN THE RESTROOM. AND AT THE \n[00:34:41] POINT THAT STAFF WOULD CHECK IN \n[00:34:43] WHEN THAT DUE DATE\, THAT CITY \n[00:34:53] SELF-IMPOSED DUE DATE CAME\, \n[00:34:55] THERE WAS YET ANOTHER TECHNICAL \n[00:34:57] REASON WHY THEY COULDN’T THEN \n[00:34:59] OPEN THE RESTROOM FOR ANOTHER \n[00:35:01] YEAR. SO\, THIS SERIES OF EVENTS \n[00:35:04] OCCURRED OVER THIS EIGHT-YEAR \n[00:35:06] PERIOD. AND STAFF WAS FOR THE \n[00:35:08] MOST PART ENGAGED DURING THAT \n[00:35:11] ENTIRE PERIOD OF TIME. THE LAST \n[00:35:13] COUPLE YEARS WE — I THINK WE \n[00:35:14] HAVEN’T BEEN ENGAGED SO \n[00:35:16] ACTIVELY. COMPLIANCE ANALYST\, \n[00:35:17] FORMER ENFORCEMENT ANALYST JOHN \n[00:35:19] KREECH WAS WORKING ON THE CASE \n[00:35:21] FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS AND IN \n[00:35:23] CLOSE CONTACT WITH FABIOLA. SHE \n[00:35:26] WASN’T PART OF THE PROJECT \n[00:35:30] ORIGINALLY\, BUT BECAME\, I \n[00:35:33] BELIEVE\, THE CITY LEAD. DURING \n[00:35:36] THE PERIOD THAT WE WEREN’T IN \n[00:35:38] CONTACT\, THE CITY DID \n[00:35:41] RECONSTRUCT THE RESTROOM\, WHICH \n[00:35:43] IS GREAT. AND THEN\, AS I HAD \n[00:35:45] MENTIONED\, THEY ENCOUNTERED IN \n[00:35:48] THIS SERIES OF EVENTS ANOTHER \n[00:35:51] OBSTACLE\, UNEXPECTED\, NOT \n[00:35:53] INTENTIONAL\, AND THEY SEEMED TO \n[00:35:57] HAVE NOW WORKED THEIR WAY \n[00:36:01] THROUGH THAT. IT WOULD BE \n[00:36:04] CURIOUS TO KNOW IF THERE’S AN \n[00:36:06] UPDATE ON HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE \n[00:36:09] PG&E TO TURN ON THE POWER. SO\, I \n[00:36:11] HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION. \n[00:36:13] I’M HAPPY TO PROVIDE MORE \n[00:36:15] DETAILS IF YOU HAVE FURTHER \n[00:36:17] QUESTIONS. \n[00:36:19] >>REBECCA EISEN: IT DOES\, BUT IT \n[00:36:20] ALSO LEADS ME TO THINK ABOUT \n[00:36:22] WHAT LESSONS CAN BE LEARNED FROM \n[00:36:37] THIS. PART OF THE PROBLEM SOUNDS \n[00:36:37] LIKE WE RELY OR AT LEAST HAVE IN \n[00:36:38] THE PAST LARGELY RELIED ON \n[00:36:40] SOMEBODY COMING TO US AND \n[00:36:42] SAYING\, GUESS WHAT\, THAT \n[00:36:43] BATHROOM’S NOT OPEN. WE DON’T \n[00:36:46] HAVE ANY METHOD FOR MAKING SURE \n[00:36:49] PERMIT HOLDERS BRING TO OUR \n[00:36:51] ATTENTION ANY ISSUES WITH \n[00:36:53] COMPLIANCE WITH THE PERMIT. \n[00:36:55] THERE MAY BE A DOZEN OTHER \n[00:36:57] THINGS\, BUT I THINK\, YOU KNOW\, \n[00:37:00] GIVEN THAT WE’VE GOT 30-SOME \n[00:37:01] YEARS INVESTED IN THIS\, MAYBE WE \n[00:37:03] CAN SPEND A FEW MINUTES THINKING \n[00:37:08] ABOUT WHAT LESSONS CAN BE \n[00:37:10] LEARNED FROM THIS AND IF THERE \n[00:37:12] CAN BE IMPROVEMENTS IN PROCESSES \n[00:37:16] GIVEN WHAT’S HAPPENED IN THIS \n[00:37:19] CASE\, WHETHER WE CAN USE IT AS A \n[00:37:25] LEARNING — SOUNDS LIKE WE CAN’T \n[00:37:27] GET MORE MONEY OUT OF IT\, MAYBE \n[00:37:30] WE CAN GET SOME LEARNING OUT OF \n[00:37:32] IT. \n[00:37:35] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: WELL\, SO \n[00:37:37] WE — YES. WE LEARNED A LOT FROM \n[00:37:39] THIS CASE. AS YOU PROBABLY HAVE \n[00:37:41] DISCERNED\, THIS CASE WAS OPEN \n[00:37:44] PRIOR TO THE REINVIGORATION \n[00:37:47] ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM BEFORE WE \n[00:37:48] HAD THE ESTABLISHMENT WHICH WAS \n[00:37:50] THE RECOMMENDATION BY THE \n[00:37:51] AUDITOR OF A COMPLIANCE PROGRAM \n[00:37:53] AS WELL AS ANOTHER \n[00:37:54] RECOMMENDATION\, WHICH IS TO DO \n[00:37:56] MORE IN TERMS OF GETTING OUT \n[00:37:59] INTO THE COMMUNITY TO MONITOR\, \n[00:38:01] PATROL THE SITE. WHILE I DON’T \n[00:38:03] BELIEVE BECAUSE THIS WAS AN \n[00:38:04] ACTIVE CASE\, I BELIEVE THAT \n[00:38:08] THE — CORRECT ME IF I’M WRONG\, \n[00:38:09] ADRIENNE\, THEY WERE ONLY LOOKING \n[00:38:11] AT RESOLVED CASES\, THIS IS \n[00:38:12] CERTAINLY ONE THAT WAS TOP OF \n[00:38:14] MIND THROUGHOUT THAT PROCESS. \n[00:38:16] I’M NOT GOING TO NECESSARILY \n[00:38:18] MAKE EXCUSES FOR WHY IT’S TAKEN \n[00:38:19] SO LONG POST-AUDIT\, OTHER THAN \n[00:38:21] JUST TO SAY THAT THE \n[00:38:23] PRACTICALITIES HAVE NOT ALLOWED \n[00:38:24] US TO RESOLVE THIS CASE FULLY. \n[00:38:26] THIS PG&E ISSUE\, FOR EXAMPLE\, \n[00:38:29] HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A COUPLE \n[00:38:33] OF YEARS\, AT LEAST\, WHERE WE \n[00:38:36] CHECKED IN\, WHAT’S GOING ON WITH \n[00:38:40] THE RESTROOM. IT’S PG&E. THEN \n[00:38:44] EVENTUALLY THE REASON WHY IT’S \n[00:38:47] NOW IN FRONT OF YOU IS BECAUSE \n[00:38:49] WE JUST NEEDED — WE NEED \n[00:38:52] RESOLUTION. WE CAN’T HAVE THESE \n[00:38:54] LONGSTANDING CASES\, EIGHT\, NINE \n[00:38:57] YEARS IS TOO LONG FOR ANY CASE \n[00:38:59] TO STAY OPEN POST-AUDIT\, POST \n[00:39:01] REINVIGORATION. WE’RE TRYING TO \n[00:39:02] MOVE THOSE THINGS THROUGH. YES\, \n[00:39:04] WE DO LEARN FROM THESE. \n[00:39:06] UNFORTUNATELY THIS WILL NOT \n[00:39:07] PROBABLY BE THE ONLY EXAMPLE \n[00:39:08] THAT COMES BEFORE YOU OF A \n[00:39:10] LONGSTANDING CASE THAT TAKES \n[00:39:11] FOREVER TO RESOLVE\, BUT WE’RE ON \n[00:39:12] TOP OF IT. \n[00:39:14] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: JOHN? \n[00:39:16] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: THANK YOU\, \n[00:39:18] REBECCA. WE WENT THROUGH THIS \n[00:39:19] SOME YEARS AGO. HOW DO WE CHECK \n[00:39:25] BACK AND MAKE SURE THAT THE \n[00:39:26] PERMITS ARE COMPLETED? WE RELIED \n[00:39:28] ON OTHER AGENCIES TO DO THOSE \n[00:39:30] IMPROVEMENTS\, IN SOME CASES IT’S \n[00:39:31] THE DEVELOPER\, IN SOME CASES \n[00:39:33] IT’S THE CITY. BECAUSE WE — WE \n[00:39:34] ONLY HAD A FEW MEMBERS IN THE \n[00:39:36] ENFORCEMENT AND THE AUDIT \n[00:39:38] INDICATED THAT THAT WAS PART OF \n[00:39:40] THE PROBLEM\, TOO. WE’VE HAD \n[00:39:42] THESE DISCUSSIONS OVER THE \n[00:39:43] YEARS. MARIE CAN REMEMBER US \n[00:39:44] STARTING WITH THE AUDIT\, LOOKING \n[00:39:46] AT THE WAY ENFORCEMENT WAS \n[00:39:48] HANDLED. IT WAS A LOT OF WORK \n[00:39:49] FOR THE SMALL GROUP OF STAFF WE \n[00:39:51] HAD. IT WAS ENOUGH JUST TO WORK \n[00:39:52] ON THE STAFF THAT CAME BEFORE \n[00:39:54] US\, LET ALONE BEING ABLE TO LOOK \n[00:39:56] BACK AND SAY DID THAT PERMIT GET \n[00:39:58] COMPLETELY COMPLETED? DID \n[00:40:00] EVERYBODY CHECK THINGS OFF? WE \n[00:40:02] EVEN TALKED ABOUT IN THE CASE OF \n[00:40:06] BUILDING\, MAYBE WE’RE THE LAST \n[00:40:09] PERSON THAT SIGNS OFF FOR THE \n[00:40:12] OCCUPANCY PERMIT. IN THE PAST WE \n[00:40:16] HAVE BEEN RELYING ON OTHER \n[00:40:18] AGENCIES\, AS I SAID EARLIER\, TO \n[00:40:20] MAKE SURE THE WORK HAD BEEN \n[00:40:22] DONE\, YOU KNOW\, PATHWAYS MIGHT \n[00:40:24] BE TOO SMALL. THIS CASE\, THE \n[00:40:27] BATHROOM NEVER GOT OPENED\, BUT \n[00:40:28] WHO REALLY SUFFERED WAS THE \n[00:40:30] PUBLIC ITSELF FOR SO LONG. YES\, \n[00:40:32] WE DO RELY ON THE COMMUNITY TO \n[00:40:34] LET US KNOW WHEN THINGS ARE \n[00:40:36] NOT — WE’LL GET THERE\, BUT\, AS \n[00:40:38] MATTHEW SAID\, SOME OF THESE \n[00:40:40] OLDER CASES\, THEY’VE JUST BEEN \n[00:40:41] HANGING AROUND. I KNOW AS A \n[00:40:43] MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION\, \n[00:40:45] SOMETIMES IT’S FRUSTRATING\, BUT \n[00:40:47] HAVING SPENT ALL THAT TIME GOING \n[00:40:49] THROUGH THE AUDIT AND WORKING ON \n[00:40:51] SOME NEW RULES AND SOME NEW \n[00:40:52] PROCEDURES FOR — AND MORE \n[00:40:55] STAFF\, AGAIN\, IT WAS A SMALL \n[00:40:57] STAFF\, A LOT OF WORK TO DO. \n[00:41:01] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: IF I MAY ON \n[00:41:05] THAT NOTE\, WE ARE CURRENTLY \n[00:41:07] LOOKING AT GOING THROUGH THE \n[00:41:09] PROCESS OF A MISSION-BASED \n[00:41:11] REVIEW ON THE REGULATORY OR \n[00:41:13] PERMIT SIDE WHERE WE’RE LOOKING \n[00:41:15] AT HOW AND WHETHER WE SHOULD \n[00:41:16] RE-CONCEPTUALIZE OUR PERMIT \n[00:41:19] CONDITIONS AND I’M WONDERING IF \n[00:41:21] PERHAPS WE’RE LOOKING AT\, FOR \n[00:41:22] EXAMPLE\, INCORPORATING MORE \n[00:41:30] COMPLIANCE INTO THAT\, TOO. I \n[00:41:31] BELIEVE THAT THAT WILL BE COMING \n[00:41:32] BEFORE THE COMMISSION FOR A \n[00:41:33] BRIEFING AND THE VERY NEAR \n[00:41:34] FUTURE. \n[00:41:37] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OKAY. \n[00:41:38] THANK YOU\, REBECCA\, FOR THAT \n[00:41:40] QUESTION. THIS KIND OF BRINGS MY \n[00:41:41] SET OF COMMENTS FULL-CIRCLE. \n[00:41:44] NUMBER ONE\, IT IS NOT UNUSUAL \n[00:41:47] AND AS A MATTER OF FACT VERY \n[00:41:49] COMMON FOR PUBLIC AGENCIES TO \n[00:41:52] RELY ON THE PUBLIC TO BE THEIR \n[00:41:55] EYES AND EARS BECAUSE MOST \n[00:41:57] PUBLIC AGENCIES JUST DO NOT HAVE \n[00:42:06] THE RESOURCES IN TERMS OF PEOPLE \n[00:42:07] TO ACTUALLY BE OUT ON THE \n[00:42:08] GROUND\, YOU KNOW\, LOOKING FOR \n[00:42:09] VIOLATIONS OR\, YOU KNOW\, \n[00:42:11] WHATEVER. WHETHER IT’S US\, THE \n[00:42:12] CITY OF SAN RAFAEL\, OTHER \n[00:42:13] CITIES\, WE RELY ON THE PUBLIC TO \n[00:42:15] BE OUR EYES AND EARS. THAT’S \n[00:42:17] NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO\, THIS \n[00:42:19] GETS BACK TO WHAT I ASKED ABOUT \n[00:42:22] EARLIER IN TERMS OF SOFTWARE. \n[00:42:24] WE’VE HAD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT HOW \n[00:42:28] HARD IT IS TO TRACK OUR PERMITS \n[00:42:29] IN TERMS OF COMPLIANCE — NOT IN \n[00:42:31] TERMS OF\, LIKE\, ARE THEY OUT OF \n[00:42:33] COMPLIANCE\, BUT WHAT ARE THE \n[00:42:35] TIMELINES THAT ARE SET IN THESE \n[00:42:37] PERMITS FOR COMPLIANCE? LIKE\, WE \n[00:42:40] ISSUE A PERMIT TODAY\, AND \n[00:42:42] THERE’S SEVERAL MILESTONES THAT \n[00:42:43] HAVE TO BE TRACKED. IN THE PAST\, \n[00:42:46] IT’S BEEN HARD TO DO THAT \n[00:42:49] BECAUSE STAFF HAS BEEN DOING IT \n[00:42:52] BASICALLY BY HAND OR WITH THE \n[00:42:54] SPREADSHEET. AND THAT’S PART OF \n[00:42:55] MY COMMENT ABOUT\, YOU KNOW\, WHAT \n[00:42:58] SOFTWARE OR SYSTEMS DO WE HAVE \n[00:43:00] IN PLACE TO MAKE IT EASIER TO \n[00:43:03] TRACK THAT KIND OF THING? SO\, I \n[00:43:07] KIND OF FEEL LIKE THIS CAME BACK \n[00:43:10] FULL CIRCLE TO WHAT I ASKED \n[00:43:12] ABOUT\, YOU KNOW\, IN THE \n[00:43:14] BEGINNING. IT’S A PROBLEM\, \n[00:43:16] BECAUSE I HAVE NO IDEA\, IF\, FOR \n[00:43:21] INSTANCE\, THE SOFTWARE WE NEED \n[00:43:23] EXISTS\, AND IF IT DOES\, HOW MUCH \n[00:43:26] IT COSTS OR IF IT HAS TO BE \n[00:43:28] CREATED FROM SCRATCH AND HOW \n[00:43:29] MUCH THAT COSTS. THESE ARE ALL \n[00:43:32] ISSUES THAT I THINK\, YOU KNOW\, \n[00:43:34] WE AT BCDC HAVE TO GRAPPLE WITH. \n[00:43:36] I’M SURE THERE ARE A LOT OF \n[00:43:39] OTHER PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS AND \n[00:43:41] CITIES THAT ARE DOING THE SAME \n[00:43:43] THING. SO — OKAY. IT OCCURS \n[00:43:48] TO ME THAT I HAVE NOT ASKED \n[00:43:50] FOR — REBECCA? \n[00:43:53] >>REBECCA EISEN: I JUST HAD A \n[00:43:54] QUICK FOLLOW-UP. I DON’T KNOW IF \n[00:43:58] OUR PERMITS ALREADY HAVE THIS IN \n[00:44:00] THEM\, BUT IS IT POSSIBLE TO \n[00:44:01] HAVE — IT SOUNDS LIKE THE CITY \n[00:44:03] OF SAN RAFAEL ITSELF MAY NOT \n[00:44:05] HAVE BEEN AWARE THAT IT — YOU \n[00:44:08] KNOW\, A PART OF ITS PERMIT \n[00:44:09] OBLIGATIONS HAD NOT BEEN \n[00:44:11] FULFILLED OR HAD LAPSED. IS \n[00:44:13] THERE SOME PROCESS IN THE PERMIT \n[00:44:14] WHERE EVERY — I DON’T KNOW\, \n[00:44:16] EVERY FIVE YEARS OR SOMETHING \n[00:44:18] THAT THE PERMITEE CONFIRMS OR \n[00:44:19] REAFFIRMS THAT THE PERMIT \n[00:44:23] CONDITIONS ARE STILL BEING MET? \n[00:44:27] SOMETHING LIKE THAT? SO THAT \n[00:44:32] THEY WOULD THEN HAVE TO CHECK \n[00:44:36] AND MAKE SURE EVERYTHING THAT \n[00:44:39] THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE DONE \n[00:44:42] IS STILL BEING DONE. I DON’T — \n[00:44:44] I MEAN\, IT’S A — MATTHEW\, IT’S \n[00:44:47] JUST SOMETHING TO SORT OF STICK \n[00:44:49] IN YOUR THINKING BOX\, BECAUSE IT \n[00:44:51] SOUNDS LIKE YOU’RE ALREADY DOING \n[00:44:53] A LOT OF THINKING TO IMPROVE OUR \n[00:44:55] PROCESSES. I DON’T KNOW IF \n[00:44:57] THAT’S SOMETHING TO BE USEFUL. I \n[00:44:58] WANTED TO GET IT OUT THERE WHILE \n[00:45:00] IT WAS STILL ON THE TOP OF MY \n[00:45:04] MIND. \n[00:45:06] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: I THINK \n[00:45:08] THAT’S A GREAT IDEA. I WOULD \n[00:45:10] JUST — I GUESS ASSURE YOU IN \n[00:45:12] OUR PERMITS ALREADY THERE IS \n[00:45:13] LANGUAGE TO THE EFFECT THAT \n[00:45:15] CLARIFIES THAT IT IS THE \n[00:45:20] PERMITEE’S RESPONSIBILITY TO \n[00:45:23] MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE THROUGHOUT. \n[00:45:25] YEAH\, I GUESS I SHARE YOUR \n[00:45:29] CONCERN\, IF I’M INTERPRETING IT \n[00:45:32] CORRECTLY\, THAT MAYBE IT’S NOT \n[00:45:34] AS ROBUST AS IT COULD BE AND WE \n[00:45:37] NEED TO THINK ABOUT HOW TO MAKE \n[00:45:39] THAT A BIT MORE ROBUST. \n[00:45:41] >>REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU. \n[00:45:44] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: I SEE \n[00:45:46] SHARI POSNER. I DIDN’T KNOW IF \n[00:45:47] YOU WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING. \n[00:45:49] >>SHARI POSNER: THIS SOUNDS \n[00:45:51] LIKE\, PERHAPS — THIS IS UP TO \n[00:45:52] THE COMMITTEE\, IT SOUNDS LIKE \n[00:45:53] MAYBE SOME SORT OF PRESENTATION \n[00:45:54] FROM THE PERMIT COMPLIANCE GROUP \n[00:45:56] OR WORKING GROUP OR DISCUSSION \n[00:45:57] MIGHT BE IN ORDER. BECAUSE THERE \n[00:45:58] ARE A LOT OF IDEAS HERE\, AND \n[00:46:00] SOMETHING TO SOMETHING AS A \n[00:46:08] FUTURE AGENDA ITEM MAYBE. \n[00:46:09] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: I LIKE \n[00:46:10] THAT SUGGESTION. IT KIND OF \n[00:46:11] SOUNDS LIKE WE’RE ALL ASKING THE \n[00:46:12] SAME SORTS OF QUESTIONS. SO\, I’M \n[00:46:14] GOING TO ASK MATTHEW\, IF YOU \n[00:46:16] WOULD AGENDIZE THAT FOR A FUTURE \n[00:46:19] MEETING. \n[00:46:21] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: YES\, I WILL. \n[00:46:24] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OKAY. \n[00:46:25] THANK YOU. I’M SORRY\, DID I ASK \n[00:46:27] FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? I DON’T \n[00:46:29] THINK I DID. ANY MEMBERS OF THE \n[00:46:32] PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT \n[00:46:36] ON THIS ITEM? \n[00:46:38] >>MODERATOR: I SEE NO HANDS \n[00:46:40] RAISED\, CHAIR GILMORE. \n[00:46:42] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:46:44] YOU. ALL RIGHT. IF THERE ARE NO \n[00:46:52] FINAL QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM \n[00:46:55] THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS\, I WILL \n[00:46:58] ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL \n[00:47:01] TO APPROVE THE EXECUTIVE \n[00:47:03] DIRECTOR’S RECOMMENDED \n[00:47:06] ENFORCEMENT DECISION REGARDING \n[00:47:08] THE PROPOSED STIPULATED CEASE \n[00:47:10] AND DESIST ORDERS TODAY. \n[00:47:13] >>REBECCA EISEN: SO MOVED. \n[00:47:16] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: SECOND. \n[00:47:18] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: WE HAVE \n[00:47:20] A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER EISEN \n[00:47:22] AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER \n[00:47:25] VASQUEZ. MATTHEW\, COULD YOU \n[00:47:26] PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? \n[00:47:28] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: I’M SORRY\, \n[00:47:29] MAY I CLARIFY\, DID YOU SAY CEASE \n[00:47:30] AND DESIST ORDER? IT’S THE \n[00:47:31] SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. \n[00:47:33] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: I’M \n[00:47:34] SORRY. \n[00:47:36] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: DOES THAT \n[00:47:37] MEAN WE HAVE TO REDO IT? I’M NOT \n[00:47:38] SURE. \n[00:47:40] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: LET’S \n[00:47:41] REDO IT SO WE HAVE A CLEAR \n[00:47:43] RECORD. OKAY. CAN I HAVE A \n[00:47:44] MOTION TO APPROVE THE \n[00:47:46] RECOMMENDED SETTLEMENT \n[00:47:47] AGREEMENT? \n[00:47:49] >>REBECCA EISEN: SO MOVED. \n[00:47:50] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: SECOND. \n[00:47:54] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OKAY. WE \n[00:47:58] HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER \n[00:48:00] EISEN AND A SECOND FROM \n[00:48:03] COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ. NOW\, \n[00:48:05] MATTHEW\, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL \n[00:48:07] ROLL? \n[00:48:09] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: OKAY. \n[00:48:11] COMMISSIONER EISEN? \n[00:48:13] >>REBECCA EISEN: YEA. \n[00:48:16] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: COMMISSIONER \n[00:48:19] VASQUEZ? \n[00:48:20] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: YES. \n[00:48:22] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: CHAIR \n[00:48:23] GILMORE? \n[00:48:24] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: YES. THE \n[00:48:24] MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK \n[00:48:25] YOU VERY MUCH\, COMMITTEE \n[00:48:26] MEMBERS. AND I WILL NOW — THANK \n[00:48:27] YOU TO THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL. \n[00:48:29] WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENDANCE \n[00:48:30] AND YOUR PARTICIPATION TODAY. \n[00:48:32] SO\, COMMITTEE MEMBERS\, I WILL \n[00:48:35] NOW ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO \n[00:48:38] ADJOURN. \n[00:48:40] >>REBECCA EISEN: SO MOVED. \n[00:48:43] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: SECOND. \n[00:48:46] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OKAY. WE \n[00:48:48] HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. \n[00:48:50] MOTION BY COMMISSIONER EISEN\, A \n[00:48:51] SECOND BY COMMISSIONER VAZQUEZ. \n[00:48:53] IS THERE ANYBODY WHO OBJECTS TO \n[00:48:55] THIS MOTION? SEEING NO \n[00:48:57] OBJECTIONS\, WE ARE ADJOURNED. \n[00:49:00] THANK YOU\, EVERYONE. HAVE A NICE \n[00:49:02] DAY. \n[00:49:04] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: THANK YOU \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/march-27-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240327T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240327T170000
DTSTAMP:20260525T222127
CREATED:20240130T054827Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240315T205819Z
UID:10000151-1711544400-1711558800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:March 27\, 2024 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/march-27-2024-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240404T100000
DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240404T120000
DTSTAMP:20260525T222127
CREATED:20240528T231030Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240628T213525Z
UID:10000182-1712224800-1712232000@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:April 4\, 2024 Rising Sea Level Commissioner Working Group
DESCRIPTION:Meeting Notice \nPresentation
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/april-4-2024-rising-sea-level-commissioner-working-group/
CATEGORIES:Rising Sea Level Working Group
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240404T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240404T170000
DTSTAMP:20260525T222127
CREATED:20240118T072724Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250320T170431Z
UID:10000094-1712235600-1712250000@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:April 4\, 2024 Commission Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 189 (2022). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed above. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco415-352-3600 \n\n\nEast Sonoma County Services Center19080 Lomita Ave.Sonoma\, CA 95476 \nCNRA Building715 P StreetSacramento\, CA 95814 \n675 Texas Street\, Ste. 6002Fairfield\, CA 94533 \n\n\nOffice of Santa Clara County Supervisor Otto Lee70 W Hedding St.East Wing\, 10th FloorSan Jose\, CA 95110 \n112 Trellis Dr.San Rafael\, CA 94903 \n3833 Lakeshore Ave.Oakland\, CA 94610 \n\n\nCaltrans Building\, District 4111 Grand Ave.\, #300Oakland\, CA 94612 \nMountain View City Hall500 Castro St.Mountain View\, CA 94041 \n440 Civic Center PlazaRichmond\, CA 94804 \n\n\nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting.  \nJoin the meeting via Zoomhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/82730794235?pwd=Oxzl_O4peQ4TubUxFGJ-ZdceIADgBQ.jmU5A8BhMGajSi8H \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055 Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID827 3079 4235 \nPasscode292270 \nIf you call in by telephone: \n\nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourself\nPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak\n \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period (Each speaker is limited to three minutes) A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nApproval of Minutes for February 15\, 2024 Meeting(Reylina Ruiz) [415/352-3638; reylina.ruiz@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]Public Comment\nPublic Hearing and Vote on an Enforcement Committee Recommended Enforcement Decision\, including Proposed Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order Number CCD2024.001.00 (BCDC Enforcement Case ER2021.080.00)The Commission will hold a public hearing to address the permit violation and unauthorized development at 660 Bridgeway Boulevard\, Sausalito\, Marin County\, and vote on whether to adopt a Recommended Enforcement Decision proposed by the Enforcement Committee which includes a proposed Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order to require compliance at the site and payment of $60\,000 in administrative civil liability.(Rachel Cohen) [415/352-3661; rachel.cohen@bcdc.ca.govPresentation // Public comment letters\nPublic Hearing and Vote on an Enforcement Committee Recommended Enforcement Decision\, including Proposed Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order Number CCD2024.001.00 (BCDC Enforcement Case ER2021.080.00)The Commission will receive a briefing and consider authorizing the Executive Director to amend an existing contract with the Resource Legacy Fund to administer funding to BCDC’s Environmental Justice Advisors as payment for their services related to implementing Bay Plan Environmental Justice and Social Equity Policies and Bay Adapt. The amendment will add $106\,000 and extent the time period to June 30\, 2025\, bringing the total to $180\,000.00.(Phoenix Armenta) [415/352-3604; phoenix.armenta@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nAdjournment – in honor of the late Joe Bodovitz\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				This report lists the administrative permit applications that have been filed and are pending with the Commission. The Executive Director will take the action indicated on the matters unless the Commission determines that it is necessary to hold a public hearing. The staff members to whom the matters have been assigned are indicated at the end of the project descriptions. Inquiries should be directed to the assigned staff member prior to the Commission meeting. \nAdministrative Permit Applications \n\nApplicants\n\n\nEagle Rock Aggregates 1055 West Georgia Street\, Suite 2740 Vancouver\, BC V6E 35R\, Canada Port of Oakland 530 Water Street Oakland\, CA 94607\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2022.008.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\n01/17/2024\n\n\n90th Day\n04/16/2024\n\n\nLocation  \nWithin the Commission’s 100-foot shoreline band jurisdiction and within a Bay Plan-designated Port Priority Use Area\, at Berth 22 at the Port of Oakland\, at 1699 Maritime Street\, in the City of Oakland\, Alameda County.\n\n\nDescription\n\nConstruct and temporarily use\, through June 30\, 2035\, portions of an aggregate marine terminal to receive sand and aggregate dry bulk cargo from ships\, including: \n\nTwo barge loading radial stackers with the ability to rotate approximately 175 degrees\, the first with the ability to extend to 190 feet long (at the maximum extended position and lowest vertical angle\, it could extend approximately 112 feet past the face of the dock over the Bay)\, and the second with the ability to extend to 150 feet long (at the maximum extended length and lowest vertical angle\, it could extend approximately 90 feet past the face of the dock over the Bay);\nA conveyor transfer platform\, approximately 23 feet high\, with a footprint of approximately 340 square feet;\nApproximately 48 square feet of an approximately 192-square-foot\, 12-foot-tall building to be used as a marine operations break room\, with an ADA ramp and landing;\nA Portable ADA restroom and ADA ramp;\nApproximately 166 feet of an 8-foot-high chain link fence and a 12-foot-long swing gate along the northwest corner of the site;\nApproximately 76 feet of an 8-foot-high chain link fence and a 24-foot-long swing gate along the southwest corner of the site; and\nShore power infrastructure\, including two shore power vaults\, each covering approximately 33 square feet\, flush with the edge and surface of the dock\, and approximately 200 linear feet of conduits within a support structure mounted to the underside of the wharf.\n\nEagle Rock Aggregates’ lease with the Port of Oakland includes two options to extend the term (a 10-year option and a 5-year option)\, subject to mutual agreement\, such that the maximum extended lease term would expire June 30\, 2050. The permittees may request to extend the authorization period of this permit through a permit amendment upon extension of the Port of Oakland lease. \n\n\nTentative Staff Position\nRecommend approval with conditions. Katharine Pan; 415/352-3650 or katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\nSan Rafael Sanitation District 111 Morphew Street San Rafael\, CA 94901\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.010.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\n01/19/2024\n\n\n90th Day\n04/18/2024\n\n\nLocation  \nWithin the Commission’s 100-foot shoreline band jurisdiction\, at 177 Oak Drive\, 179 Oak Drive\, 181 Oak Drive\, and 183 Oak Drive\, in the Bayside Acres neighborhood located partially in the City of San Rafael and partially in unincorporated Marin County.\n\n\nDescription\n\nInstall new underground sump pumps and sewer lateral connections at four contiguous private residential properties\, involving: \n\nLay approximately 524 linear feet of new pipeline and electrical conduit ranging in diameter from 1 to 2 inches;\nExcavate 4 approximately 20-square-foot by 5-foot-deep basins to install the new sump pumps;\nRealign the existing gravity sewer pipelines to connect to the new sump pumps;\nRemove 2 existing manholes;\nCap-in-place and abandon the existing sanitary sewer crossing the four properties; and\nReturn the sites to pre-existing conditions.\n\nThe project is Phase B1 of the larger Bayside Acres Sewer Main Improvements Project\, an effort by the San Rafael Sanitation District to decommission and replace an existing\, deteriorating sewer system. Phase A\, completed in fall 2022\, consisted of constructing sewer main pipeline outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction. The District plans to install new underground sump pumps at an additional approximately 16 homes as part of a future phase of work. The final phase of the project will involve decommissioning the existing sewer pipeline in the beach. \n\n\nTentative Staff Position\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Jessica Finkel\, Project Manager; 415/352-3614 or jessica.finkel@bcdc.ca.gov\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\nWaldo Point Harbor 1 C Gate Five Road Sausalito\, CA 94965\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. 2002.001.09 \n\n\n\nFiled\n02/27/2024\n\n\n90th Day\n05/27/2024\n\n\nLocation  \nWithin the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot shoreline jurisdictions\, at 1-C Gate Five Road\, near the City of Sausalito\, in unincorporated Marin County.\n\n\nDescription\nRenew the existing BCDC permit authorizing and conditioning the use and maintenance of Waldo Point Harbor houseboat marina for a potential additional 20 year period\, consistent with San Francisco Bay Plan Other Uses of the Bay and Shoreline Policy 4 and following a completed review of the public trust uses of the project area. No additional expansion of the houseboat marina\, or intensification of use of the marina is authorized through this amendment above the existing 273 houseboats\, 9 arks\, one harbor maintenance area\, and associated marina facilities\, such as docks. All existing conditions of the current permit will remain in effect\, including maintenance of shoreside public access areas and protection of Bay resources. No additional fill or public access improvements are included as part of this authorization.\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\nRecommend approval with conditions. Sam Fielding; (415) 352-3665 or sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\nThe Fallen Oak Trust P.O. Box 5197 San Mateo\, CA 94402\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2022.029.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\n02/18/2024\n\n\n90th Day\n05/18/2024\n\n\nLocation  \nWithin the Commission’s Bay jurisdiction\, at 95 West Shore Road\, Belvedere\, in Marin County.\n\n\nDescription\n\nRepair and renovate an overwater single-family home and address structural deficiencies\, to consist of: \n\nRepairing 23 existing steel piles;\nRemoving 6 creosote timber piles;\nInstalling 4 new steel H-piles;\nAdding 16 sets of steel cross bracing between the pilings; and\nRepairing existing concrete cross braces.\n\nThe Project will also replace an existing 275-square-foot deck\, relocate a 24-square-foot section of the deck\, replace in-kind an existing 3\,000-pound boat lift\, and install a new 80-square-foot motorized kayak platform. The permit will be conditioned to protect eelgrass habitat and species with potential presence in the project vicinity\, including all decking and platforms to maintain a minimum 40 percent light transmittance and to be constructed with untreated timber\, piles to be driven with the use of a cushion block\, all in-water work to be restricted to the environmental work window\, and pre- and post-construction eelgrass surveys to be conducted. The project will result in the removal of approximately 4.88 square feet of solid creosote timber fill\, and a decrease of approximately 24 square feet of overwater shading from treated timber deck removal. \n\n\nTentative Staff Position\nRecommend approval with conditions. Sam Fielding; (415) 352-3665 or sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Articles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nWould California bridges stand up to a direct hit? We asked experts\nAs tides turn\, anchor-outs reach for a way off the bay\nRemembering Joe Bodovitz\nCalifornia coastal advocate Joe Bodovitz dies at 93\nPioneer who helped save San Francisco Bay and California coast dies at 93\n‘People who move here don’t leave’: Why this rich California enclave is bracing homes for rising seas\nFresh batch of YIMBY housing bills clash with California’s coastal protections\nRichmond-San Rafael Bridge pedestrian lane may soon be removed after four-year pilot\nOn this Bay Area bridge\, a celebrated bike path might revert to being a breakdown lane for cars\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				\nApril 4\, 2024 meeting minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				 \nAudio transcript \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: good afternoon all welcome to another hybrid meeting of bcdc. We’re going to start with a video. Welcome to this meeting of the san francisco bay conservation and development commission. This commission meeting will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the bagley-keene open meeting act. Commissioners are located both at metro center and at publicly accessible venues throughout the bay area as specified on the meeting notice. Commissioners who participate virtually will keep their cameras on throughout the meeting so they will be visible to the public for members of the public attending virtually\, if you would like to speak either during the public comment period\, which is item three on the agenda or during a period reserved for public comment during another agenda item you will need to do so in one of two ways. First if you are attending virtually on zoom\, please raise your hand in zoom.to do so click the participants icon at the bottom of your screen\, find your name and the small hand to the left and click on that hand. If you are joining our meeting via phone\, you must press star six on your key pad to unmute your phone to make a comment. Individuals who have raised their hands will be called in the order they have been raised and they will be unmuted. Attending this meeting in-person either at metro center or at a publicly noticed teleconference location who want to address the commission should follow the protocol at your location. Those attending the meeting at the metro center will use the podium on their right. Wherever you choose to attend from please state your name to provide your comments. All members of the public will be allowed three minutes to address the commission at the discretion of the chair.comments must be respectful and focused each individual has the responsibility to act in a civil manner without using hate speech director\, indirect threats\, and/or abusive language. Bcdc has also established an e-mail address to compile public comments its address public comment at bcdc@ca.Gov. E-mails received before ten this morning have been shared with the commissioners and any received since then will also be shared with the commissioners and the public. Welcome to this meeting of the san francisco bay conservation development \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: with that and my very short additional comments that I hope that we do not need to worry about being zoom bombed by virtual speakers; we have not been. But if that occurs\, you I have a fairly stern gavel. Please call the roll. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: chair wasserman? \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: here. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: sorry\, chair wasserman. Vice chair eisen? \n>>v. Chair\, Rebecca Eisen: here. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: addiego? \n>>speaker: here. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: benson? \n>>Stephen Benson: here. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: eckerly? \n>>Jenn Eckerle: here. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: ecklund. \n>>Pat Ecklund: present. And I am located on the front porch at charles drive san rafael\, and there is no one else here except the beautiful blue sky and some clouds but the sun is out and life is great. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: thank you.commissioner gilmore? \n>>: here. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: commissioner gunther? \n>>Andrew Gunther: here. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: commissioner lee? \n>>Otto Lee: present. Santa clara. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: thank you. Commissioner nelson? \n>>Barry Nelson: here. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: commissioner pine? \n>>Dave Pine: present. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: Randolph? \n>>Sean Randolph: here. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: showalter? \n>>Patricia Showalter: here. I’m at mountain view city hall. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: thank you. Commissioner vazquez? \n>>John Vasquez: here. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: zepeda? \n>>Cesar Zepeda: here. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: did I forget anyone? 17 commissioners present. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: thank you. We have a quorum\, so we can conduct business. A organizational announcement. We’re going to switch items 8 and 9. Nine will be a fairly brief item.public comment? Do we have any public speakers? \n>>speaker: yes chair wasserman\, you have one present in the building\, I do believe. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: the only card I have is for item eight. \n>>speaker: I stand corrected. You have no public comment at this time. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: that brings us to approval of the minutes of our february 15th meeting.we have been furnished copies of them. I would entertain a motion and second to approve the minutes. \n>>speaker: so moved. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: commissioner gilmore moves. Commissioner nelson seconds. Anybody wish to make a correction or a comment? Anybody oppose to approving the minutes?the minutes stand approved. Thank you. That brings us to my report. We had an interesting and productive meeting this morning in this building and by zoom on our rising sea level working group talking about the outline as we move forward for our regional adaptation plan\, and implementation of the sb72 guidelines. The laird bill guidelines. A lively discussion about what they’re going to mean about various things to make sure that various important policy issues are appropriately emphasized. Supervisor — commissioner gioia raised the issue of when we’re going to talk\, again\, about governance and whether we believe we need more authority.we will have that discussion. But we’re building towards it\, and\, indeed\, it was discussed in the second presentation\, which was on how our staff is working to modernize and organize more efficiently\, our permitting system\, including — well\, a number of things about it were encouraging. One of them is that they are looking to how we can\, in fact\, get our application process as fully as possible\, online. Which will help everybody\, our staff\, as well as applicants and those concerned about applications. It’s a very significant effort. Most of it will be done internally\, some will need additional resources\, something we are consistently fighting for. I\, also\, noted with interest with the article in the new york times this morning with the cloud gun being shot off in san francisco bay as a way of trying to redirect heat upwards by creating micro particles in the air.it was sent to me by a friend who had a tag line\, does this need a bcdc permit? ” and in fact staff is look into that (laughter) but it was actually encouraging to me in a different context. The article is worth reading in part because it talks about a range of new ways looking at climate change and global warming using new scientific techniques\, some of which may have their own side effects that need to be evaluated\, and I still hold out hope that there will be some scientific breakthroughs that are going to help us on adapting to rising sea level. I don’t think it will involve turning the sea into micro particles. But I do think that there are some things out there that will help us\, but we’re not depending on them. We’re moving forward with our efforts\, using the techniques that we know to address the need that we know we need to meet. A couple of things about meetings.our next meeting on april 18th will occur fully virtually\, because of construction here at metro center that will not allow us to be present here. So\, the meeting of the 18th is fully virtual. Everybody needs to register with sierra where they will be\, and she is very good at helping you do that. If you need assistance\, hopeful you can do it in clusters as a number of you have been doing. But we need do that. At that meeting we may take up the following matters\, consideration of a permit application for development at 505 east bay shore drive redwood city enforcement case in the city of san rafael progress report on regional shoreline adaptation plan and new regulatory roadmap that we’ll draw from the discussion I described this morning and a briefing by nasa on the science news to create california’s draft rising sea level guidance. I also want to encourage for our may 2nd meeting\, that as many people as possible actually come in\, I want to describe it as one of our anchor meetings where we can get more of us together.it will be an important meeting in terms of a number of topics to be discussed so I think it will be worth your time to join us in-person if you possibly can. \n>>speaker: chair Wasserman f I may? \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: you may. \n>>speaker: I know we have implemented a new process for quorum\, and for that april 18th meeting\, it is due — the quorum is due today\, if you could notify me by the end of the day today\, I would greatly appreciate it\, since you are all here and a captive audience. Thank you. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: so\, just to repeat I asked you to provide the information. Sierra is telling you to do it right now.and if not this moment\, by the end of the day. I don’t want to steal larry’s thunder\, there are a few of us who may not have filed our form 700 divorce\, I have been in contact\, and did file mine just turned it in. Not a wonderful example. But please do get it in yes\, I could not have bugged you if you hadn’t done that\, I would have hidden underneath the table. On a sadder note\, although it’s also a celebratory note\, I hope that all of you would have seen the publication on the web site about our appreciation of joe bonovitz’s work who passed last month. He was bcdc’s first executive director and went on to be the first executive director of the coastal commission. And is really a giant in the regulatory\, ultimately pc as well\, as executive director goldman wrote in the statement that posted no individual in the state’s history was more directly responsible for the creation of our coastal zone management policies than joe he was a terrific example I did have the pleasure of having a couple of conversations with him when I first joined the board.he was a quiet\, solid leader. I’m not going to make comparisons\, but we had no desire to be flamboyant — and not talking about you — (laughter) but he provided tremendous leadership in areas that\, to a slight extent we have come to take for granted\, but was really pioneering work when he did it. He is missed\, and at the end of this meeting I’ll ask for a motion to adjourned in his memory. If there is any commissioner who wishes to report an ex parte communication that you have not filed in writing\, now is the time to do so. This is on an adjudicatory matter that we have not heard. Any commissioner wish to make such ex parte communication report? Seeing none.that brings us to the report of the executive director. \n>>Larry Goldzband: — your\, hopefully\, not flamboyant executive director. Welcome to our first commission meeting during the spring of 2024. Quoting charles dickinson who noted that spring feels like summer when the day is sunny and it feels like winter in the shade. I take heart and that lesson not just because it’s hard to know how I will dress for tomorrow’s opening day ball game at oracle park. Spring is complex and candidly so is what bcdc does the rising sea level working group her two very substantive presentations this morning centering on how bcdc may define where the local governments rising sea level plan should contain and the staff’s multi-dimensional planned reform on many regulatory processes. Finding the answers to these documents and processes will depend on our collective ability to understand and resolve intricate and difficult issues and conversations during which unfamiliar sun and shade may be present. While our job as staff is to help you through those tricky conversations\, we should remember that mark twain once said that in the spring I have counted 136 different kinds of weather inside 24 hours.with regard to staffing\, unless we hear otherwise\, we plan to hire dr. Britton clifton as a climate adaptation specialist working in the regulatory improvements team with ethan lavine. Britton has expertise in restoration climate adaptation worked as research associate at the oak ridge national laboratory and as a graduate researcher and restoration research projects\, britton is a bobcat having earned her doctorate in environmental systems in uc merced a charger having earned a master in earth system science from university of alabama huntsville and bs in biology from athens state university. Unless we hear from you otherwise\, britton will start with us on april 18th. Happy to report that your staff has started series of presentations about sb272 implementation to city and county local elected officials. Commissioner Dave Pine stepped forward almost immediately after we asked for your help and he arranged our briefing to san mateo county cities almost two weeks ago\, for which we thank you. I want to thank you\, gorin\, gioia\, lee\, ramos and vazquez for arranging presentations in their counties.we’re working with the remaining supervisors to reach their elected officials about the development of the sb272 guidelines and answer their questions about bcdc. We’ll report on discussions. Steve goldbeck worked with chair wasserman and approved an emergency permit for a homeowner in belvedere whose dock broke free of its piles in winter storm\, the emergency permit allowed the homeowner to remove the dock and apply for replacement of the dock. I was returning from washington\, d.C. Because planning director jessica fain and I attended the coastal states organization and noaa meetings for coastal zone managers. I am impressed by the caliber of our colleagues. We all tackle challenges such as rising sea levels\, permitting and budgeting et cetera. Jessica and I were fortunate to be with staff members of both u.S. Senators and staff of six house members including pelosi\, mullin\, desaulnier\, garamendi\, huffman\, and eshu\, all supporters of enterprising coastal zone management.jessica briefed staff members and I spoke quickly about bcdc’s emerging role and the reconstruction of highway 37. You may have seen a few stakeholders raise concerns about the safety of bridges above the bay in light of the disaster recently in baltimore harbor. Caltrans district four director and bcdc commissioner dina el-tawansy let us know caltrans plans to present a briefing to the commission and likely mtc as well later this spring or early summer to inform you about bridge safety and stability in the bay. I’m excited to announce bcdc’s firsts ever rising together bay adapt summit\, a community event in san francisco on august 8th. Mark your calendars now. Rising together will be an immersive and dynamic summit it will bring together community leaders to celebrate sea level rise adaptation in the region. As part of the event we’ll be hosting an awards ceremony hosting exemplary climate change leaders. Those leaders are advancing bcdc joint platform advancing the protection of people in the natural and built environment from rising sea levels.now the ask. We’re looking to honor one local government staff member\, one community leader\, and one elected official\, each of whom will be helping build more resilient shorelines in their communities. Please nominate a leader in your community who has displayed excellence in your communities for rising sea levels. Our bay adapt website has information and we’ll be e-mailing the link to all bay adapt stakeholders\, commissioners and advisory board members. As chair wasserman said\, joseph bonovitz passed away in march. I was honored to represent the commission at the memorial service. I want to read to you the appreciation that’s on bcdc’s web site because it’s important for the public to hear and for all of us to hear again.joe’s contributions to california’s conservation policies cannot be overstated who began his career as a journalist working for the san francisco examiner. He moved to spur in 1964 he began work on bay related issues\, resulted in leading staff consultant team that drafted the original san francisco bay plan as bcdc’s first executive director. When bcdc’s first chair mel lane was asked by ronald regan in 1972\, to chair the coastal commission\, joe was hired away from bcdc nobody in the entire state of california was more influential in development california’s coastal zone management policies than joe. Seven years later\, joe became executive director of the california public utilities commission which he led for seven years served as head of california environmental trust and later as project director for bay vision 2020 which attempted to reduce silo effects and redundancies caused by the myriad of regional planning implementation government bodies in the bay area developed during post world war ii period. Joe was born in oklahoma city in 1930 studied english literature at northwestern university\, a wild cat\, and served in the u.S. Navy and korean war. After\, joe completed graduate degree in journalism at columbia university\, so he was a lion. Always generous with his time and efforts to help bcdc.joe routinely answered questions and using experience to forecast issues. His advice was always relevant even through change in 2024. I encourage to you visit the web site of the university of california’s library to examine joe’s oral history because it is absolutely a great read. Finally\, chair wasserman\, I want to reiterate what you said about the important announcement due to construction here\, our next commission meeting in two weeks will be held totally virtually\, and we’ll be posting the me meeting notice and agenda as we normally do\, and you can expect those next two meetings later in the following two months\, may and june\, also to be virtual. We are hoping that we will get our space back in july\, but we’re not quite counting on it yet. With that\, chair wasserman\, I’m happy to answer any questions. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: are there any questions for the executive director from the commission? I see none.that brings us to item seven\, consideration of administrative matters. We have received a report of the administrative listing and regulatory director harriet ross is here to answer any questions. Any questions on that? You know you’re getting off easy. Because you do a good job. To item nine\, as I noted we’re going to shift the order\, a request from staff to consider authorizing the executive director to amend an existing contract with the resources legacy fund to further administer funding for the commissions environmental justice program. Our advisor\, environmental justice policy manager phoenix will provide the staff analysis. \n>>speaker: thank you\, chair wasserman. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: can we have the presentation up please? \n>>speaker: good afternoon commissioners. Phoenix Armenta climate equity community engagement for bcdc. Coming to you with a staff report recommendation to approve amendment to contract with resource legacy fund in order to fund ej advisors program. Next slide please. Our ej adviser program launched in 2021 with generous funding from this resource legacy fund\, a philanthropic non-profit organization.the ej advisors program was created to help bcdc implement its environmental justice and equity policies which the commission adopted as bay plan amendment in 2019. The resource legacy fund originally funded six ej advisors with annual stipends of $6\,000 per year. [indiscernible] committed to funding three years of the program with understanding bcdc would gradually take over funding from them. In 2022 they provided stipends for five advisors and in 2023 provided stipends for three ej advisors with bcdc making up the remainder of funding. Our original agreement has come to an end\, rls agreed to continue sponsoring the ej adviser program. Next slide please. Here are six current ej advisors: nama from the watershed project\, myria garcia\, india culture organization\, julio garcia rise up south city\, violet\, climate resilient communities\, salina feliciano sf consulting anthony bayview hunters point advocates. Julio\, nama\, and anthony have been with the program from the beginning and about to start their fourth year with bcdc.nama began their tenure with ej advisors in december of 2023. Next slide please. On this slide we have the overarching goals of the ej advisors program created with the ej advisors. They include advance and recommend to the commission how best to embed equity and environmental justice principles through bcdc’s programs\, policies and processes. Work with bcdc staff and commission to develop metrics to track the implementation of such changes. Encourage commission pointing authorities to select commissioners and alternate who is reflect the diversity of bay shoreline and inland communities\, increase strategies for more diverse workplace at bcdc\, and develop a permitting and planning model that incorporates meaningful engagement during development and permitting processes especially in areas in most vulnerable to sea level rise. These goals are aligned with our ej and social equity policies regional equity plan and strategic plan. Next slide please.over the past three years the ej advisors have advised us on a variety of topics to achieve goals hold monthly meetings and regular participate investment j working group meetings they participated in a workshop and environmental justice concerns in the permitting process\, advice on the permitting process continues as we’re working to implement some of their suggestions. They also participate in drafting original objectives in the racial equity plan\, participated in our october 2022 racial equity workshop and expected to review the updated draft whether it comes out. Activities include commenting on and making recommendations for the cbo mapping tool and most recently project focused on planning series of toxic tours for bcdc staff and commissioners. Currently undergoing organizational development assessment of the program with consultants from mig. Next slide please. This contract allows us to pay the final installation for the ej advisors from the grant we received from the state coastal conservancy for bay adapt work allow us to pay for 6e j adviser stipends at $10\,000 per year. In addition this will fund their activities on the bay adapt implementation committee and the advisory group.because we requested an additional year of sponsorship we’re charging an administrative fee of 17% per invoice\, bringing the total of the contract up to $180\,000. Next slide please. This contract help us to align the ej advisors program with gavin newsom’s executive order to embed equity into state government operations our strategic plan and the forthcoming racial equity action plan we previously were contracting with an organizational development consultant to continue development of the ej advisors program. Next slide please. In conclusion\, the staff recommends that the commission authorize its executive director to amend an existing contract with the resources legacy fund from $74\,000 up to $180\,000 to administer stipends to bcdc’s ej advisors and extend the end date to june 30th\, 2025. Thank you. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: thank you. With that presentation complete\, I want to open up a public hearing on the matter and invite anyone from the public who wishes to do so\, to make a comment. Do we have any speakers on this matter? \n>>speaker: there is no public comment\, chair. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: thank you. Any questions or comments from commissioners? Commissioner ahn? \n>>eddie ahn: appreciate the presentation\, and as chair of the ej working group always believe stipends are a really important part of resourcing community participation making sure people feel valued for input they provide to this body. I want to hopefully provide a better sense of context\, a sense of agency what is they do something like a community participation stipend\, I’m hoping the community leaders appreciate the increase from 6\,000 to 10\,000 it seems like a big jump I’m hoping you can speak to how it compares to the larger ecosystem and\, two\, who are the community leaders who are part of the current body okay with it too? \n>>speaker: phoenix? \n>>speaker: in terms of other agencies\, I think it is comparable to what other agencies are offering. We have set it out that they are getting paid 125 an hour at 80 hours for the entire year. So\, you know\, that includes\, like\, a meeting a month plus ej adviser working group plus extra activities yes it seems they’re satisfied with that payment. So far everyone seems to be okay with it. \n>>eddie ahn: that’s good to hear. Thanks. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: any other questions or comments?i don’t see any. I would entertain — \n>>speaker: chair? You do have commissioner showalter. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: oh I’m sorry. I apologize\, pat. Why is she not — \n>>Patricia Showalter: can you hear me? Can you hear me? \n>>speaker: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: yes. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: yes. \n>>Patricia Showalter: sorry I’m having a technical difficulty here. I want to thank the resources legacy fund for this grant. It’s very helpful to us.. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: thank you\, pat. Indeed it does.i’ll entertain a motion and second. Eisen and second. Take ag the closest ones. I’ll ask for the staff recommendation. \n>>speaker: staff recommends the commission authorize its executive director to amend the existing contract with the resource legacy fund from $74\,000 to $180\,000 to administer stipends to bcdc advisors to extend the end date to june 30\, 2025. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: any questions? I would entertain a motion to approve the recommendation. \n>>speaker: so moved. \n>>Pat Ecklund: second. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: who moved? Vazquez? Commissioner lee. Thank you. Will you call the roll on the motion\, please? \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: commissioner addiego? \n>>mark addiego: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: ahn? \n>>eddie ahn: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: ambuehl? \n>>david ambuehl: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: eckerly? \n>>Jenn Eckerle: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: ecklund? \n>>Pat Ecklund: aye. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: gilmore? \n>>: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: gunther? \n>>Andrew Gunther: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: lee? \n>>Otto Lee: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: nelson? \n>>Barry Nelson: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: pine? \n>>Dave Pine: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: randolph? \n>>r. Sean randolph yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: showalter? \n>>Patricia Showalter: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: vazquez? \n>>John Vasquez: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: zepeda? \n>>Cesar Zepeda: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: thank you.did I forget anyone? At the end of my list. I’m sorry. Eisen. \n>>v. Chair\, Rebecca Eisen: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: chair wasserman? \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: 16 yes\, no-nos. No abstention. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: the motion passes. Thank you for the good work. That brings us to item eight\, a public hearing and possible vote on the enforcement committee’s proposed recommended enforcement division to require statutory and permit compliance at 660 bridgeway in sausalito marin county and payment of $60\,000 in administrative civil liability in order to resolve bcdc’s enforcement case er2021.080.00 against the owner of record bayview one llc. In a moment\, rachel cohen of our enforcement team will present the item. But first I would ask mr.chris henry who owns bayview\, or his representative to come forward and identify themselves as being present. \n>>speaker: good afternoon commissioners attorney for bayview one llc\, darien key with benmore wendell. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: thank you. I want to state the process we’ll go through. Bcdc enforcement staff will present the case and proposed cease and desist civil penalty order for our consideration. After which time\, mr. Henry’s representative will be given opportunity to comment.after all the presentations have been given\, the public comment period will be opened. Those comments will be limited to three minutes per person. After the public comment period has been closed the floor will be opened to members of the commission to ask follow-up questions of staff and mr. Henry’s representative and deliberate on the matter. All speakers must limit their presentations and comments to evidence are already made part of the record which has been published online with this meeting’s agenda and the public implications of such evidence. We will not allow the presentation of any oral testimony or new evidence. First\, I want to open the public hearing on the matter.it is so open. Second\, I invite commissioner gilmore\, chair of the enforcement committee to give a brief summary of the committee’s hearing on this matter that took place on march 14th 2024. You have the floor. \n>>: on march 14th the enforcement committee held a hearing and vote on executive director’s recommended enforcement decision against mr. Henry to address long-standing violations of bcdc permit number m1979.088 as amended and section 66632 of the mcateer-petris act at the commercial property at 660 bridgeway in downtown sausalito. Upon reviewing the evidence pertinent to this case and conducting our hearing which included presentations and comments by staff\, as well as the respondent represented by mr. Henry who is the sole owner and officer of bayview one llc\, the enforcement committee voted to adopt without changes the executive director’s recommended enforcement decision as the enforcement committee’s recommendation to the full commission. As a reminder to my fellow commissioners\, I will now review in summary the actions that we are allowed to take today.we may\, number one\, adopt the recommended enforcement decision without any change and the proposed cease and desist and civil penalty order. Two\, we may dismiss the entire matter by voting not to issue the proposed order. Three\, remand the matter back to the enforcement committee or the staff for further action as the commission directs. Or\, four\, reject the recommended enforcement decision and decide to consider the entire matter de novo. In this event the commission shall continue the public hearing to the next available commission meeting when it shall proceed in accordance with the same procedural requirements as the commission must follow under regulations 11/3/27. With all of that in mind\, I’m going to invite miss cohen to make her presentation. \n>>rachel cohen: thank you chair gilmore\, and chair wasserman. Allow me a minute to share my screen\, please.it will look funky for a minute then it will look correct. All right. Can everyone see that in full screen? \n>>: yes. \n>>rachel cohen: thank you. Good afternoon\, all. Today I’ll present enforcement case er2021.080.00 for which the respondent is mr.chris henry and his company bayview one llc this case involves long stand obstruction to public access and unpermitted redevelopment activities in bcdc’s jurisdiction. Mr. Henry’s 15 year history of failing to comply with terms of bcdc’s permit and mcateer-petris act has caused staff to commence a formal enforcement proceeding to restore public access. We’ll go through the location of violations\, history of non-compliance timeline of events violation summary and respondent defenses and staff rebuttals and enforcement committee’s recommended enforcement decision these are vicinity maps of two scales of 660 bridgeway sausalito marin originally ferry terminal privately owned two story building now the home to a restaurant and shops in downtown sausalito\, this is a site plan\, exhibit a\, bridgeway boulevard is over here\, building is here and the bay is over here on the eastern side of the building. The approximately 1\,158 square foot public access area shown in faint red line wraps around the southern and eastern sides of the building and includes the staircase landing pad halfway up the staircase offering the public an elevated view of the bay. The original permit in 1979 allowed renovations to the grown floor restaurant piccolo cafe and repairs to the deck support required landscaping public trash containers and no fewer than two benches to be made available access area provides sweeping bay views and connection to the park immediately south. This dark blue dashed polygon outlines the space which was formerly used by el piccolo cafe\, and the area outlined with the black rectangle represents 155 square feet of the public access space\, which the second permit amendment authorized the permittee to use for outdoor dining\, chairs that were accessible to the public and patrons of el piccolo cafe public access areas to outdoor dining ceased to exist in the doors closed in 2016. This was a photo from march 2022 from south of the building facing north\, the public access area partially shown under overhangs and the plywood sheets partially blocked access\, continues around the southeastern corner of the building sun and the stairs here.this photo was taken in march of 2024 from the southeastern corner was the building facing west. The public access area\, again\, includes the area under the overhang here and this walkway. The public access space which was authorized by bcdc included a continuous paved surface and this raised wooden decking was placed throughout the public access space without bcdc authorization. This photo was taken in march 2024 from the eastern side of the building facing northeast. These are the stairs that ascend to the second floor public access stair landing pad and you can see the unauthorized raised wooden decking continues through the this section of the public access area. This slide shows bcdc’s shoreline ban and bay jurisdiction showing that nearly the entire building within bcdc’s jurisdiction. So\, now that I have reviewed the permit public act requirements I’ll review history of non-compliance at this site before circling back to the current violations.mr. Henry took ownership of 660 bridgeway in 2007 and the long list of prior enforcement cases shows permit under mr. Henry’s ownership began in 2010 and have occurred since then six cases between 2010 and 2016 dealt with restaurant staff refusing to allow members of the public to use the outdoor dining tables public were told to either purchase food or leave the area. Two cases mr. Henry was find for repeating the same violation within five years. Two cases dealt with requirement to provide public shore signage and failure to address unauthorized outdoor dining tables. I want to draw your attention to 2016.013 when mr.henry announced intent to construct a new restaurant space on the first floor demolishing the former cafe space and expanding into the neighboring business suites within the building mr. Henry was informed in april and september of 2016 he was obtain a bcdc permit prior to commencing this project however in november 2016 much of the public space had been blocked off and construction commenced without bcdc permits staff initiated fines and mr. Henry submitted an incomplete permit application to — [indiscernible] the project. After more than a year mr. Henry failed to complete his permit application and it was returned unfiled and with note reminding him his property was within the commission jurisdiction subject to the 1979 permit and mcateer-petris act when informed of the violation staff directed him not to resume the project before seeking out a bcdc permit. Mr. Henry reinitiated the renovation project in 2022 without obtaining approval from bcdc and this is one of the subject projects of food’s enforcement proceeding.moving on to counter case. In august 2021 staff received an enforcement report which alleged that the respondent again on-instructing public access pathway with plywood and tables september 2021 enforcement staff mailed a violation notice and enforcement action and standardized administrative fines staff of second floor restaurant replied public access path had been blockaded by plywood due to a fire and marin southern fire district instructed them to close off the back patio. Bcdc staff requested documentation of the fire marshall direction but never received it mr. Henry’s process is separate from distinct from bcdc’s. Later that year in december enforcement staff asked for documentation from mr. Henry that the public access had been blocked off. In march and december of 2022\, and april of 2023\, staff visited the site and documented the persistence of the violations shoreline public access had been blockaded and unauthorized work was occurring on the ground floor public access area and within the grouped floor commercial space. The entire public access area was being used to store furniture construction materials and trash bins making it unusable to the public.in december of 2023 the public e-mailed staff documenting development of activities expanded to include raised wooden flooring\, high top bar and new glass wall railing in the public access space appearing to staff mr. Henry intended to privatize the public access space for use by the restaurant enforcement staff responded to the opportunity resolving the case standardized find were no longer available on january 24th\, 2024 enforcement staff issued violation report and complaint and penalties to mr. Henry on january 31st mr. Henry e-mailed staff and said he hadn’t received the violation report and complaint. Mr. Henry agreed to completing an permit assignment form on february 6th but staff have not yet received one. February 8th\, 2024 mr.henry pledged to send documentation he had made public access area with the 1979 permit he also pledge said to submit an after the fact permit application for the unauthorized work. On february 27th\, 2024 staff spoke with mr. Henry and his architect and staff explains the enforcement committee commission hearing processes and the statement of defense form due date again mr. Henry applied for after the fact permit authorization for fire repairs and interior restaurant renovations since both occurred in bcdc jurisdiction without bcdc approval and staff advised him that bcdc may require additional public access in lieu of years of closure and unauthorized work on february 28th\, 2024 staff received mr. Henry’s incomplete application for after the fact approval of the fire repair project. Despite staff’s recommendation that mr. Henry include both the fire repair and the restaurant renovation project\, the application excludes the restaurants renovation project and the changes to the public access space completely.as noted earlier on march third 2024 bcdc’s staff conducted a site visit and observed that wooden barricades were still being used to block the public access area and other portions of the public access area were being used for private storage of restaurant materials and rubbish. Work on the interior of the restaurant appeared incomplete. These are snapshots of the restaurant renovation plan. The image on the left shows preconstruction conditions with former el piccolo cafe outlined in a dashed blue outline and the former wine bar and retail space on the other side of this hallway. The image on the red post construction conditions and as you can see from the solid blue outline the restaurant has expanded into the former hallway and wine bar and retail space\, and fill has been placed internally consisting of new restrooms\, new kitchen\, new dining room and office space. The public access areas outlined in red show the intent to access space for use by the restaurant by placing tables and chairs through the. So\, in sum\, violation one is for the unauthorized redevelopment activities on the ground floor of the building and violation two is for closing\, blockading\, and removing the public required access amenities and intending to privatize the public access area for restaurant use.mr. Henry submitted a statement of defense form with attachments on february 28th\, 2024. In it\, mr. Henry admits to owning the property subject to the complaint that worked was performed on the back deck and that he installed plywood to block access to it. Moving on to defenses and rebuttals\, defense one is that mr. Henry received building permits from the city of sausalito for the restaurant remodel work\, however receiving a city of sausalito permit does not absolve the respondent from process to consult bcdc prior to performing work in bcdc’s jurisdiction\, to obtain bcdc’s approval for the work and to comply with the mcateer-petris act. The separation and distinction from the city of bcdc and sausalito’s processes was explained to mr. Henry in writing in 2021 and even if it had not been mr.henry is responsible for obtaining bcdc’s authorization prior to placing fill within or making any change of use within bcdc jurisdiction or change to existing required public access. Defense two is that nobody mentioned anything to mr. Henry about having to get bcdc approval for the restaurant remodel work. Despite it being solely mr. Henry’s responsibility to comply with mcateer-petris act and regulations applicable to his property staff informed him three times in 2017 and 2018 that he must obtain a bcdc permit amendment prior to commencing this project. Defense three is that nobody mentioned anything to mr. Henry about having to go through bcdc to get approval for the fire repair restoration work.mr. Henry should have known he needed to consult bcdc\, staff repeatedly asked implementation that fire department directed closure of the public access area and staff informed him that the blockade was violation and asked him to remove the sheet of plywood that was blocking public access. Defense four is that mr. Henry was directed by the city of sausalito department and fire marshall to install plywood and block access to the deck as it was unsafe from the fire mcateer-petris act — [indiscernible] bcdc authorization prior to making any substantial change to any water land or structure within bcdc’s jurisdiction such as closing the public access bcdc has proceeds in place to respond to instances when emergency work is required yet there is no record of mr. Henry proactively informing bcdc about the fire and need to close public access areas for emergency repairs prior to or just after the repairs occurred. There is history of correspondence with mr. Henry that demonstrates that he should have known that he needed to inform bcdc about the closure of the public access area.lastly bcdc has never seen documentation that the department directed him to close the deck. Defense is that mr. Henry went through the required channels of the city and was issued a permit. Mr. Henry did not go through all required channels to receive approvals for the fire restoration and restaurant renovation work because bcdc is a required channel. Case history demonstrates that mr. Henry should have known that he needed to inform bcdc about the closure of the public access area yet mr.henry did not voluntarily apply for a bcdc permit until he was subject to enforcement action and the permit application is not inclusive of all work that was performed. Defense six is that mr. Henry did not add any fill while staff sees that the footprint of the deck is the same now as it was before the unauthorized work performed\, mr. Henry expanded the original restaurant space by demolishing and utilizing the adjacent commercial spaces. Mr. Henry changed the use of the area by reducing public access and views\, placing impediments in the public access space\, and intending to privatize the public access area for restaurant use. Mr.henry removed public trash containers\, removed a public bench\, added a standing bar in the bench’s place\, added raised wooden decking and a new glass deck rail and the plans for the new restaurant illustrate his intention to place restaurant dining tables and chairs throughout the public access area. All activities require bcdc consultation and authorization. Defense seven is that the administrative civil penalty would possibly bankrupt respondent or put him out of business and bayview one llc employs many different people and they and their families rely on the respondent for their living. The statement of defense form allows respondents opportunity to express whether they will be unable to pay the proposed penalty or whether paying the penalty would have substantial adverse effect on ability to continue in business however since relative to these considerations is exclusively in the possession and control of the violator appendix j of commission’s regulation requires violators to submit factual information supporting. A violator should provide and include audited financial statements balance sheets profit and loss statements\, statements of net worth\, tax returns and more. However since no factual information or documentation was submitted to support this claim\, staff cannot consider this as a viable defense and mr. Henry’s title pay is not in question.to review the proposed administrative civil penalty\, appendix j of the commission’s regulations requires staff to assess certain characteristics when settling on the appropriate fine amount including but not limited to respondent’s degree of culpability history of violations voluntary resolution efforts economic benefit and violator other factors we determined the violation and gravity of harm for this case is moderate and extent ever deviation from the statutory requirement to provide permit required public access and secure permit or remove unauthorized is major. Daily penalties violation were assessed at $937 per day mr. Henry failed to take action to correct violations\, capped at $30\,000 and staff proposes penalty amount of $60\,000. Moving on to our recommended enforcement decision\, the enforcement committee recommends that the commission authorize the executive director to issue the proposed cease and desist and civility penalty order number ccd2024.001.00\, which would order the respondent to cease and desist from violating bcdc permit m1979.088.02\, and the mcateer-petris act to fully restore and maintain public access within 30 days of order issuance by december 31st\, 2024\, to obtain a permit or permit amendment for extensive grounds floor restaurant redesign work that commenced in or around november 2016 and has continued to date as well as any work that was performed in the public access areas to complete a permit assignment for the 1979 permit within 45 days of order issuance to cease and desist from any development of the ground floor’s restaurant space\, and to not conduct any business or other use of the space until a commission permit that authorizes such use and fill in place therein is obtained and pay $60\,000 administrative civil penalty within 30 days of order issuance and that concludes the staff’s presentation. \n>>: thank you\, rachel. I will now invite mr. Henry’s representative\, mr. Key to comment. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: I would note although mr. Key may do see\, that apparently mr. Henry is virtually participating. \n>>speaker: that’s correct. He’ll be available for any questions should you have any\, or myself. Good morning commissioners. My name is darin key attorney with benmore and weldell on behalf of bayview one llc\, as to bcdc enforcement hearing er21.080. My client’s requests\, as a continuance of 30 days since our office was required last friday to present bayview we request to review the record and to better understand strategy for bayview to come into compliance with obligations for bcdc permits second is that the administrative fee be stayed until the final compliance obligation due date of december 31st\, 2024. The reason for this request is he can come into compliance with bcdc obligation.six points for the commission to adopt I’ll not repeat they’re in the report 1 and 2. I would like to address the six points. First bayview has admitted permit amendment to try to come into compliance\, to the extent bcdc believes a different permit amendment is needed he will do that within 30 days so they’re now properly reviewing new permits. Second bayview has opened the public access area removed tables\, chairs\, materials and waste containers we submitted photos yesterday demonstrating that. In addition bayview is working on providing required benches and trash containers. Bayview is requesting continuance and enforcement so we can focus on preparing compliance obligations as opposed to paying enforcement cost to resolve underlying problems requested he can come into compliance. Fourth bayview will submit application for permanent assignment within 45 days bayview will cease and desist all future development operations until bcdc permit has been authorized. And lastly bayview requests the state of enforcement for $60\,000 be stayed until december 31st\, 2024. If all requested work is stayed until december 31st by that date he requested the fee be waived.if not properly permitted by that date\, bayview would not impose imposition of the fee extension of the time. Thank you for your time and hearing our request. We’re available for questions should you have them. \n>>: thank you for your comments\, mr. Key\, and thank you to staff for the presentation. Would you please open the public comment period? \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: public comment period is now opened.i believe there are no members in the audience who have submitted cards. Do we have any virtual cards submitted? \n>>speaker: there are no hands raised\, chair wasserman. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: with that\, I will close the public comment period and ask commissioners if they have any questions. I do want to point out\, reemphasize two things\, that chair gilmore of the enforcement committee stated: that\, one\, we cannot consider evidence that was not presented at the enforcement committee. So\, the pictures that mr. Keys referred to cannot be considered.two\, our choices in action are in fact very limited. We can approve the recommendation\, we can reject it entirely\, or we can send it back to the enforcement committee. With that are there any comments or questions from commissioners? \n>>speaker: commissioner vazquez has his hand raised. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: commissioner vazquez. \n>>John Vasquez: you said in your presentation that mr. Henry took over the property in 2007 and that there were already issues of compliance? is that correct? \n>>rachel cohen: I was referring to issues of compliance that occurred after mr. Henry took overstep ownership. \n>>John Vasquez: yes but he took over according to the powerpoint\, in 2007. \n>>rachel cohen: yes. The violation around his ownership began in 2010. \n>>John Vasquez: 2010. Okay that — it’s only 14 years he’s had an opportunity to come into compliance. \n>>rachel cohen: pardon me on my math. \n>>John Vasquez: I just raise the issue that asking for more time when you have had plenty of time to come into compliance then you ask us to waive it\, the fines for the past non-compliance\, not because you do the work and somehow that goes away\, those are just my thoughts. \n>>Pat Ecklund: are we allowed to ask a question of the applicant? \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: yes\, you are. \n>>Pat Ecklund: my question to the applicant\, not his representative\, is why didn’t he seek legal counsel earlier? \n>>speaker: good afternoon. Chris henry here. Thank you for taking the time to hear me today. I appreciate it.i hired mr. Attorney — I didn’t realize I was going to need legal representation until the hearing. I moved during covid\, and I didn’t receive a lot of the correspondence that rachel said that were sent out\, and once I found out the situation\, I hired the attorney. \n>>Pat Ecklund: thank you. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: any other questions from commissioners? Yes\, commissioner randolph. \n>>r. Sean randolph: was the correspondence sent by mail during covid or by e-mail?or how was that communicated. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: rachel? \n>>rachel cohen: first correspond was sent by mail and e-mail during covid and mr. Henry was responding to us for e-mail in 2021. There were some mailing issues that the first version of the violation — of the violation report and complaint that was mailed in december. It was returned undeliverable. So we reissued it with a new hearing date to mr. Henry’s current address and he did get in touch with us just a few days after it was mailed to him at his new address. \n>>speaker: thank you. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: and did he appear at the enforcement committee? \n>>rachel cohen: yes. He appeared virtually. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: thank you. Any other questions or comments? Public comment is now closed.chair gilmore\, would you like to move the enforcement committee recommendation? \n>>: thank you chair wasserman. Okay. I move to adopt\, without any changes\, the executive director’s recommended enforcement decision\, as was ably stated by staff. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: is there a second? Commissioner nelson seconds. Any comment on the motion?i see none. Will you call — sorry. Oh\, an affirmative vote of a majority of those voting are needed to approve the order federal representatives can vote on this motion. Call the roll\, please \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: commissioner addiego? \n>>mark addiego: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: ahn? \n>>eddie ahn: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: ambuehl? \n>>speaker: aye. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: benson? \n>>Stephen Benson: aye. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: eckerly? \n>>Jenn Eckerle: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: commissioner ecklund? \n>>Pat Ecklund: aye. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: commissioner gilmore? \n>>: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: gunther? \n>>Andrew Gunther: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: commissioner lee? \n>>Otto Lee: aye. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: commissioner nelson? \n>>Barry Nelson: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: commissioner pine? \n>>Dave Pine: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: commissioner randolph? \n>>speaker: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: commissioner showalter? \n>>Patricia Showalter: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: commissioner vazquez? \n>>John Vasquez: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: commissioner zepeda? \n>>Cesar Zepeda: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: vice chair eisen? \n>>v. Chair\, Rebecca Eisen: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: chair wasserman? \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: yes. \n>>clerk\, Reylina Ruiz: 17 yeses\, zero nos\, and zero abstentions. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: thank you\, all\, for that effort. That brings us to adjournment. And\, as stated earlier\, I would ask that the motion to adjourn — oh\, you want to make the motion. The motion to be made in honor of joe bonovitz\, our first executive director. \n>>Barry Nelson: I wanted to make that motion and simply say that I worked for save the bay for many years and had the pleasure of working with joe during those many years and after. And I just wanted to reinforce what the chair and larry have already said\, joe was wise and kind and generous and modest. He has an enormous responsibility both for the agency world we live in\, and the coastal zone we all enjoy\, but\, really\, I think had a gift for demonstrating\, showing that effective government agencies can work effectively for people. It’s a tremendous legacy. Joe is among the last of the original save the bay generation. We have lost the three ladies\, mel lane\, diet steel\, the legislators of the mcateer-petris act\, and joe is among the first generation of the pioneers. Save the bay movement which remember folks is arguably the first major urban environmental movement on the globe\, the first coastal protection movement on the globe.Joe was a part of a really visionary generation\, and a wonderful person. So\, I’ll move the recommendation. \n>>chair\,Zachary Wasserman: and I’m going to exercise chair’s prerogative and second that motion in joe’s memory. Unless there is a negative vote\, we are adjourned in the memory of joe bonovitz. May he be an example for us all. [adjourned] \n  \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/april-4-2024-commission-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240408T170000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240408T183000
DTSTAMP:20260525T222127
CREATED:20240130T034058Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240424T211934Z
UID:10000116-1712595600-1712601000@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:April 8\, 2024 Design Review Board Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/april-8-2024-design-review-board-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Design Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240411T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240411T120000
DTSTAMP:20260525T222127
CREATED:20240130T044748Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240425T170723Z
UID:10000131-1712827800-1712836800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:April 11\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Enforcement meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 544 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nPhysical Location \nMetro Center375 Beale St.\, Board RoomSan Francisco\, CA  94105(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/82268432336?pwd=vWmRaUTxRaJPMZif1FrXbYrkJfPJ8G.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID822 6843 2336 \nPasscode425623 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic CommentThe Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda.\nApproval of Draft Minutes from the March 27\, 2024 Enforcement Committee meeting.\nEnforcement Report.Staff will update the committee on the current status of the enforcement program’s activities.(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing and Vote on Recommended Enforcement Decision to Resolve Enforcement Case ER2017.004.The Committee will consider a Recommended Enforcement Decision including Proposed Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order CCD2024.002.00 issued to Joe and Heidi Shekou for failing to seek and obtain commission authorization to install and operate a commercial solar power plant at Freethy Blvd.\, Richmond\, Contra Costa County in the Commission’s jurisdiction.(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov] Presentation\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				\nApril 11\, 2024 meeting minutes \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/april-11-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240418T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240418T170000
DTSTAMP:20260525T222127
CREATED:20240118T072902Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240627T200355Z
UID:10000095-1713445200-1713459600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:April 18\, 2024 Commission Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Commissioners are located at the primary physical location and may be located at the teleconference locations specified below\, all of which are publicly accessible. The Zoom video-conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually is also specified below. \nMeeting starting time 1:00 P.M. \nPrimary Physical Meeting LocationMetro Center375 Beale Street\, First FloorTemazcal ConferenceSan Francisco(415) 352-3600 \nTeleconference Locations \n\n1028A Howard St.\, San Francisco\, CA 94103\nSan Francisco City Hall\, 1 Dr Carlton B Goodlett Pl\, Room 268\, San Francisco\, CA 94102\nVTA Headquarters\, 3331 N First St.\, San Jose\, CA 95134\nSPUR Urban Center\, 654 Mission St.\, San Francisco\, CA 94105\nCALTRANS District 4\, 111 Grand Ave.\, #300\, Oakland\, CA 94612\n14265 Highway 128\, Boonville\, CA 95415\nCNRA Building\, 715 P St.\, Sacramento\, CA 95814\n400 County Center\, Redwood City\, CA 94063\nFront Porch at 112 Trellis Dr.\, San Rafael\, CA 94903\n111 Grand Ave.\, RM 15-220\, Mountain View Conf Rm.\, Oakland\, CA 94612\n3833 Lakeshore Ave.\, Oakland\, CA 94610\nMountain View City Hall\, 500 Castro St.\, Mountain View\, CA 94041\n360 Alcatraz Ave.\, Oakland\, CA 94618\n2379 Sheffield Dr.\, Livermore\, CA 94550\nMarin County Civic Center\, 3501 Civic Center Dr.\, Ste 326\, San Rafael\, CA 94903\n1415 L St.\, Suite 1000\, Sacramento\, CA 95814\n890 Osos St.\, Suite H\, San Luis Obispo\, CA 93401\nSouth San Francisco City Hall\, 400 Grand Ave.\, Mayor’s Office 2nd floor\, South\, San Francisco\, CA 94080\n675 Texas St.\, Suite 6500\, Fairfield\, CA 94533-6342\n2500 Acton St.\, Berkeley\, CA 94704\nSafe Credit Union Convention Center\, 1401 K St.\, Sacramento\, CA 95814\n\nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/82729378498?pwd=WFQzdtfdf6uNAGbQ2ZDgzBH5a2dPzw.0ti0hTquvstHm9Eu \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID827 2937 8498 \nPasscode190155 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period (Each speaker is limited to three minutes) A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.\n(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nApproval of Minutes for April 4\, 2024 Meeting\n(Sierra Peterson) [415/352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters\nThere is no administrative listing\n(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing on 505 East Bayshore – POSTPONED\nThe Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote on an application by Regis Homes Bay Area\, LLC\, to redevelop an approximately 2.54-acre industrial parcel with a new residential project consisting of 56 for-sale townhouses\, as well as shoreline public access and open space areas\, within the Bay and 100-foot shoreline band at 505 East Bayshore Road in the City of Redwood City\, San Mateo County.\n(Jessica Finkel) [415-352-3614; jessica.finkel@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing on Enforcement Case ER2015.024.00 – City of San Rafael\nThe Commission will consider a Recommended Enforcement Decision and Proposed Settlement Agreement to cause the City of San Rafael by May 10\, 2024\, to re-open a closed public restroom and pay an administrative civil penalty of $30\,000\, half of which may be stayed if it complies with certain conditions as enumerated in the agreement.\n(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPresentation // Public comment letter\nBriefing on RSAP Subregional Adaptation Plans\nThe Commission will have a briefing and a discussion regarding BCDC development of guidelines that local jurisdictions will use as they develop their subregional adaptation required by SB 272’s Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan mandate\, particularly about what elements those plans should contain and how they should be developed.\n(Dana Brechwald) [415/352-3656; dana.brechwald@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing Ben Hamlington SLR Science\nDr. Ben Hamlington of NASA will brief the Commission on the science underpinning the recently released draft California 2024 Sea Level Rise Guidance.\n(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3653]\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				 \nAudio transcript \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: good afternoon all. welcome to our almost fully hybrid bcdc commission meeting. my name is zach wasserman. our first order of business is to call the role. commissioners please unmute yourself to answer the roll and then mute after responding. sierra\, please call the roll. [ roll called ] \n>>Sierra Peterson: did i forget anyone? \n>>David Ambuehl: ambuehl. \n>>Sierra Peterson: thank you. \n>>Sheri Pemberton: pemberton. \n>>Sierra Peterson: 20 commissioners present. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: we have a quorum and so we’re duly ready to conduct business. are we not showing the video or are we showing the video? we are showing the video. let’s roll the video. \n>>speaker: welcome to this meeting of the san francisco bay conservation and development commission. this commission meeting will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the bagley-keene open meeting act. commissioners are located both at metro center and at publicly accessible venues throughout the bay area as specified on the meeting notice. commissioners who participate virtually will keep their cameras on throughout the meeting so that they will be visible for the public. for members of the public attending virtually\, if you would like to speak either during the public comment period\, which is item 3 on the agenda\, or during a period received for public comment during another agenda item\, you will need to do so in one of two ways. first\, if you’re attending virtually on zoom\, please raise your hand in zoom. to do so\, click the participant’s icon at the bottom of your screen. find your name and the small hand to the left and click on that hand. if you’re joining our meeting via phone\, you must press star 6 on your keypad to unmute your phone to make a comment. individuals who have raised their hands will be called in the order that they have been raised and they will be unmuted. those attending this meeting in person\, either at metro center or at a publicly noticed teleconference location who want to address the commission should follow the protocol at your location. those attending the meeting in person at metro center will use the podium on their right. wherever you choose to attend from\, please state your name prior to providing your comments. all members of the public will be allowed three minutes to address the commission at the discretion of the chair. comments must be respectful and focused and each individual has the responsibility to act in a civil manner without using hate speech\, direct or indirect threats\, and/or abusive language. bcdc has also established an email address to address public comments. its address is publiccomment@bcdc.ca.gov. emails received before 10:00 this morning have been shared with the commissioners and any received since then will also be shared with the commissioners and the public. welcome to this meeting of the san francisco bay conservation & development commission. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: i do want to note that today all but one of our commissioners are participating remotely due to construction in the yerba buena room on the first floor of the metro center. under the bagley-keene rules\, we need to have at least one commissioner present at metro center which is deemed bcdc’s primary physical location. i want to thank commissioner Karl Hasz for coming into the city today to represent all of us here — all of us there in the temzacal room. also for agenda purposes\, we have postponed our discussion of item 8\, the permit application relating to 505 east bayshore in redwood city. we plan to take that up at our next meeting. that brings us to item 3\, public comment period. if anyone wishes to address the commission on an item not on today’s agenda or the subject of a public hearing\, you are fully entitled to do so and now is the time to do so. sierra\, do we have any public speakers? \n>>Sierra Peterson: we do have one. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: will you call that speaker\, please? \n>>Sierra Peterson: gita dev with the sierra club. you may unmute. \n>>speaker: thank you\, bcdc commissioners and staff. the reason i wanted to take this opportunity with so many commissioners present was to just bring to the attention of the whole commission how much of the shoreline along the peninsula is currently under consideration or under design. and more justly information\, it’s all the way from the airport down to san mateo\, coyote point. and then leaving aside foster city\, it’s redwood city all the way to menlo park. and then leaving east palo alto and palo alto\, there is a feasibility study starting up for all of moffett field\, sunnyvale down to alviso where work is actually ongoing. so\, it’s a large part of the coastline. in addition\, the design review committee has been looking at projects in burlingame\, in belmont\, in redwood shores\, yeah. i would say those are the ones. i just wanted to bring it to the commission’s attention because there are a lot of commissioners present how much is being designed right about now along the peninsula. that’s all. thank you very much. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you. all right. with no further public speakers\, that brings us to item 4\, approval of the minutes of our april 4th meeting. we have been furnished draft copies of those minutes. i would appreciate a motion and a second to approve the minutes. commissioner nelson moves\, commissioner gilmore seconds. thank you. little hard to scan on this. if there are no objections or corrections\, the minutes are approved. thank you. that brings us to my report. the first item is administrative. since commissioner eisen is out of the country\, i’ve asked commissioner gilmore to act as vice chair of our meeting this afternoon. thank you for doing so. i hope the technology i am using today does not require you to step in. i appreciate your willingness to do so if i have a technical failure. commissioner randolph has been kind enough to agree to act as vice chair during our hybrid meetings in the month of may — well\, actually both hybrid and real or physical. i do want to remind commissioners that the second meetings in may and june will also be hybrid because of construction at the metro center. the first meetings in those months are — will be hybrid meetings where we will have people physically present at the metro center. i encourage you\, particularly for the first meeting in may\, for as many as possible for you to be there. we have a full agenda and i’d like to make it a what we labeled as an anchor meeting where as many of us as possible are present in person. i also on an administrative issue wanted to announce an upcoming change to our meetings order of business. we are going to set up procedures that will allow us to approve stipulated enforcement settlement agreements much more quickly than we have in the past. i’ve asked in that regard for staff to create a consent calendar\, almost all of you are familiar with those in your own local jurisdictions. bcdc has not used one. i do not know the historical reasons for that\, but i think in efficiency we can do that. and we plan to place both minutes and any stipulated enforcement judgments on that consent calendar. there may be other matters that we deem minor enough to put on there. like consent calendars you are familiar with\, any commissioner will be able to ask an item taken off the calendar and agendize it at that meeting for full discussion. and we will have public comment on the consent calendar as well. staff is now working on this issue and we expect to have it more detailed and hopefully start implementing it in a couple of weeks. our next meeting will occur in two weeks on may 2nd. it will be an action-packed meeting. and as i stated\, i hope all of us or as many as possible can attend in person. at that meeting\, we expect to take up the following matters. consideration of a permit application for development at 505 east bayshore in redwood city\, which was postponed from today’s agenda. consideration of an enforcement case in the city of richmond\, a briefing from the metropolitan transportation commission on its plans for extending the pilot project on the richmond-san rafael bridge that now includes a bicycle lane\, and a briefing by our staff on the recent sediment management workshops that are leading the commissioner sediment working group toward create new policies designed to increase the use of sediment as a part of adapting to rising sea levels. a couple of comments\, there was an article which was in the “new york times” climate newsletter — not all of you may have gotten or seen that today — which i would label bad news and good news. it talked about a missing trillion dollars\, that’s trillion with a t-r-i-l-l-i-o-n\, and it’s talking about the world bank commitment to developing countries around the world to address climate change. they have basically estimated that it will take a trillion dollars a year to address climate change issues in those undeveloped countries. the difficulty\, of course is they have not identified the sources of that trillion dollars a year\, although they have some of it. and the reason that i label it both bad news and good news is the fact that it is necessary and the fact that they don’t have it are both pieces of bad news. but it — i think it helps to put our problem in context. we’re dealing with a billion rather than a trillion. and i think also we’ll help to create a background in which we can better educate people in the bay area of our needs to raise that money to adapt to rising sea levels in the bay. the last item in my report is ex parte communications. if any commissioner wishes to report communication they had outside public meetings about a matter on which we’re going to sit in judgment or have a public hearing that you have not made in writing you may do so now. you do still have to make it in writing. any commissioners who wish to make an ex parte communication report? i do not see any. thank you. that brings us to the report of the executive director\, take it away\, larry. \n>>Lawrence Goldzband: thank you\, chair wasserman. april 18th is a red letter date on the american calendar. it was on this evening in 1775 that paul revere and william dawes galloped out of boston towards lexington and concord\, towards hancock\, adams\, and the minutemen as british regulars were headed their way and loaded for bear. in a tremendous coincidence it was exactly eight years later on april 18\, 1783 that general george washington issued his general orders announcing that the cessation of hostilities between the united states of america and the king of great britain would be publicly proclaimed the next day. i mention this because today you’ll learn how our planning team has started to gallop through the bay area’s nine counties\, to ask local elected officials to work closely with us as we develop the guidelines their jurisdictions will need to use to create their local rising sea level adaptation plans. and unlike george washington who could not foresee when the revolutionary war would end\, we know it will be no longer than eight months\, not eight years until the commission will adopt those regulations later this year. good news on staffing. unless we hear otherwise from you\, we plan to transfer rachel cohen\, who not only serves on the enforcement team right now but is sitting somewhere behind me here in this weird temzacal room\, we will transfer her to the long-range planning team as an environmental scientist. rachel is a blue hen\, having earned her undergraduate degree in energy and environmental policy from the university of delaware. she was originally hired by bcdc as a secretary and supported our sediment team in a number of planning efforts. she was promoted to the enforcement team in october ’22\, and you’ll remember her from her presentation two weeks ago. working withh the long-range planning team\, rachel will be part of the group that is reviewing how the bay adapt regional shoreline adaptation plan guidelines may lead to future amendments to the san francisco bay plan\, and the process by which subregional plans developed under sb272 will be reviewed and approved by bcdc. also on the screen today is rose ahn who joined the bcdc sediment team last month as a sea grant fellow. there you go. she’s waving at you. rose is helping develop the beneficial reuse roadmap and subsequent proposed bay plan amendment and is working to understand outcomes of the sand mining studies. rose is a lady trojan\, having earned her undergraduate and graduate degrees from the university of southern california. prior to starting with us\, she completed an internship for the sea grant research arm in which she worked at various outreach events to effectively communicate to the public the importance of marine protected areas\, coastal issues and environmental justice. prior to that\, she interned for los angeles mayor karen bass\, performed research on red abalone and conducted stakeholder outreach on oil well remediation and solid waste management on catalina island. and we’re thrilled to have her with us. with regard to policy\, you may remember that several years ago\, bcdc approved the creation of the wings landing educational kayak program\, which was developed as a way to provide public access to the wings landing tidal habitat restoration project in the suisun marsh. we knew that creating a program that would create public access by putting kids in kayaks would be a grand experiment. it started in 2021. we have received the good news that the program has been fully integrated into the summer school curriculum for crystal middle school as part of a multi-session week-long science camp and is expanding to include additional schools this summer. each year has been met with excitement and overwhelming positive reviews by everyone including the students. and the local soroptimist club is granting the program an additional $20\,000 to keep it going. this is a great example of how public access can be developed not just on land but on the water\, and demonstrates that bcdc continues to need to be creative as we explore new ways of providing public access in light of rising sea level. assistant planning director Dana Brechwald and i had a terrific discussion with members of the solano county board of supervisors and the mayors of the cities of solano county last week about sb272 and the developoment of the subregional adaptation plans. i want to note this particularly because and pay attention local elected officials\, the supervisors and mayors seem to agree that the best way for the county to move forward is to work together on a joint plan to cover the entire county shoreline. we don’t know whether that will happen\, or if it does if other counties will take the same approach — hint\, hint — but we couldn’t help but be terribly impressed by the seriousness and insightfulness of the supervisors and mayors. we want to thank commissioner vasquez for his help in setting up the meeting. and i’ll let you know now that next week we will have meetings with marin county officials and the week after that we will be in contra costa to meet with their local officials. in what is likely the last time that i will need to mention the oakland athletics\, the alameda county superior court dismissed without prejudice the lawsuit filed by east oakland stadium alliance against bcdc and the a’s over the commission’s approval of the howard terminal bay plan amendment almost two years ago. we all know that the athletics have more than just indicated their intent to abandon the ballpark and the city and the mixed use development proposal\, so all litigants stipulated to certain terms to dismiss the lawsuit. that being said\, staff will continue to apprise the commission of any further issues of note surrounding the bay plan amendment\, relevant legislation including ab1191\, and the oakland athletics miracle start to the season. finally\, here is a notice for the bcdc book club. our friend from uc davis\, professor mark lubell\, who sits on bay adaptation advisory group\, and his former researcher\, francesca pia vantaggiato of kings college in london\, have written a book specifically about the governance issues surrounding rising sea level policy in san francisco bay. its title is “governing sea level rise in a polycentric system.” and it is available on amazon. we look forward to mark explaining the title much less many of the book’s graphics in the near future. with that\, chair wasserman\, i’m happy to answer any questions. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: do the commissioners have any questions for our executive director? i see no hands. that brings us to item 7\, consideration of administrative matters. we did not have an administrative listing\, which means our regulatory director\, harriet ross\, is spared once again. as i previously noted\, item 8 is postponed. so\, that brings us to item 9\, a public hearing and possible vote on the enforcement committee’s recommendation to require statutory and permit compliance at starkweather in san rafael\, marin county\, and payment of up to $30\,000 in administrative\, civil liability to resolve bcdc case — enforcement case er2015.024.00 against the owner of record the city of san rafael. on march 7\, 2024\, after a duly noticed public hearing on this matter\, the bcdc enforcement committee voted to recommend this enforcement proceeding go to the full commission for approval. the recommendation includes a proposal settlement agreement with the city of san rafael that requires it to reopen a required public restroom at the park and pay an administrative civil penalty by no later than may 10\, 2024. adrienne klein of our enforcement team will present the item in just a few minutes. first\, i would like the representatives for the city of san rafael\, if they are virtually present\, to identify themselves for the record. \n>>Connor Maclean: hello\, i’m Connor Maclean\, attorney for the city of san rafael. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman. thank you very much. \n>>Fabiola Guillen: my name is Fabiola Guillen\, i am the senior project manager for the department of public works for the city of san rafael. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you for being with us as well. bcdc enforcement staff will first present the case and the proposed settlement agreement\, after which time the respondent will be given an opportunity to comment. after that presentation and comments\, we will open the public comment period. public comments will be limited to three minutes per person. after the public comment period has been closed\, we will — the floor will be open to members of the commission to ask follow-up questions of bcdc staff and the respondent and to deliberate on the matter. all speakers must limit their presentation and comments to the evidence already made part of the record that has been published online with this meeting’s agenda and/or the policy implications of such evidence. we will not allow the presentation of any oral testimony or new evidence. the public hearing is declared open. adrienne\, will you please make the presentation? \n>>adrienne klein: thank you\, chair wasserman. thank you\, director goldzband. i believe everyone can hear me. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: i think you need to boost your volume. \n>>Pat Eklund: i cannot hear you. \n>>adrienne klein: good afternoon chair wasserman and commissioners. \n>>Pat Eklund: needs to be up higher\, please. \n>>adrienne klein: i have a presentation to share. could it be loaded? the purpose of this formal enforcement proceeding is to resolve a single violation involving a closed public restroom at starkweather park on francisco boulevard in the city of san rafael. the presentation will identify the site where the violation is occurring\, briefly review the permit and enforcement history\, summarize the terms of the settlement agreement that will resolve the violation and conclude with the staff recommendation. the next three slides identify starkweather park in the city of san rafael near the western terminis of the richmond-san rafael bridge in marin county. with this image showing a site overview with enough detail — oops\, sorry. this is zoomed in closer. next slide. now there is enough detail for you to see the restroom building visible inside the red cloud bubble at the bottom left of the image in the parking lot area. francisco boulevard is below the bottom of the image\, and the shoreline trail pictured adjacent to that restroom continues to the north and west above the top of the image. there is a beach pictured on the right. next slide. this google earth image shows the view of the restroom looking north\, the public shore parking required by the bcdc permit is located in the parking lot where the photo was taken. you can see that shoreline trail behind and to the right of the restroom\, beach is off to the right. this formal enforcement proceeding seeks to resolve a single violation\, the failure as has been noted to maintain a public restroom in violation of special condition ii.b.4 of a 1978 permit. next. now to the timeline. the 1978 permit authorizes a portion of two commercial buildings and fill placement for paved roads and parking in the commission’s shoreline band jurisdiction. special condition 2b3 of this permit requires among other public access improvements that the permitee provide a public restroom that shall be open to the public prior to the use of any commercial facility and that commercial facility has been in use since at least 1987. while the public restroom was constructed and open to — constructed according to approved plans and open to the public in september 1985 the city closed it approximately six months later in or around march 1986. and it has remained closed since that time. therefore\, as noted in the previous slide\, the city is in violation of the maintenance condition of its permit which requires the city to maintain a permanent public restroom. and by its closure\, the city has failed to maintain the permanent public restroom. between 1986 and 2015\, bcdc was unaware of the public restroom’s closure. staff received no reports from the public nor did staff discover the violation. the building was non-descript structure for many years which made it difficult to identify the violation for anyone without knowledge of — detailed knowledge of the permit’s public access conditions. in july 2015\, the city submitted a permit amendment request\, in fact\, to remove the restroom from the permit requirements. this is how bcdc discovered the violation. in october 2015\, bcdc staff opened this enforcement case and notified respondent of its permit violation. in april of 2016\, one year later\, staff requested documentation from the city to support its position that to open the restroom would constitute a public safety hazard. between april and november 2016\, the city provided — did not provide that data to bcdc staff. and in november\, also in november\, bcdc issued a letter that commenced the accrual of standardized fines or the restroom closure violation among others that have since been resolved. in december of 2016\, staff understanding the difficulty inherent in reopening this long-closed\, unused structure to the public in a manner compliant with building requirements\, agreed to allow the city to install a portable restroom and hand washing station at the site on a temporary basis in order to provide the basic service that was — that the city had denied to the public for the past 30 years. staff did not contemplate at the time of this arrangement that the temporary portable restroom would remain in place more than seven years. in january 2017\, bcdc staff informed the city with the installation of the portable restroom and hand washing station\, staff had determined that the violation had been provisionally resolved\, temporarily halting the standardized fine accrual through a specific date of june 30\, 2017 by which time staff expected the permanent restroom to be open to the public or standardized fines would recommence accruing. the city unfortunately did not open the restroom by the end of june. so\, in july\, bcdc staff informed the city that as the restroom remained close\, the provisional resolved status of the case was being rescinded and that the standardized fines as of that date accrued to over $18\,000 and would continue to accrue to the administrative maximum of $30\,000 until the violation had been resolved. staff informed the city of its request to eliminate the restroom from the permit was not approved by the commission that staff may commence a formal enforcement proceeding. in 2018 and ’19\, the city prepared and submitted restroom reconstruction plans to bcdc which bcdc staff conditionally approved in december 2019. the approved plans were for a single ada compliant plumed restroom with exterior lighting and the inclusion of a drinking fountain and wattle bottle filling station built into the exterior of the structure in order to offset the loss of the second restroom that was part of the original structure. for most of 2020 there was no contact between the city and bcdc due to covid-19. in november 2020\, staff reinitiated contact with the city to request progress on the restroom reconstruction and reopening project. in early 2021\, the city informed bcdc that the restroom reconstruction commenced and later that it had also been completed and passed plumbing and electrical inspections. the city stated the restroom might be open by the summer of 2021\, but that pg&e would have to first turn on the power. in march 2022\, the city reported that pg&e had reported that it would take five to eight months to start work once a construction contract between the city and pg&e was paid for and in place. the city reported to bcdc that pg&e needed to drop a power line from a pole and run conductors and conduit from the pole to the restroom. the city also reported that it was working with san rafael sanitation district to obtain a sewer connection permit and with marin municipal water district to obtain new water service. in january of 2023 the city reported that it had reinstalled the water service\, rehabilitated the sewer lateral\, installed a metered pedestal and conduit. they also stated that the city was still waiting on pg&e to provide electrical service\, the last utility required for the restroom to be functional. for the remainder of 2023\, there was no contact between bcdc and the city and on january 30\, 2024\, bcdc commenced a formal enforcement proceeding to cause the restroom to be opened through issuance of a violation report and complaint to cause resolution of the eight-year long violation. a week prior to issuance of the violation report and complaint\, city staff informed bcdc staff that the restroom reconstruction had occurred consistent with bcdc staff approved restroom reconstruction plans. and that pg&e had installed the power conduit to the restroom on a privately owned parcel adjacent to the restroom and would not turn on the electric power service to the restroom building until the city presented pg&e with an easement from the owner of that privately owned parcel. during a telephone conversation at the end of february of this year\, bcdc staff received the following further update. that the city had met with the private — the owner of the privately owned parcel who had agreed to enter into an easement with the city\, that pg&e had agreed to accept a letter from the owner pending completion of the easement process to enable pg&e to turn on the power to the restroom\, and that the city had obtained said letter from said private property owner and submitted it to pg&e who\, based on the assurance it provided that an easement would be forthcoming had scheduled an april 10th site visit to turn the power on to the restroom. on march 4th\, counsel for the city of san rafael and bcdc held a confidential negotiation which resulted in an agreement to settle this matter as follows. next slide. the city has agreed to pay bcdc $30\,000 by may 10th unless it demonstrates that it has made available for use by the public the permanent restroom facilities and water fountain — water fountain\, water bottle filling station by april 27th\, and restored the site by removing the nearby temporary toilet and hand washing station and restoring some landscaping behind the restroom by may 6th. in that event\, the settlement agreement would authorize the executive director to accept a payment of $15\,000\, no later than may 10th. next slide. on march 27th\, the enforcement committee adopted the staff recommended enforcement decision and today the enforcement committee recommends that the full commission adopt the proposed recommended enforcement decision which includes a proposed settlement agreement to resolve enforcement case er-2015-24. if adopted\, this case would be transferred from the enforcement to the compliance department for compliance monitoring. that concludes the staff’s presentation. thank you. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you. do the — either or both of the representatives from san rafael wish to address us? \n>>Connor Maclean: hi\, Connor Maclean\, attorney for san rafael. thank you\, adrienne\, for your presentation. we’ve enjoyed working with you on this and we’ve enjoyed working with other members of bcdc to put together this settlement agreement. i will have fabiola explain a bit more of what’s going on right now. i wanted to update everyone about the progress on this bathroom. unfortunately\, you know\, pg&e had told the city it would come on april 10th to finish installing power. we were expecting that shortly thereafter the bathroom could be reopened so we could meet the april 26th deadline for a $15\,000 reduction in fines. it’s pretty clear the city is not going to meet that deadline thanks to pg&e’s cancellation. we hope to meet the may 10th deadline for compliance to get this bathroom open\, but honestly\, at this point\, i don’t — i’ve never really trusted pg&e\, i continue not to trust pg&e\, and so\, you know\, we would like to ask for an extension if you would be willing to grant an extension for the timeline for compliance for opening the bathroom. i think that could benefit bcdc and the city. we understand the reasons for imposing the fines for the past violations. the bathroom wasn’t opened for all this time\, the public was harmed\, we get that. but at this point\, i don’t think that imposing additional fines on the city benefit anyone. it’s just taking funds from one public entity and giving it to another public entity and those are funds that could be used to actually open this bathroom. i understand that there’s an interest in putting a fire under the city’s feet to get this done\, the fire is there. you know\, we’re working on it. fabiola has been meeting with the neighboring property owner\, pg&e\, bcdc to get this bathroom open. at this point\, the city finds its hands completely tied. we are completely held by pg&e at this point. we were promised they would be here on april 10th. they then didn’t show. we are working with them to get them to come as soon as possible but there’s really nothing that the city can do at this point. so\, to impose additional fines if the bathroom were not opened by may 10th on the city would\, you know — seems a bit unnecessary given that the city is doing everything it can to get this bathroom open. i’ll turn it over to fabiola to explain a bit of the process of how we got to where we’re at right now. she has been with this process every step of the way. i think can explain a bit better some of the complications that happened with pg&e digging a ditch in the wrong place. making promises to the city to install service and falling through. i will turn it over to fabiola. \n>>Fabiola Guillen: hi\, everyone. Fabiola Guillen from the city of san rafael. it’s been an adventure. thank you\, adrienne\, for the presentation. there’s so much detail there. though it may appear otherwise\, the city has been working really hard to try to get this open\, this restroom open. it’s not only for our community but it’s a project that’s been lingering for so long that it’s in everybody’s best interest to get completed. i wanted to put it out there\, there’s absolutely 100% commitment from the city to get this done. secondly\, what connor mentioned\, pg&e has kind of put us in a very difficult position. we had an agreement with them\, they had — we had a commitment from them that they were going to install this power on april 10th\, and originally it was just with a promissory letter from the property owner\, adjacent property owner\, that they were giving us permission to install this power. later on that changed to requiring the formal easement\, which we produced and i have to say in record time\, and provided it to pg&e. only on april 8th did they tell us that the easement had to be issued earlier. so that they had bumped us off the schedule basically and we were never notified of this. our city manager got involved and has contacted pg&e about the director’s level and they seem to have committed now to rescheduling our job for may 10th\, for installation of the power. i have received the confirmation that that’s going to happen\, and the job may take a full week\, intermittent — different crews will come at different times and they’re going to install this power. we on our end have made arrangements to fulfill the rest of the agreement\, which is to remove the temporary power — the temporary toilet once the restroom is complete and restore the adjacent landscape so we can open the permanent bathroom to the public\, as soon as possible — as soon as the power gets connected. i also did a little investigation before the meeting and we have issued a $15\,000 check to bcdc as of march — let me double check. april 5th we issued this check for bcdc for the original $15\,000 amount. and we will hopefully be ready after all this is done and reopen the bathroom as soon as possible. like connor said\, our level of confidence and trust in pg&e’s commitment is — \n>>Connor Maclean: i’ll add to what fabiola said\, in case people are unaware of kind of the background here. the reason that we needed to get an easement from the adjacent property owner is because — fabiola\, you can step in and let me know the year in a second\, maybe a year ago or two years ago\, pg&e said they would come and install power for the bathroom\, they did so\, and afterwards they realized they installed it on the neighbor’s property and not the city’s property. the neighbor had to ask pg&e to either\, you know\, redo it\, which was going to cost a ton of money or\, you know\, negotiate an easement with the neighboring property owner. the neighboring property owner agreed that they would\, you know\, give the city an easement. that took some time to negotiate. but\, again\, you know\, this delay stems in the first place from once again another mistake by pg&e. you know\, i want to kind of highlight that even a year or two years ago\, the city was on track to get this bathroom open\, pg&e keeps making mistakes that prevent this bathroom from getting open. \n>>Greg Scharff: the commission really can’t give an extension on this. the commission could send it back to the enforcement committee if they want\, who could look at it. but staff can give an extension. the agreement says that the executive director can modify the agreement\, sign a modification. at this point\, staff is considering it. we would like the commission to allow the executive director — that would be our preference\, modify it assuming the city’s continuing to work in good faith and all of that. we don’t want to make the decision right now if we want to do that. so\, if you do nothing and approve this\, the executive director may very well grant an extension on this given the circumstances. the other choice you have is to send it back to the enforcement committee\, we will work with the city of san rafael and possibly give an extension depending on the circumstances. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you\, greg. sierra\, do we have any public comments? \n>>Sierra Peterson: no public comment. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: then i would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. \n>>Pat Eklund: before we do that\, zach\, i have some questions. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: commissioners will have an opportunity to ask questions after we close the public hearing. \n>>Pat Eklund: what if it requires the city of san rafael to do some responses. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: they can do that after we close the public hearing. this is basically saying the time for additional public input is over. \n>>Pat Eklund: that’s fine. i raised my hand first\, i’d like to — \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: i saw that. i will recognize you. \n>>Pat Eklund: thank you. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: do i have a motion to close the hearing? commissioner nelson moves. commissioner gilmore seconds. thank you. unless there’s an objection\, the public hearing is closed. now is the time for questions and comments by commissioners. commissioner eklund\, go ahead. \n>>Pat Eklund: thank you very much\, chair wasserman. i have a question for the city of san rafael. connor\, you mentioned in your presentation that pg&e didn’t show up\, and then later it was said due to a cancellation. can you help me to understand which one was it? did they cancel in advance or can you help me understand that sequence of events? \n>>Connor Maclean: yeah. fabiola is more familiar with this. i’ll let her take this question. \n>>Pat Eklund: okay. \n>>Fabiola Guillen: yeah\, so — i guess we’re all familiar with pg&e\, they have several divisions and what appears to have happened is the land development department who is in charge of the easements had everything that they needed to re-ease the project\, however somewhere in the construction side of things\, they didn’t get the easement in times in their mind to proceed with the work. so they basically removed the project from their schedule and we didn’t know until april 8th\, two days before that they’re supposed to come out\, even though with several follow-up emails and calls\, we confirmed that we were on track. it wasn’t until april 8th that we started hearing that that was not going to happen. they needed confirmation from the construction department. so\, i would consider it both\, a cancellation and\, you know\, basically took us off the schedule. it took a lot of — a lot of communication with them to try to get that information out. \n>>Pat Eklund: okay. help me to understand this lack of an easement. so\, the property that the bathroom is going to be on was actually not in a — in an approved location by the city of san rafael? \n>>Fabiola Guillen: the bathroom itself is on our property. it’s on a city property parcel. and maybe the presentation that adrienne had might have helped us understand. i don’t know if you remember the picture that we took from the — of the front of the building from the parking lot. \n>>Pat Eklund: mm-hmm. \n>>Fabiola Guillen: behind that parking lot is the street. that street is where the power is coming from. you imagine a line directly from the street to the bathroom\, that part\, that section is a private right of way that is private property. that’s where the — where pg&e runs the empty conduit without permission. \n>>Pat Eklund: had the city of san rafael talked with the owner of that property and got their approval to actually place the power line through that area? \n>>Fabiola Guillen: yes. so\, that is the easement that we procured. first\, we thought that a letter would suffice and allow us to fully conduct — allow pg&e to do the work and installation of the meter\, however they changed their mind and said we needed a formal easement which granted the city — or pg&e the right to use that land. that’s what the city did after negotiating with the property owner. \n>>Pat Eklund: okay. great. thank you. chair wasserman\, do you want me to make comments now or do you want me to wait until after all the questions are asked? \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: go ahead and make your comments now\, please. \n>>Pat Eklund: okay. i really feel that the bcdc or the enforcement committee or — should work with san rafael and not necessarily give them the full penalty. obviously for not doing it way back 20 years ago\, the city can’t change that. but for the work that is occurring now\, it sounds like — the city of novato has also had issues with pg&e. so\, it’s not — i think all cities and counties have had some issues with pg&e\, it’s just — it’s very hard sometimes to get them committed and they have — you know\, they do have high turnover. i would really welcome and would encourage the enforcement committee and bcdc to give the city of san rafael a little bit more time with that additional penalties because obviously they are committed to this\, and as a sister organization\, having issues with pg&e\, you know\, i — i would feel for the city of novato any way that we are being penalized for something we didn’t have control over. so\, that’s my comment. i would like staff at some point to let me know what i need to do in order to follow up on this if necessary. anyway\, that’s my feeling. thank you. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you. commissioner moulton-peters? \n>>Stephanie Moulton-peters: thank you. similar comments on my part. i want to thank the enforcement committee for bringing this to us and the staff. i think we’re all familiar with the difficulty pg&e has had in scheduling service and hitting the schedule\, whether it’s equipment shortages\, work priorities or the wildfire work they prioritize. i would also like to ask for consideration for san rafael be given some more time to pull this together with pg&e and have a reduced fine still in effect. thank you. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: commissioner vasquez? \n>>John Vasquez: thank you\, chairman. i will take a different route. i have no sympathy at all. the public has gone without a bathroom for 38 years. i think there’s been plenty of time to rectify it. for the last eight years we’ve known that it — the restroom has been closed. right? nine years at least. there’s plenty of time to get it done right. if it is the fact that they put the conduit in the right place\, i think the city or — had the power to simply condemn that piece of land and say this is where the easement is\, and this is where it’s going to stay. certainly it had power from 1978 to 1986\, because it was functioning. i — you know\, the — somebody from the city used the word promise a couple times. and i think one of the other speakers used commitment. there was a promise to the public to have these functioning restrooms\, and that promise was made 46 years ago. so\, i don’t see where there should be anymore leniency. those are my comments. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: commissioner addiego? \n>>Mark Addiego: thank you\, chair wasserman. i’m feeling a little bit more generous today than supervisor vasquez. i think most of the local elected people that serve on this commission could give you examples of where pg&e has delayed anything from much-needed traffic signals for safety to major developments worth tens of millions of dollars. i’m sympathetic to what san rafael is facing. i guess i’m directing my comments to the director\, it sounds like\, according to mr. sharpe\, that he’ll be the determining body. that was for you\, larry. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: commissioner showalter? \n>>Patricia Showalter: i’m sympathetic with san rafael on one hand. on the other hand\, if you have been having this problem for so many years\, why haven’t you thought of an alternative? there’s lots of lights that go on on batteries. i mean\, as an engineer\, there’s other ways to do things. this doesn’t seem like it’s a very remote place\, but\, you know\, i know there’s other technology. i just want to say in the future\, if we’re having a problem like this\, let’s ask people to think outside the box a little bit. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: i don’t see any other commissioners. connor\, i’ll give you a moment to respond and then i’ll make a couple comments. \n>>Connor Maclean: hi again. thank you all for your comments. i just\, you know\, wanted to point out\, i hear concerns and desire to hold the city accountable for not having had the bathroom open in the past. you know\, i just want to highlight\, again\, the city recognizes that that — that the bathroom should have been opened. again\, we’re doing everything we can to get the bathroom open. the city was composed 38 years ago\, 37 years ago\, 36 years ago. 20 years ago\, 10 years ago\, 5 years ago of different people than it’s composed of now within city staff. current city staff takes this seriously and is working to get it open. i don’t think it’s fair to — you know\, useful in any way to penalize the current composition of the city for past composition of the city. just to the point of commissioner vasquez\, you wondered why the city wouldn’t just condemn the land where the conduit was mistakenly built\, condemnation is not in that. were it\, the city may have considered that option. that’s not even on the table. you know\, we appreciate your leniency if that’s possible. we look forward to continuing to work with you. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: given our limited option — i’m sorry\, go ahead\, commissioner eklund? \n>>Pat Eklund: thank you very much for allowing me a second bite at the apple here. so — because i have not had too much experience with this. can you tell me what the process is? i guess is it appropriate for us to have some off-line discussions with the executive director on — \n>>Greg Scharff: let me tell you the process. the process is as staff were listening to what the commissioners have said and taken their comments into consideration\, the executive director — there’s two choices. you can either send it back to the enforcement committee\, which i do not think you should do. my recommendation is to approve what you have before you\, the executive director heard everything you said. san rafael and us will have discussions. we may or may not grant an extension. it’s not just granting an extension. it’s for how long an extension will be granted. it’s what milestones need to occur. there’s a whole procedure here so that we make sure that\, you know\, frankly their feet are to the fire. i don’t disagree that pg&e has caused the problem. i think san rafael has been working in good faith. we’re definitely taking that into consideration. but that’s really what the process is. \n>>Pat Eklund: so then\, do we have the ability as a commissioner to talk with the executive director on whether or not\, you know\, staff is going to give them extension\, whether or not we have an opportunity to bring it back to the commission if — \n>>Greg Scharff: no. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: those are different questions. let’s answer them separately. go ahead\, greg. \n>>Greg Scharff: the answer is i can’t stop you from sending emails\, but the answer is no\, it’s not appropriate in an enforcement matter to be weighing in on the executive director. now is your opportunity. you weighed in publicly. at least i took your comment as work with the city of san rafael. \n>>Pat Eklund: right. \n>>Greg Scharff: it’s not their fault. i heard you. i heard commissioner vasquez say the opposite. i heard commissioner moulton-peters say work with them. we’re hearing what you’re saying. i think it’s really up to the executive director. but i can tell you what our process will be. it will be to talk to the city of san rafael and to understand the situation and to take into account commissioner comments and figure out how best to move forward. \n>>Pat Eklund: great. thank you very much for explaining that. i just hope that the executive director will take what city san rafael said into consideration and try to work with them to urge pg&e to follow through on their commitments when to show up to help with the installation of the electrical connection. thank you very much. \n>>Greg Scharff: you’re welcome. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: i would support for my own perspective the position that our general counsel has proposed. i’m sympathetic as all of you are to delays by pg&e that are outside the limits of san rafael. but i think given our choices\, which are to totally reject this or to return it to enforcement\, or to approve it with the understanding that the executive director does have the power to grant extensions and determine the timing and conditions of those\, that that would be the appropriate matter. so i would entertain a motion on the matter. commissioner gilmore. \n>>Marie Gilmore: thank you\, chair wasserman. i move that the commission approve the enforcement committee’s recommended enforcement decision including the proposed settlement agreement with the city of san rafael. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: is there a second for that motion? i see commissioner moulton-peters and i’ll give you a third to commissioner pemberton. will you please call the roll\, sierra? \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner addiego. \n>>Mark Addiego: i guess i need a clarification. so\, with this motion\, it does not go to the executive director? \n>>Greg Scharff: no\, it does go to the executive director. \n>>Mark Addiego: okay. then yes. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner ahn? \n>>Eddie Ahn: aye. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner ambuehl? \n>>David Ambuehl: aye. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner burt: \n>>Pat Burt: yes \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner ecklund. \n>>Pat Eklund: aye\, with the understanding that the executive director will be able to follow through on this action. \n>>Sierra Peterson: thank you. commissioner gilmore. \n>>Marie Gilmore: yes. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner gunther? \n>>Andrew Gunther: aye. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner hasz. \n>>Karl Hasz: aye. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner kimball? \n>>Justie Kimball: yes. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner kishimoto. \n>>Yorko Kishimoto: aye. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner moulton-peters. \n>>Stephanie Moulton-peters: yes. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner nelson? \n>>Barry Nelson: yes. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner pemberton? \n>>Sheri Pemberton: yes. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner peskin: \n>>Aaron Peskin: aye. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner pine. \n>>Dave Pine: yes. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner ramos. \n>>Belia Ramos: yes. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner showalter. \n>>Patricia Showalter: yes. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner vasquez? \n>>John Vasquez:. yes. \n>>Sierra Peterson: commissioner wasserman — chair wasserman. sorry. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: yes. \n>>Sierra Peterson: nine yeses\, no nos — pardon me. 19 yeses. no nos. no absentions. my apologies chair and commission. the motion passes. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: we all make math mistakes from time to time. the motion passes. i think that both the city of san rafael and the executive director and staff have clearly heard the concerns of the commissioners. and will act accordingly. that brings us to item 10. a briefing on our progress to create a regional shoreline adaptation plan. developing guidelines that local jurisdictions will use as they develop their subregional adaptation required by sb272’s regional shoreline adaptation plan mandate. these include a list of what elements those plans should obtain and how they should be developed. Dana Brechwald\, bcdc’s assistant planning director for climate change will provide a briefing after a brief introduction from our executive director. \n>>Lawrence Goldzband: thank you\, chair wasserman. and i haven’t told dana i would do this\, i want to do two things. number one\, i want to give dana props in front of the commission for what she did with the representatives from solano county last thursday night when she gave sort of the same presentation. and i want to draw all of your attention as local public officials to this presentation because this is what you all are going to experience after december when these guidelines are ultimately published. it will be your responsibility to work through them\, and we need you to think about them now before they get published\, much less before they’re really drafted in\, you know\, anything other than wet cement. and that’s why we really want you to pay attention to this presentation and as we go around the rest of the counties to be with us so that you understand what it is we’re trying to do\, and more important\, we get your help to do it right. with that\, go ahead\, dana. \n>>Dana Brechwald: thank you\, larry and chair wasserman. good afternoon\, commissioners. let me adjust all my moving parts here. okay. success. so\, good afternoon\, and it’s wonderful to see you all\, commissioners. i’m going to talk to you a little bit about our draft concept for subregional shoreline adaptation plans as identified and mandated by 272. you’ve seen the slide before. i know you’re familiar with the basic structure of sb272\, but just as a reminder\, this bill supports the regional preparation that we know we need by requiring local jurisdictions to develop subregional resiliency plans and for bcdc to develop the guidelines that the plans must follow. the bill also encourages consistency in coordination\, that’s what our regional shoreline adaptation plan is seeking to provide around the region. and the bill adds that bcdc is required to review and approve or deny subregional plans based on consistency with these guidelines. and lastly it adds an important carrot that projects within the approved plans are prioritized for state funding which supports our objective of supporting strategic implementation of projects around the region. the bill does contain some minimum requirements\, which are fairly basic. use best available science\, creation of a local vulnerability assessment that includes efforts to ensure equity for at-risk communities\, developing adaptation strategies for recommended projects\, developing lead and implementation agencies\, a timeline for updates as needed\, and an economic impact analysis for critical public infrastructure. obviously\, this doesn’t say much about what the plan actually is or what each of these elements should contain. that’s the basis for my presentation today. i’ll share with you our current thinking on what we’re calling plan requirements. and as larry mentioned\, the cement is still very wet\, so we’re hoping to hear your feedback today. as you know\, we’ve been working on developing the regional shoreline adaptation plan guidelines since before the bill was signed. we worked with senator laird to make sure the bill language was aligned with our vision for the regional shoreline adaptation plan and we’re on track to complete the guidelines by december\, per the bill’s language. i’ll also note that funding is already available for these plans. this is not an unfunded mandate for jurisdictions\, but there is grant funding for developing shoreline adaptation plans through available through the ocean protection council through the sb1 grant program. other pots could be applied to this purpose as well. we’ve been working with ocean protection council on — we worked with them on the grant criteria for the sb1 grants and staff is reviewing proposals from the bay area for alignment. once our guidelines are complete\, we will continue to work with opc to update their grant guidance for future rounds of this grant starting in 2025. i’ll also note that while there is a lot of money available right now for adaptation\, given our current state budget situation\, we don’t know how long this will last. it’s in the jurisdictions best interests to get these plans funded and developed soon. our first step towards establishing a regional process for adaptation planning and fulfilling sb272 was to develop our one bay vision to drive the scope and ambition of regional guidelines and local plans. we shared this with you in detail in february. the one bay vision establishes our ideal in-state if adaptation is successful in each of these eight topic areas you see here. so\, in addition to pop-ups around the region\, this vision was developed through an online survey and engagement with our advisory group which consists of 40 subject matter experts in various fields related to the topics you see here. sb272 requires bcdc to develop guidelines for subregional shoreline resiliency plans\, but that’s just the first phase for getting plans in place around the bay. phase one\, which will be completed by december\, includes our one bay vision that i just spoke of. the vision will first and foremost inform how local plan guidelines are developed. these guidelines will lay out consistent regional standards for how local jurisditions and create subregional plans and. provides — and develops adaptation strategies that meet minimum criteria to advance the region’s priorities of the one bay vision. the vision will also inform how we select the region’s strategic priorities. this component will identify key priorities for the region and identify where certain types of adaptation are most appropriate and beneficially locally to advance our goals of the region. these are based in products like our art bay area\, which was published in 2020\, which lays out a comprehensive vulnerability picture for the regions systems. so\, our next phase is supporting local jurisdictions to create these subregional adaptation plans\, which will include a variety of elements\, which i’ll discuss today\, such as our vulnerabilities assessments that were identified in 272\, and these will ultimately identify adaptation projects and land use changes with implementation strategies that will help get projects on the ground. and lastly\, up in — clicked too many times. the last component that we’re developing that you can see up here in the corner is our mapping platform which supports these efforts\, and it’s a data mapping designed to provide key information to local governments to support the development of subregional adaptation plans. right now\, as we develop an initial draft of the guidelines that specify what goes into subregional shoreline plans\, we also have to decide fairly quickly what these plans should look like\, what they should include\, what is the scale of the subregion and who leads\, what should these plans include to maximize effectiveness while recognizing the limited capacity of local jurisdictions to do these plans at the local and county scale\, and lastly how are these plans approved\, codified and translated into the real world. we have a concept that we developed that i’ll talk about\, but this is an important time to pause and say this is — we’re road testing these concepts. both through our commission\, this commission briefing today\, the meetings that we’re having with the counties that larry has mentioned\, and we’ve also been meeting with our advisory group and various focus groups to vet this material as well. it’s really important for us to test drive these concepts with the audiences who will be making the decisions about organizing and developing these plans such as you\, local elected officials\, local planners and other local staff. working with our stakeholders\, here are the guiding principles that we are bearing in mind as we develop our plan requirements. this concept that i’m about to share with you has been developed collaboratively starting with a research phase to look at various plan models throughout the region and the state\, working with a subcommittee of our advisory group and holding focus groups with local and county planners\, engineering and planning consultants and special districts. we want to make sure that the plans that we are developing through these guidelines are flexible\, aligned\, right-sized\, build on the existing efforts of local jurisdictions and are impactful. they actually have meaning in the real world. so\, the foundation for subregional plans is the scale at which they should occur. what we’re proposing is plans happen at the county scale and local scale to ensure we’re covering all portions of the bay shoreline. as a reminder\, our plan only covers local governments within bcdc’s jurisdiction\, while the coastal commission’s lcp process is being amended to enact sb272 on the outer coast. we learned by talking with cities and counties that every situation is different and we need to account for that as we move forward. so\, we anticipate working closely with cities and counties to identify the best scales and combinations of jurisdictions to do these plans. our county plans are intended to cover unincorporated parts of the county\, and we also believe the county should play a lead role in coordinating all the local plans within the county. at the local level\, jurisdictions may choose to do a single jurisdiction local plan or participate in a multi-jurisdictional local plan. single plans may be suited for large or high capacity jurisdictions\, or those that already have an adaptation plan in place. while multi-jurisdictional local plans may be organized around existing relationships\, geographic or landscape features such as an operational landscape unit or a watershed\, or small jurisdictions with limited capacity\, it can be expanded through partnerships. we’re open to any combination of cities and counties or any combination of cities. for example\, in a county with a handful of jurisdictions along the bay shoreline\, the county and cities may want to partner together to submit one combined plan\, such as what we heard may be the preference in solano county last week. staff is currently working to develop the content for the guidelines. here’s an initial outline of two major sections. we want you to take a look at this and think about whether these are the appropriate elements that should be in these plans. our goal here is to keep this document concise and effective without being overly complicated or prescriptive. the focus here is on the guidelines for what should be included in each plan element. that’s the column on the left. this is what should be in those plans. then the minimum standards and considerations for how to fulfill these guidelines. that’s the column on the right. what we’re proposing here is that each subregional shoreline adaptation plan should contain basic planning information\, assessment of existing conditions\, the vulnerability assessment as outlined in 272\, a section that outlines adaptation strategies and pathways for short\, medium and long-term for all sections of vulnerable shoreline\, a short-term project list\, a land use plan that outlines land use changes that need to happen in order to enact the shoreline changes\, and then an implementation plan that outlines how all of these adaptation strategies will be enacted over time. we also are coming up with minimum standards over equitable engagement and participation\,what time horizons people should be planning for\, what are the flood hazards that we think everyone should be planning for\, what are the minimum categories that people should be assessing in their vulnerability assessment\, and most importantly\, what are the adaptation strategy standards. it looks like a tiny little line on the slide here\, but that is are several pages for developing adaptation strategies such as looking at nature-based solutions\, how do you consider what adaptation strategies should go where given vulnerability and other conditions. one important thing to note is while plans may include multiple jurisdictions within a single plan\, each jurisdiction must meet all the guidelines in some way\, shape or fashion either on their own or in partnership with other jurisdictions. also really want to note here we are definitely anticipating allowing content that’s been already developed in other plans to be used or incorporated by reference in these plans\, especially in local hazard mitigation plans\, safety elements\, and existing climate action plans or adaptation plans. we recognize there’s a lot of very similar content that jurisdictions may have already developed. we would like to account for that as much as possible. so\, the slide talks about process for how we will submit and approve these plans. we want you to think about how might this process play out in the real world. it’s easy to look at it on a timeline\, but how would this actually work. once plans are developed\, counties and jurisdictions should submit the plans at the same time. plans will be reviewed by bcdc separately and together. together to make sure they’re coordinated in a county\, but separately to ensure each plan is reviewed for its own merits\, that each plan meets all the minimum requirements. bcdc will provide conditional approval to plans separately. if one plan does not meet requirements but others do\, they won’t be slowed down by approval. upon conditional approval\, plans should be adopted locally by county boards or local city councils and each participating jurisdiction must adopt their plan separately. once approvals are completed\, they’re submitted to bcdc and final approval occurs when all jurisdictions within a county submit for final approval to bcdc. we also believe it’s fundamental that the plan approved by bcdc to provide resilience for the shoreline of the whole county is codified into all the appropriate local plan and policy documents. we’ll be developing guidelines on where certain key strategies for implementing adaptation should be considered for integration into things like zoning ordinances\, specific plans\, capital improvement plans\, and how considerations for how to update general plan elements like housing elements to reflect resilience policy changes. so\, this is the timeline that will get us to commission approval of the guidelines by december of this year. we’re here on the left in mid-april. we’re preparing to share a first draft of the guidelines that we’re calling the committee draft that will be reviewed by our advisory group and that we’ll be using as a basis for content at our cbo workshops\, which i will talk about in the next slide. after incorporating input from those groups\, we’ll create a second draft after another round of review by our internal stakeholders\, and this will hopefully correspond with public workshops\, and we’ll incorporate any changes from that into a public draft released in early september in alignment with the commission briefing which will kick off our public comment period\, that will close with the commission hearing in early november. the vote is currently anticipated for early december. i also want to note here\, there’s a line for our electeds road show. we’ve already done two of those events and we have several more scheduled. we’ve been meeting with our local — we’ll be meeting with our local electeds task force on may 1st and plan on meeting with them again over the summer. and we met with our rsl commissioner working group a couple weeks ago and plan on meeting with them several more times before commission adoption. the last thing i just want to mention here is our next major outreach\, which is our local workshops in partnership with community-based organizations in may and june. these will be happening at five locations around the bay\, and co-hosted by our community-based partners. the goal of these workshops is threefold. we want to make sure the regional guidelines work for local governments and provide the guidance and direction necessary to plan and implement adaptation effectively. so we want to test out guidelines in specific locations. we want to bring people together\, local community members\, governments\, stakeholders to facilitate and kick start the collaborative conversations that are going to need to continue to happen after the guidelines are done and once planning begins\, and lastly\, we want to continue to build and support cbos to lead adaptation efforts in their own communities. the partnerships we’re offering are paid partnerships\, and our hope is by codeveloping the workshops with our community-based organizations they can be set up to play a larger role in the actual develop of the adaptation plans in the future. all commissioners with a workshop in your community will receive invitations to these workshops in the upcoming weeks. invitations have not begun going out yet. so you haven’t missed anything. our first workshop is planned for may 16th in partnership with sustainable solano. i’ll pause there and turn it back to chair wasserman for discussion. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you very much. with the presentation complete\, do we have comments from the public\, sierra? let’s call them. \n>>Sierra Peterson: carin high\, you have three minutes. you may unmute yourself. \n>>speaker: good afternoon. thank you. this is carin high\, citizens committee to complete the refuge. i would like to begin by expressing my thanks to dana and jackie and the rest of the staff and to the bcdc working group for their efforts they’ve put into this. rsap is definitely an extremely complex process and we recognize that there are many voices that must be considered and in a really short period of time. we deeply appreciate the manner in which staff have incorporated the importance and value of the bay’s ecosystem into the vision statement. we recently expressed to staff our concern regarding a previous version of the outline provided on slide 10\, and our concern was that putting nature first and equity should be conveyed in the higher level headlines as well as in the detailed language that will follow. for example\, headings regarding the need to put nature first and equity could be incorporated into the higher level headings of the outline that discuss the plan element guidelines and the minimum of standards and considerations and dana\, in fact\, just referenced the use of nature-based solutions under a heading of adaptation strategies and pathways. thank you for that. we understand the requirement to put nature first will be incorporated into the details developed for each of the outlined sections\, however\, the only place nature occurs in the draft outline heading currently is under the one bay vision section. our concern is that we totally support the vision that has been stated\, visions are not always reflected on what actually happens on the ground. and as just one recent example of why we think nature and equity need to be more prominent\, cccr recently received and reviewed and submitted comments regarding the redwood city sea level rise vulnerability assessment\, which was a good document. but while the vital of tidal wetlands was mentioned in the document\, discussion of the need to protect these habitats was largely absent as was any discussion of the use of natural infrastructure or nature-based solutions. of course\, we raised these issues in our comment letter. this underscores the need to elevate the issues of putting nature first and equity into every aspect of the draft outline and guidelines as possible. thank you very much for the opportunity to provide comments and we look forward to continuing working with staff. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you. do we have any other public speakers? \n>>Sierra Peterson: yes\, chair. Arthur Feinstein\, you may now unmute. \n>>speaker: hi\, chair wasserman and commissioners. Arthur Feinstein\, chair of the sierra club of san francisco bay. i second everything that carin said. so i just don’t repeat\, i want to recall to all of you in sb272\, one of these requirements is that the guidelines reflect and implement the principles found in the bay adapt process that you adopted a year or more ago. the second bullet in those principles of bay adapt is put nature first. so\, it’s not just a nice thing\, it’s actually a requirement that put nature first be put first whenever possible as the rest of the language goes. and as carin says\, unless that is emphasized consistently throughout the guidelines\, it’s really quite possible for communities to sort of ignore that because most communities\, most planners i believe\, most people think of the shoreline and sea level rise and flooding as let’s put up a wall because that’s what one does. foster city\, you know\, a wall. so\, it’s an educational process. so\, just putting it down at the bottom of\, oh\, one of the adaptation strategies is put nature first\, yes\, but maybe no. but if it’s right at the top\, more than once in the headings of what you need to do\, then it becomes more clear to the cities and the preparers of these plans that they have to educate themselves\, learn what it means to do nature-based solutions and put them into their planning. we just — we do thank staff very much for being very responsive to all of these thoughts. we just feel we have to keep reminding it because this is the one shot to save san francisco bay’s health. another reminder\, 78% or more of the state’s entire tidal wetlands are found in san francisco bay. a large percentage of them will drowned under sea level rise. i hope you all realize how important tidal marshes are to our aquatic environment and our own environment and our own lives. we don’t want to lose those. one of the only ways we’ll have to make sure that we continue to have tidal marshes and a healthy ecosystem is if when we adapt our shorelines\, we remember to put nature first. thanks very much. i look forward to working with all of you and hope we come to a very happy solution and that the bay survives into 2100 and beyond. thank you very much. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you. sierra\, any others? \n>>Sierra Peterson: yes. next we have gita dev. you may now unmute. \n>>speaker: thank you. thank you. is it possible to put up the slide that has the draft guidelines of the key elements? it’s quite — it’s got a lot of information on it. thank you so much. appreciate it. good afternoon\, all\, i’m gita dev with the sierra club\, at the risk of sounding like we’re all saying the same thing\, i want to endorse what carin high and Arthur Feinstein have just said. i would like to put a slightly different slant on it. i want to acknowledge we really appreciated staff having listened to our comments so far. and in this case\, we have this particular request — acknowledge it’s a tough task to codify the vision and to get our goals on paper\, but i work at sierra club\, work very closely with city councils\, speak with developers\, i’m an architect\, i’m accustomed to responding to rfps\, i can tell you how these projects actually work. that’s why the redwood city project came out the way it did. the capital improvement projects staff are public works staff\, and they are mostly engineers. the consultants who they hire\, the rfps are responded by rpr firm — rpr staff. they look only at the outline. they don’t look much further. they are extremely time-constrained. so it’s really important to get it in the — you know\, in the plan element guidelines and particularly in the minimum standards. because if it’s not there\, they may not actually put in a fee for that. they may not have some consultants that respond to that. these are the reasons why we’ve got to understand how projects actually work so that — the redwood city project did have element a\, b\, c\, and d. it went through the very good process of the existing conditions and the vulnerability assessment as carin high pointed out did not include anything offshore from the shoreline except to acknowledge they exist. they did not have a discussion about them. the adaptation strategies unfortunately were purely engineering. they were walls\, levees and storm water pumps and pipe incisors. in talking to them yes\, i did. i met with them yesterday\, they said\, you know\, we’re the engineers — \n>>Sierra Peterson: your time is now complete. \n>>speaker: that’s the reason i would ask you to bring this into the outline. thank you very much. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you. \n>>Sierra Peterson: there are no more hands raised\, chair wasserman. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you very much. commissioner eklund? \n>>Pat Eklund: thank you very much. great presentation. reminds me so much of working for epa where we did this for state agencies. anyway\, question first on the local workshops. i think it would be helpful if staff would contact the bcdc representatives for that particular county and talk with us about our availability because i think that this is going to be really important for — to make sure that those of us who serve on bcdc be there so that we can hear some of the concerns or comments of the folks that are at that workshop. that’s the first one. may 16th in solano\, is that going to be also through zoom as well or is it just going to be in person? \n>>Dana Brechwald: i believe that one will be in person. \n>>Pat Eklund: will it be zoom as well or not? \n>>speaker: i don’t know the answer right now. \n>>Pat Eklund: the other question i have with sb272\, was there any funding designated for local government cities and counties to not only help develop the plans but to codify the local plans that are developed into the zoning and housing elements\, general plans\, all those other documents that we have? is there any funding that is going to be given to each of the cities and the counties to implement 272? \n>>speaker: i think Justine Kimball is online and better answer that question than me about the suitability of funds for that. sorry to put you on the spot\, justine. \n>>Justine Kimball: yeah\, no worries. i may have to get back to you on the specifics. our funding is specifically towards development and the steps along the way including vulnerability assessment\, capacity building\, visioning\, to get to a sea level rise adaptation plan that can be a subregional plan. i don’t know about the piece of\, like\, integrating it — i didn’t quite get that\, integrating it into the other plans. \n>>Pat Eklund: dr. kimball\, in order to make this enforceable\, cities and counties need to put it into their regulatory documents\, i’ll talk — i’ll talk as a state or local — state or federal\, they have to put it into their regulatory requirements in order to be able to enforce it. so\, for example\, some of the adaptation strategies would obviously have to be recorded into the housing element or even in the general plan\, and then we have to develop enforcement mechanisms. so\, that takes funding to do that. cities and counties do not have enough money to implement\, let alone yet another state law and put it into our regulatory requirement. i guess i need to get some feedback as to what funding is going to be available for all. this is statewide\, so all this — i don’t know how many cities there are along coastal zones or waters of the state of california\, but cities and counties i would — would need direct funding from sb272 in order to implement some of the requirements. maybe we can have that discussion a little bit later or if bcdc staff know the answer to that question\, that would be helpful. i have other questions as well\, but — \n>>Justine Kimball: i can check back on the opc side of things. again\, the language for sb1 is very specific\, adaptation and plans. i can see about the inclusion integration into other plans and how that would fit into our funding eligibility and get back to dana with an answer. or directly to you. \n>>Pat Eklund: but dr. kimball\, you don’t have the regulatory authority to change our zoning standards\, for example. the cities and the counties would have to do that. \n>>Justine Kimball: i thought you were asking about funding for the work. \n>>Pat Eklund: funding for cities and counties to do the actual implementation of the standards. absolutely. \n>>Justine Kimball: yeah. our funding goes directly to cities and counties\, those are the eligible grantees\, i just need to check on that question about — yeah\, about how far the funding would go. \n>>Pat Eklund: maybe we can have an off-line discussion\, too\, to get more detail. i have done this at the federal and the state level\, and\, so\, i definitely have a real good understanding of the staff implications. for the city of novato\, there’s no way on this earth we’d ever be able to change our regulatory documents without funding. the other question is is that novato already has — i think san rafael does\, too\, to some degree or other cities around the bay\, we already have existing housing that is over the bay\, that’s — that’s in the regulatory jurisdiction of bcdc and others. and these houses are owned by individuals. they actually own i think the airspace above the water. i’m not sure what their deed looks like. so how is the local jurisdiction expected to develop requirements when we may not have the legal authority to remove some of those homes? i just — you know\, i — we’ll have to have some conversation about how do we deal with some of those that are already on the water or over the water or within the regulatory jurisdiction of bcdc and/or the state or federal agencies. can you help me to understand how that would be approached? \n>>speaker: i can’t say specifically how we would approach that specific situation. we’re trying to address as many situations as possible in the guidelines\, i think as you well know\, the bay area is vast and it’s — the types of manifestations of development along the shoreline and the issues and the priorities of each individual community\, i do anticipate we will be working closely with cities and counties. in fact\, we have an rfp out right now to help us develop a technical assistance program starting in 2025. in most cases\, i believe the guidelines will — we will work with cities and counties to understand how the guidelines apply in their particular situation. if that’s the case\, you know\, in marin or novato or anywhere along the shoreline\, we would welcome a one-on-one conversation about that. \n>>Pat Eklund: okay. how do we do that? how do we initiate and say let’s have some discussion\, not only with the staff but also the elected officials\, too\, so we can have a better understanding of what the implications are\, as well as legally. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: i think these are important questions\, we’re also getting into a level of process that is beyond the level of this presentation. certainly with our workshops and the local government officials\, we’re doing some of that\, which is not to say enough. so i think we will take those questions and issues into our staff’s planning and into the next presentations to the commission. \n>>Pat Eklund: thank you\, chair wasserman. i think it would be helpful if i could have some more discussions with staff on this issue so that i can have a better understanding about it\, so i can better communicate it. probably one of the rare elected officials that has worked for over 40 years for regulatory agencies. involving these issues. anyway\, so\, thank you very much for answering my questions. i look forward to getting more engaged in this process. thank you. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you. commissioner showalter. \n>>Patricia Showalter: well\, i have sort of similar things from the view of somebody who has been involved in flood protection for quite a long time\, too. in santa clara county we’re blessed by being wronged by old salt ponds that we can convert to marshes. we’ve been working on this for quite awhile. and most of us know this as the south bay salt pond project\, which was really started as a habitat project. all the engineers involved knew\, and it was also was just dandy sea level rise protection but that wasn’t something that resounded with our public at the time so we didn’t talk about it very much. as time has evolved\, we continue on the south bay salt pond restoration effort and we talk more about how indeed it’s really good for sea level rise. what i’m getting to is in the south bay\, in santa clara county\, the county in a sense isn’t really the lead in this. i mean\, the lead is really the coastal conservancy and the santa clara valley water district. i’m — it sounds like from\, you know\, when you really talk about this\, dana\, that when you talk about county\, it’s — i don’t know if you actually mean the formal county or what’s appropriate in that general area. i wanted to bring up that it may vary who are the really appropriate stakeholders from place to place. we just want to make sure that those — you know\, whoever they are are the ones who are brought to the table. i — i don’t honestly know what they are\, other localities\, i know in santa clara county\, if we don’t have the coastal conservancy and the santa clara water district taking part in this\, we won’t have\, you know\, all the stakeholders that we need to. i hope i’ll be able to set up a meeting with you and larry in the not too distant future about this. i do want to say i think it’s very important to give credence to the plans that exist. and that are moving forward. and to kind of fill the holes that haven’t been made in them. for instance\, mountain view has a plan. we passed it in 2012\, we’ve updated it a couple times. we’re actually — it includes 14 projects. we’re actually implementing it as we speak. but one of the things that wasn’t a part of it was an explicit conversation about equity. so that would be something that we’d need to include. i’m sure that if you look around at many of the other plans that were put together\, there are pieces that are just not there that we need to bring up. so\, i think that in lots of cases\, this is going to be a bit of putting together a beautiful patchwork quilt. we all have different patches finished and we have new ones we need to construct before we put it altogether. i think we want to be really cognizant of using good\, existing work that we have and using the good will that’s been built up to develop these and just kind of moving — particularly since we have to move quickly. we don’t want to be reinventing the wheel in things we’ve already done. that’s all i want to say. i’m just delighted to see this. i hope that i can serve as a resource for santa clara county. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you. commissioner — \n>>i wanted to clarify a point for the commissioners. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: sure. go ahead\, steve. \n>>speaker: which is the law is clear on who has to prepare a plan\, and it’s the local governments that are on the bay shoreline. it’s the cities and counties. it does not include special districts. that being said\, everything you said is very important in terms of special districts like the valley water and other land holders\, and state agencies like caltrans should be involved\, but the folks who have to submit the plans are the counties and cities. \n>>Patricia Showalter: steve\, along those lines\, is it the shoreline cities or — it’s the shoreline cities\, right? it’s not necessarily the counties. \n>>speaker: correct. it is — the counties are on the shoreline. it’s the counties and the cities. they all have to prepare and submit a plan. they can do them collaboratively — i’m sorry\, i didn’t mean to interrupt. \n>>Patricia Showalter: i was saying the same thing you are. very good. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you. commissioner pemberton? \n>>Sheri Pemberton: thank you\, chair wasserman. i just wanted to thank staff for the presentation and really excited to have the information and see this progress. i think the timeline looks great. i think the guiding principles look really good. one question is whether there will be collaboration with the state lands commission to factor in or address the public trust. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: larry\, you want to take that one or — \n>>speaker: i can take that one. the yes\, absolutely. we love working with the state lands commission. we work together through the — there’s a statewide body that opc convenes\, a statewide coordination group that we’ve already been presenting to\, which the land commission particiaptes in. and i think another exciting way that we will hopefully be coordinating even more is through a study that we’re just starting to develop around public trust needs for the bay and sea level rise that we’re scoping out right now. i think that’s another level in which our agencies can work together even more. \n>>Sheri Pemberton: thank you. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: commissioner nelson? \n>>Barry Nelson: first\, i’m really excited that we’re at this point in the process. it’s really encouraging. i really like the outline of the guidelines. but i do have a question to follow up the testimony we heard from the citizens committee and others. i’m hoping staff can help me. i’m trying to figure out if there’s a disagreement between the citizens committee and staff in terms of what’s in these documents or if that’s just input on the merits? the commission is very supportive of nature-based solutions. i think we absolutely want to encourage them. we heard this input a number of times. i’m hoping staff can help me understand if there’s a disagreement here or if that’s input the commission staff is planning to incorporate in the documents as they move forward and how you think about that. \n>>speaker: i hope that they will — Carin\, Arthur and Gita will agree that there’s not a necessarily a disagreement. we’ve incorporated nature-based solutions in an approachh to putting nature first throughout every component of the plan. the point they’ve been communicating to us recently is that it needs to be elevated to the level of being visible in an outline. and we are not ignoring that information. we’re simply — for version control issues\, we’re keeping versions consistent until we incorporate a lot of feedback at once. we’re also working with all three of those individuals on our advisory groups and various leadership groups. so\, there are plenty of opportunities for us to work together to come up with a solution that’s mutually acceptable. \n>>Barry Nelson: thank you. we obviously want to highlight those nature-based solutions\,. so — but i won’t offer my ill-informed thoughts about how best to do that. let staff keep working with those members of the public. thank you. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: commissioner john-baptiste? \n>>Alicia John-baptiste: thanks\, and kudos to the staff for their work on this. i share the enthusiasm of my fellow commissioners. i did have a question around how you’re planning to incorporate olus into the subregional plans. it seems like you had a potential fork in the road around organizing subregional plans according to jurisdictional lines or organizing them around olus. i can understand given the way we’re set up as a region why you might go to the jurisdictional direction. going in that direction then requires some kind of backstop in my estimation to ensure we’re not missing the lens of olu\, i think it creates some missed opportunity to connect yours dictions that share olu space but may not be connected either through county or through other forms of relationship. so to. me — my interpretation is there’s more responsibility placed on bcdc as the ones holding the point of view of the big picture. i don’t know if this is consistent with how you thought about it\, i’m wondering if there’s another level of detail below what you’re speaking about today that incorporates that. if you can share what you can at this point\, i would appreciate it. \n>>speaker: yeah. we certainly thought about looking at operational landscape unit as a form of analysis for developing solutions. and that’s why we’re offering a multi-jurisdictional plan option. we’ll provide some basic analysis that shows where operational landscape units can bring together multiple jurisdictions that might be particularly suited to doing a multi-jurisdictional plan. those plans can cross county boundaries as well. we did choose city and county boundaries because that’s where land use planning takes place and it can get a little bit messy when you’re going outside of those jurisdictional boundaries. the other place where we’re really going to be incorporating the concept of operational landscape units is in the guidelines themselves. there will be a guideline telling people to look at the operational landscape unit they’re in and look at all of their neighbors that share a similar set of suitability for adaptation strategies and incorporate them — if they’re not doing a multi-jurisdictional plan with them to incorporate those stakeholders into their planning process. we’re hoping to encourage it as much as we can without mandating it. \n>>Alicia John-baptiste: sorry. just a quick follow-up on this\, though. so\, part of what i think we’re trying to avoid is for one jurisdiction to put in place strategies that have either negative or suboptimal consequences to their neighbors. and if jurisdictions are not required to consider what — how nature will actually behave relative to what they are planning\, i don’t know that we will achieve that goal. so\, there’s a balance\, i’m sure\, between what we require up front and what we solve for on the back end. i do encourage — i encourage us to think about what the right balance is. because the point of having a regional agency in my view holding responsibility for setting these guidelines is so that we can ensure the whole is actually taken care of in the best possible manner. it’s really hard to do that from a more fractured perspective that we otherwise fall into as a region. i hope that makes sense. \n>>speaker: just to clarify\, we will be requiring people to work across jurisdictional boundaries as they develop their strategies. what we’re not requiring is that people submit a multi jurisdictional plan with their neighbors if they don’t want to. so\, that’s — in all other cases\, we are requiring people to work with their neighbors to look at the shared characteristics and operational landscape unit and to consider adaptation strategies impacts on neighboring jurisdictions. \n>>Alicia John-baptiste: thanks. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: commissioner vasquez? \n>>John Vasquez: first\, i want to thank dana and larry for the presentation. we have and organization call “for seas\,” and these kinds of things are made available to all the cities and the counties to talk about these regional concerns\, no matter what they are. and as larry indicated there is\, i think\, a willingness on the part of the cities and the county to work together with one plan. the other thing was\, we had a brief conversation afterwards about looking across to our neighbors\, contra costa and napa. so\, we fully plan to at least engage them so we’re not doing something that might impact them or influence water to go one way or the other. we can all be — as some of the other commissioners have said\, we can be concerned about our own area and not think about our neighbor. i’m glad dana said that. it encourages me to do more work then. thank you. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you. i don’t see any other commissioners. i certainly want to join in my thanks and praise to larry and dana and the full staff for the work that has led up to this and is ongoing. there have been times in this process — i suspect there will be times in the future when i become a little bit concerned about how much progress we’re making and how long it’s taking. but i think this indicates that we’re making very good progress\, at least at this moment in time. that brings me to item 11\, a certainly relevant follow-up\, a briefing from nasa on science underpinning of the new state of california guidance on rising sea levels. dr. Ben Hamlington of nasa who led the state and california’s science panel that formulated the basis underpinning the new state of california guidance on rising sea levels will make the presentation. we have heard from dr. hamlington before and his briefings have been interesting and especially tuned for those of us who are not scientists. Cory Copeland\, bcdc’s lead scientist will introduce the topic. \n>>Cory Copeland: thank you\, commissioner. my name is Cory Copeland\, i’m the bcdc adapting to rising tide state and science manager. i’m excited to introduce the latest on sea level rise science that informs new statewide guidance. as a reminder for the commissioners on february 1st\, you received a briefing from dr. Justine Kimball on sea level rise guidance. the public comment period for that draft has closed. bcdc staff are actively working with the opc to support the final draft. we’ve been told that opc anticipates adopting the guidance in june. at that point\, us — bcdc will be updating their own climate policy guidance with respect to the latest science and guidance from opc. that document will be used to inform bcdc permits and planning activities as it relates to our policies. if you look closely at the authorship of the draft guidelines\, you’ll see sections are written by opc staff\, which dr. kimball spoke to you about already\, and others are written about external scientists. today’s briefing is by dr. Ben Hamlington\, one of the external scientists\, author of the draft california state sea level rise guidance. he will specifically offer information on the scientific basis for projections. Ben Hamlington is a research scientist at the sea level rise and ice group at the nasa jpl. dr. hamlington is a preeminent expert on sea level rise science. he authored more that 50 scientific publications on sea level rise and related topics. i personally read and cited some of his work. within the guidance\, dr. hamlington is the lead author of the section on the report on the selection and creation of the california sea level rise scenarios. and so without further ado\, i’d like to pass it over to him to present some of the scientific updates that went into our new california sea level rise scenarios. \n>>Ben Hamlington: thank you\, cory. thank you for the invite to present. i hope i make this as accessible as i was given credit for in past presentations. but let me share my screen here. so\, i have a few slides going over the framing of the report. some of you may have seen a presentation. so\, justine and i did a roadshow of going around and sharing some of the findings in a brief overview of the report. so\, i’m going to go through some of those same elements\, maybe a little bit quickly. i have a couple new items here that are responsive to the public comments we received. so\, i do want to hit those as well. a goal of mine is to leave time for questions\, which i know based on the public comment just in this process\, that there are potentially many of those questions. hopefully we can address some of those here. let me share my screen. if i can confirm you guys can see that okay? \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: yes. \n>>Ben Hamlington: cool. okay. as i said\, and as cory nicely updated on\, i’m really focusing just on chapter 2 of the report. this is the science update. there is a chapter 4. so\, chapter 3\, for those of you who have not seen the report\, that’s the guidance. that’s the section led by opc and justine. there is a section 4 of the report that talks more about impacts. i know those impacts in section 4 is tremendously important to all of you and the discussions you’re having here talking about the prevalence and the potential expansion and increased frequency of flooding as we go forward\, as well as other impacts of saltwater intrusion\, erosion\, things like that. this is my way of saying i’m focused on chapter 2. it’s not at all to diminish the important work in chapter 4. it exists. it’s well-described in the report. and it’s being responsive to the public comment. again\, i’m just trying to set the framing for what i’m covering here. this is not the entirety of what’s in the report. okay. so\, what’s included in the report? there’s five sea level scenarios. that sea level scenario\, term\, phrase is based on some of the changes that occurred. i want to spend some time today explaining what those sea level scenarios are and how they’re different than what we’ve seen in past guidance. these span the range from 2020 to 2150. they span the range of plausible sea level rise. we do define what plausible means within the report. i’ll touch on that briefly here in the coming slides. these have been localized to california. one thing to note is the source material for this is the ipcc sixth assessment report and this federal technical report which came out in 2021 and 2022. billy sweete and i were authors of the federal report. wehat we’re doing is we’re using that scientific basis\, that consensus as the starting point to then build something that is let’s say both specific to california but also responsive to some of the gaps that existed coming out of that federal report. we did the same kind of thing after that\, we briefed it to other agencies\, states\, localities\, we got feedback that made it clear there are things we could be doing to make that information more accessible and easier to adopt into guidance. so within this update we’re trying to take some of those lessons learned and provide this update. so\, in that respect\, the california update i’m talking about here is certainly reflected and consistent with those documents\, but hopefully is continuing to advance our state of knowledge and how we’re describing that state of knowledge. and a couple of ways it does this is that within this report\, we evaluate the most likely scenario. so\, based on multiple lines of evidence\, we can actually start to weigh in a little bit more heavily based on our scientific understanding about not just here as a range of scenarios\, pick the one you want\, but here is a range of scenarios and here is what we can consider most likely and here’s why. so we’re trying to describe that in more detail to support the implementation and use of these scenarios. one way we do this is increased use of observations. we have good tide gage observations. obviously\, i’m biased\, we have satellite observations here at nasa\, but we have these increasingly long records from satellites that we can use alongside the models to say something more certain and definitive than ever before. then one last thing to note here\, we do a lot to provide story lines and context for each of our scenarios. i will get into that in a second. i’m not going to dwell on that in this slide. an important thing here is that there have been meaningful changes since the 2017 rising seas report. these are driven by the science. this is not some additional research i did while preparing this report\, this is the consensus in the ar6\, the state of publications here in california and how we can translate that into a consensus document that meets — hopefully checks the box of what we need here. the sea level scenarios. there’s five of them. there’s the low\, intermediate-low\, intermediate\, intermediate-high\, and high scenario. the ways these are defined — and this is the only point i’ll meters on this slide\, but it’s just because — meters instead of feet\, it’s just because these are nice round numbers. these scenarios are defined by amount of global sea level rise by 2100. and the reason for that\, the way we build the model-based projections that lead into the scenarios is from a global value and we regionalize off of that. if we go back to the starting point with the regional — with the global projections of sea level\, we look across the available model results in the scientific literature\, and we can come up with a plausible range of sea level rise. in this case\, in 2100\, that’s 30 centimeters to two meters. certainly beyond 2100\, that number can go far beyond that. before 2100\, that plausible range will be narrower to that. this is how we start out our scenario formation. then from there\, you can start to build in story lines. we do that in detail in this report. i think we’re doubling down on that within our revisions associated to the public comment. we can interpret exactly what the future looks like under these different scenarios. under the low scenario\, the global communities really got its act together\, really driven emissions lower\, basically got to net zero as quickly as possible. that’s the most optimistic future. on the other hand\, if we talk about the high scenario\, that’s kind of the worst case. emissions have gotten out of control. not only that\, we triggered some of the rapid ice-sheet processes\, ice-sheet instabilities that we think could be a factor and they’re contributing heavily to sea level rise. then you have the other three scenarios in between. i do want to point out two important ones. intermediate-low at 50 centermeters by 2100 and intermediate a 1 meter by 2100\, those bound what we’re calling the most likely range by 2100. those are important scenarios if we consider the future sea level rise and where we might be headed. there’s one last point i want to make in terms of the — some of the terminology used in the report. we talk about medium confidence and low confidence. this is mapping directly from the ar6 and the technical report. the key here is the level of scientific agreement or consensus. that’s what’s being described here. medium confidence\, and maybe you would like to say there’s high confidence among scientists on what’s going to happen in the future\, medium confidence is as far as we’ll go based on our current modeling and our understanding of the physical processes\, but we talked about medium confidence which collects a series of physical processes that we can model as part of these large ensemble efforts. the low confidence processes start to bring in physical processes that are of less agreement and more uncertain about what’s going to happen in the future. those are your rapid ice-sheet loss processes. those instabilities\, okay. so\, we denote between those two and those are built into the scenarios we’re using here. i’ll talk more — a key question is the difference between probalistic projections and sea level scenarios. i have a slide i’ll go through theses — these others quickly so i can answer some questions there. just looking at some of the numbers\, i’ll go through this briefly. you all can read the report and get these numbers\, but in terms of the sea level scenarios themselves and the numbers\, here on the right\, those color bars are the five — colored lines are the five sea level scenarios\, then the dashed line is showing the 2018 h plus plus scenario. i’m just showing one of these for comparison to tell you something about that high-end process — or the high end scenario. so\, again\, the low to intermediate scenarios kind of span. the medium confidence scanriros are those processes that we have a good understanding of. the intermediate to high scenarios explore that upper range\, where we have less confidence in what’s going to happen but want to capture those higher-end possibilities. the one thing to note here\, that dashed line\, you can see at every point in time it’s higher than the high scenario. so we have had the high-end scenario come down as a result of the science — again\, i have a slide on that in a couple minutes here. i’ll get into that in a second. one other important thing to note as you go through the report is that vertical land motion is the primary driver of local variations. if we think about the ice sheets\, the ocean and what’s happening there\, it’s a fairly similar signal whether you’re talking about san diego or crescent city. so\, the contribution from the antarctic ice sheet\, you’re so far away\, this should make sense\, it doesn’t change that much across the california coastline\, same thing with greenland. however\, if we think about what does drive differences locally\, it’s subsidence or uplift that may be occurring in different parts of california. we can represent a lot of the ocean-driven contributors to future sea level rise by one consistent scenario as we look out across california\, and then we can bring in the vertical land motion piece. there’s almost a separation between the two. here are some of the numbers that are — i’m showing from the report. this is to note we do have numbers of each decade going out to 2150 for each of these scenarios. within the report\, we also do kind of hone in on this near-term sea level rise. these next three decades\, 2020 to 2050. an important thing here is the range in 2050 is much smaller than it has ever been before in any of these consensus reports. in 2050\, the range is less than 8 inches between the low and the high scenario. it’s much lower than in past reports\, as i said. the primary reason for that is actually connected to the high-end possibilities and the rapid ice sheet loss processes. i’ll talk about why that’s the case in a minute. and it’s important to note that our observations are consistent with intermediate scenarios. it’s a little bit hard to see\, but this red line here is actually trajectory based on observations around california. it tracks extremely closely to the intermediate scenario. this allows us to say the intermediate scenario\, which is about 0.8 feet in 2050\, plus or minus a couple inches should be considered the most likely sea level rise in 2050. for california we’re almost collapsing future sea level rise down to a single scenario if we look out the next three decades. all right. so\, one last slide here before i get into some of those points that are responsive to the public comments we received. if we’re interpreting the sea level scenarios\, one thing we’re trying to do in this report\, because we’re building the scenarios\, we’re trying to add context to them with probablistic projections. the scenarios are formed using the probablistic projections\, we set these targets and find the probablistic projections to get to those targets. and then from there we can start to say something about what is your likelihood of reaching different scenarios. so\, if i look at this middle row here\, what’s the probability of passing roughly one meter of sea level rise in 2100 in a three degree sea warming future? my probability is 5% of exceeding that. on the other hand\, i have 82% chance of exceeding the intermediate-low\, 50 centimeters by 2100. the reason that’s important is that we can make an evaluation of different warming levels and the path we’re on and the likelihood of getting there. right? three degrees c is our current trajectory of warming as evaluated by ipcc\, working group 3. so you can look down here\, that’s part of the reason we make this evaluation of a most likely scenario. so 50% is between intermediate-low and intermediate. this is our most likely trajectory. this table becomes very informative to interpret those scenarios. that’s what i said in the first bullet. one other thing to note without rapid ice sheet loss — so that’s these low confidences\, the last two columns — the chance of reaching two meters by 2100 is effectively zero at warming levels below 5 degrees c. so we have in here less than 1%\,but these are again effectively zero. they’re extremely small given the number of actual projections that get us to that value. so\, in order to get to the high-end estimates of sea level rise\, like 2 meter by 2100\, you really need to have triggered the ice sheet instabilities and the rapid ice sheet loss. one thing we tried to hammer home in this report is that there’s no scientific consensus on rapid ice sheet loss and the associated processes. that’s why they’re called low confidence\, but it’s important when we consider the interpretation of the scenarios and ultimately the application of the scenarios. that’s the work opc is trying to do to understand what these scenarios mean and then how to interpret them going forward. okay. i have a couple slides left\, then i’ll stop for questions here. one thing that’s come up\, in the 2017/2018 guidance\, the starting point was these probalistic sea level projections. i’m using the term here implicit versus explicit construction of scenarios. the whole goal of these activities is to go from what is a very large number of projections — these probablistic projections\, even though there’s seven scenarios in the ar6\, encompass tens of thousands of sea level projections. right? because you have different percentiles and you have these different ranges. ultimately\, you need to get down to a discrete set of sea level scenarios. right? you need to have that down to a set of three\, five\, whatever the case may be. the way that was done in 2017 and 2018 was to start with the probablistic projections and then to go to the right to form the scenarios. right? here\, what i say is the advantages of doing that\, you can attach probabilities directly to the sea level scenarios\, which i think you’re all familiar with. you would pick a scenario\, you would see the liklihood or the different range of probabilities associated with that scenario and then you’re off and running. however\, based on the previous report\, how it was interpreted as well as other examples throughout the landscape of planning\, there are a lot of downsides to doing this. so\, the underlying assumptions you make in doing this kind of get lost. if i’m looking at a probability\, it’s important to consider that there is a probability associated with the scenario or the ssp or the warming level that you have selected. right? so\, if i go and just use my probability as is\, my probablistc projection\, and you’re making scientific decisions. the process of getting here to here\, you’re saying something about what you think the science is saying about the likelihood of different scenarios and projections. it’s blurring that gap between chapter 2 in this report and chapter 3 in this report. right? we’re not providing the clear scientific evidence that allows guidance to be built. and the last point here\, there are possible big shifts that can occur from one update to the next. we see that with the h plus plus. if we work back the other way\, and i’ll just go over this quickly\, here what we’re doing is defining the discrete sea level scenarios on the right and providing the context with the probablistic projections on the left. the pros of this\, the underlying sea level assumptions are explicit\, they’re very clear\, they’re directly attached. the likelihood of assumptions themselves can be factored in. that type of statement i said about the 3 degree c future\, i can say something about the most likely scenario as a result. they are intended to be more robust to scientific updates\, which is important. and i think an important thing here is they’ll be in line with the federal guidance and national climate assessment going forward. that will make the process of updating — of writing a report like this easier in the future. there are certainly some downsides to this. one\, you have to start and define the plausible range in the scenario definitions of the starting point. i say that’s a con\, but it’s not that difficult to do because we can look at the projections in advance\, look at the scientific literature\, the ar6 provides the guide for coming up with that plausible range. the last thing is the exceedance probabilities come at the end. it’s not an either/or. these thiings are directly related to each other and very important to consider. this is why we’re adopting the sea level framing as opposed to the probablistic projections. okay. so\, what happened to the h plus plus? nothing\, it’s being updated. i kind of hit on this already. the exact same modeling group using a similar but updated model that was used to support the formation of the h plus plus scenario in 2017/2018 has been used here in these low-confidence scenarios that help build the high estimate. so\, we have not changed anything. there’s not a new model that we said\, now we need to consider this. it’s the same line of evidence that’s been updated. a simple way to put it. if you want to call that same line of evidence h plus plus in the past\, you can call the same line of evidence that leads to our high scenario similar to h plus plus or interpret it in that here. the key finding there is more warming is needed to trigger instabilities that would lead to significant sea level rise. so in order to get to more warming\, that’s further out in the future\, and it just pushes the high level sea level rise further out into the future. it’s the when\, not if. we’ve pushed those possibilities futher out. one of the things to note is that the ar6 only generated two low confidence scenarios looking at one high warming\, one low warming. you could generate these low confidence scenarios for any level of warming. just because they’re not in the report\, doesn’t mean they don’t exist. it just means they weren’t computed. if you are trying to interpret one of those versus the other\, you have to be careful how you interpret those probablistic projections. there were methodological choices made to generate that suite of scenarios and then those then impact your guidance. one last note\, we have gotten a lot of feedback about not considering these low-confidence scenarios. and example of this is a report came out of new zealand and also one came out of maryland. they largely — they acknowledge the existence of the low-confidence scenarios and largely say they will not consider them in the production of guidance. so\, based on scientific understanding and our level of consensus within the ar6\, there’s very little scientific justification for doing this\, for disregarding them entirely. they are plausible\, to use that word. they are still being evaluated from a research perspective. one thing to note is that we can really do a good job of explaining these processes\, these scenarios\, in a way that helps support the formation of guidance like that in chapter 3. i don’t think they should be disregarded but they should be communicated clearly and then that should impact how they’re used in guidance. last slide. the vertical land motion is another one. in particular for the bay area\, there were questions about the alameda tide gauge versus the san francisco tide gauge. the reason i bring those up\, the alameda tide gauge had a positive rate of vertical land motion. it was evaluated to be uplifting slightly. the san francisco gauge was identified to be stable or slightly subsiding. so\, i’m showing — this is a very complicated figure. we’ve gone into more detail within the past couple months here looking at satellite observations\, looking at gps\, looking at tide gauges\, looking at the difference between satellite altemetry and tide gauges\, and we’re able to provide much better context for the vertical land motion we see. as an example\, for alameda\, two of our methods indicate uplift. two of our methods more directly tied to the observations indicate a similar level to what you see in san francisco. i think this is information we can help communicate and then allow people understand how to implement that. that really goes back to the point that a lot of the drivers of sea level rise are consistent across the california coastline and then we can make adjustments based on the vertical land motion that you choose to adopt and implement. i think in particular\, the — there’s an example in san rafael\, very high rates of subsidence present there that we see in the satellite observations but are just not captured\, there’s no gps station there\, they’re not captured in the projections. that kind of analysis and additional information that we need to try to support the implementation of these scenarios. so\, i have key takeaways\, i will leave those up because i’ve said them four different ways by now and i’ll be happy to take any questions. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: commissioner eklund. i’m sorry. i apologize. any comment or questions from the public\, sierra? \n>>Sierra Peterson: no public comment. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you. commissioner eklund. \n>>Pat Eklund: thank you very much\, chair wasserman. great presentation. very interesting. to what extent is your report going to be looking at the extrapolation of sea level rise at different points throughout the san francisco bay? so\, for example\, when we get the report am i going to be able to look at it to see what the potential sea level rise is for\, like\, bahia or some others as you go up towards the bay? obviously there’s a lot of different ramifications that could influence your projections. curious on that. and i’ll probably have a follow-up. \n>>Ben Hamlington: quick answer to that. so\, the projections themselves\, the scenarios\, are on a one-degree grid. we provide greater levels on the vertical land motion. if we do choose to include that map\, it’s like 50-meter resolution. extremely high resolution information. but i think the important point here is that the processes that we’re modeling and representing within the scenarios are known to vary only on large spatial scales. they vary on a regional level. now\, when you start to think about the impacts that that background sea level rise can drive in the bay area\, these areas\, that’s where you need more local information and more detailed study. this is just providing the foundation. it’s a starting point upon which\, yeah\, more detailed information is needed to be brought in to understand the impacts of specific locations. \n>>Pat Eklund: so\, how would we be doing the next step so that if we needed to do that additional level in order to project whether bahia will be completely under water\, the houses\, for example\, because they have wetlands underneath them. so how is that going to do be done? how is that going to be paid for? \n>>Ben Hamlington: so\, i should separate things here. we’re looking at the mean sea level. i could easily take — this work is done in a lot of areas. you could take a digital elevation model and i could couple that background sea level rise\, and look at areas that could be at a threat of being under water. so\, i can bring in higher resolution. i think the way i was answering that is a nod to what’s in chapter 4 where you think more about the flooding\, the frequency of flooding\, the severity and more detailed information. so\, from like a screening level assessment\, you could use that mean sea level i’m talking about here relevant to elevations and say something\, but to do something more comprehensive that gets into a subsection of the report and there’s expertise to do that work and support that transition from this foundational sea level rise into something more meaningful at a local level. \n>>Pat Eklund: would you be amenable to working with the cities and the counties specifically to get down to that level of detail to help us in development of these plans? \n>>Ben Hamlington: my rule is to support the projections. at — so\, just my role to be clear at nasa\, it’s pretty large-scale. we look at global scales and how that relates to the local level. that being said\, our other authors in the report are experts in these topics. we have members from usgs\, from academia\, people who have worked in detail and i know who support the state and local communities a number of ways\, in addition to opc and other areas who support the rollout of this and implementation of it\, i guess i should say. \n>>speaker: if i could jump in for a second. i see cory nodding his head\, i wanted to give cory a chance to talk about the locality that he’s working on\, meaning the bay shoreline. \n>>Cory Copeland: yeah. thank you so much. i just wanted to highlight some of the work that — thanks to the close coordination that opc has done with us\, we have been able to see some of these numbers and start to integrate it into how we’re approaching developing the hazard scenarios for the regional shoreline adaptation planning. so\, we have taken these scenarios for timelines 2050/2100 and used existing regional hydrological models that do a better job expressing some of those local variances\, both baseline sea level rise scenarios\, scenarios with storm surge as well as ground water rise. so\, we’re doing the work to try to translate this guidance into really meaningful information that will hopefully support local governments as they’re preparing the plans and also ourselves as we do our own planning work and regulatory reviews and things like that. \n>>Pat Eklund: cory\, at what point would that information be available? i think that the sooner we become aware of implications for current land uses\, the better we are able to help make sure that this is going to be a smooth transition. \n>>Cory Copeland: yeah. well\, i guess there are two sides of it. one side is on the opc side\, the other is on our side. on the opc side\, which probably would wait until it’s officially adopted hopefully in june to just make sure it’s the official state guidance. and then\, you know\, additionally on our side\, we’ve been going through a rigorous process with a data and mapping subcommittee under the rsap to review all this and to make sure that our regional experts on these things are in agreement that our approach is reasonable to translating this data. once we’re confident in that\, that’s when it would become available. minimally before the guidance is complete\, you know\, we definitely are going to have this available for people as a form of technical assistance to anyone developing the plans. \n>>Pat Eklund: great. i think it’s important that\, you know\, that at least the elected officials and the staff in each of the counties have an opportunity to get sort of a heads up on that information. don’t forget to involve the elected officials in that. because if we’re not kept informed what the implications are and we could get blind-sided. i think that based on the potential implications and ramifications in different areas\, it could be problematic. the sooner we can start sitting down and having some discussions\, i think the better. \n>>speaker: thank you. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: commissioner gunther? \n>>Andrew Gunther: can you hear me now? \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: yes. \n>>Andrew Gunther: great. just a couple of things i want to make sure i understand and a couple questions. if i understand this correctly\, no matter what the scenario that we’re considering\, the rate of sea level rise that we’re considering going up will be higher at the end of the century than it is right now. is that correct? \n>>Ben Hamlington: except for the low scenario. so it is a correct statement. the low scenario — an underlying assumption of the low scenario is that the current rate continues. every other scenario\, your statement is correct. the rate will accellerate and it will be higher at the end of the century. yet. \n>>Andrew Gunther: and no matter the scenario — i guess we’re defining the low scenario as this. but sea level will continue to rise into the 23rd century. \n>>Ben Hamlington: that’s correct. \n>>Andrew Gunther: okay. and. for — the fact that h plus plus is gone\, that’s lovely news. you don’t get to hear that kind of thing too much\, is that because we’re projecting less warming than we were ten years ago or because we have a different understanding of ice sheet dynamics. \n>>Ben Hamlington: yeah. so\, i wish it was gone. it’s more updated. it’s the latter. we’ve updated our understanding of those potential processes\, at least that one modeling group has. when i say that there’s more warming needed to trigger those processes\, that’s the evaluation. it’s basically having the same underlining assumptions about how we get to different warming levels in the future. it’s just instead of — i’ll throw out only numbers. instead of using 3 degrees celsius of additional warming by 2100 to potentially trigger those ice sheet processes\, now it’s maybe 4 degrees celsius. the h plus plus\, i use that when not if framing. instead of two meters being possible by 2100. if i were to look out 2120\, 2130\, it comes back on the table. so we have pushed things out a couple decades. \n>>Andrew Gunther: great. my last question is about vertical land motions. so\, are — have you considered or — i don’t — in terms of what might happen here in the bay area\, vertical land motions are gradual processes as opposed to\, say\, vertical land motions in places where you get subduction earthquakes where the land can move a foot or two in a minute. so\, we’re not considering those kinds of land motions in california when we talk about the future relative to sea level rise. \n>>Ben Hamlington: that’s correct. we’re assuming certain processes and ones that we think we can reasonably predict or project on to the future. that’s the slower scale processes. it’s largely driven by the current rate we see in vertical land motion. \n>>Andrew Gunther: if we were actually in seattle or we were in prince william sound or somewhere where those kind of subduction earthquakes are more common\, there could be vertical land motions that could happen very quickly that would change sea level. \n>>Ben Hamlington: yep. american samoa is kind of the poster child for that. there was an earthquake in 2010 that caused a shift\, and then the rate of subsidence increased by almost an order of a magnitude as a result of that. they have an extremely high rate of relative sea level rise as a result. those things can happen. \n>>Andrew Gunther: there are parts of prince william sound where old intertidal habitat is way above current sea levels because of the great alaska earthquake. that happened in a matter of minutes. great. thank you very much. great presentation. \n>>Ben Hamlington: thanks. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: commissioner showalter. \n>>Patricia Showalter: sorry\, i was having trouble with my mute button. to respond quickly to andy gunther’s comment about land motion. in the south bay we’ve had land motion due to ground water extraction. san jose has dropped over 12 feet in the early 1900s. and that ground water — that land subsidence has been stopped because of really aggressive ground water motion. but there is quite a bit of subsidence occurring in the central valley due to ground water extraction. i wanted to mention it’s not just earthquakes\, it’s ground water extraction. at the moment\, that’s not one of our problems. thank you. \n>>Ben Hamlington: that’s a good point. that’s part of the satellite we’ve done. it’s for the entirety of california\, not just the coastal areas. you can see a lot of those signals pop out. katie hageman in san rafael has been looking at this in detail. there’s an extremely high rate of subsidence on the order of almost a centimeter per year. it’s an order of magnitude greater than the sea level rise we see in a lot of locations. so\, with satellite observations\, we’re able to identify that. with that understanding allows her to better plan for her community and provide better projections. i do think these other types of data analysis that are very available here in california should be relied on to really start to constrain some of those additional factors. it’s a very good point. there are a lot of drivers of vertical land motion that we need to consider. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: i don’t see any other hands up for questions or comments. \n>>Larry Goldzband: can i make one comment? \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: of course. \n>>Lawrence Goldzband: cory and i had a conversation this morning knowing ben would be presenting what he’s presenting. we talked through how do we talk about this to the commission ultimately? so\, after the opc approves whatever it is going to approve\, cory and the team will be analyzing it — not that they haven’t already started\, and we will schedule a presentation for the commission about how we will use that guidance in the future. as i think we did in 2018 or 2019. but we’re looking that up just to make sure. because your permit staff uses this kind of information on a daily basis. and we want to make sure that you understand how our staff will be using it and we’re going to — this is news to ben\, but we’ll invite him back for that. just so he can take a look at it and — and give his analysis\, which he will do certainly through the system. you’ll see him again soon. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you. all right. \n>>Ben Hamlington: i appreciate the opportunity to present. thank you for your questions. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: thank you very much for the presentation. we look forward to the next one as larry indicated. that brings us to adjournment. who wishes to take the honor of moving adjournment? nobody wants to move — \n>>Pat Eklund: i’ll move it. \n>>chair\, Zachary Wasserman: commissioner eklund moves. commissioner nelson seconds. seeing no objections. we are adjourned. thank you as always. \n>>Pat Eklund: see you may 3rd. \n  \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/april-18-2024-commission-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240424T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240424T120000
DTSTAMP:20260525T222127
CREATED:20240130T044844Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240610T220342Z
UID:10000132-1713951000-1713960000@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:April 24\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Enforcement meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 544 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nPhysical Location \nMetro Center375 Beale St.\, TemazcalSan Francisco\, CA  94105(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/83554159479?pwd=IVg0CLNlhMyzk9Zrf0ceEiV6nsr7RZ.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID835 5415 9479 \nPasscode452399 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment\nThe Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda.\nApproval of Draft Minutes from the April 11\, 2024 Enforcement Committee meeting.\nBriefing to the Enforcement Committee on the Status of the City of Oakland’s Compliance with Commission Order CCD 2020.001.00.\nBCDC staff and City staff will report out to the committee on the current state of compliance with the terms and conditions of the Commission Order CCD 2020.001.00 requiring remedial actions at Union Point Park. The committee may choose to take action on this item.\n(John Creech) [415/352-3619; john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic comment letter\nBriefing on Oakland Alameda Estuary and Encampment Issue.\nThe Enforcement Committee will receive a briefing on actions taken to address shoreline encampments\, abandoned and derelict vessels\, and anchor-outs in the Oakland-Alameda Estuary by BCDC staff and the Cities of Oakland and Alameda.\n(John Creech) [415/352-3619; john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic comment letter\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				 \nAudio Transcript\n[00:00:07] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: GOOD \n[00:00:07] MORNING\, EVERYONE. \n[00:00:12] >>MARGIE MALAN\, CLERK: GOOD \n[00:00:13] MORNING. \n[00:00:13] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: HANG ON. \n[00:00:14] I HAVE TO DO SOMETHING WITH MY \n[00:00:15] VOLUME HERE. \n[00:00:25] >>MARGIE MALAN\, CLERK: GOOD \n[00:00:25] MORNING\, EVERYBODY. THANK YOU \n[00:00:26] FOR JOINING US. CHAIR GILMORE WE \n[00:00:30] HAVE A QUORUM. \n[00:00:32] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: HOLD ON. \n[00:00:33] I’M STILL HAVING AUDIO PROBLEMS. \n[00:00:45] CAN YOU SAY SOMETHING TO ME THIS \n[00:00:47] MORNING? \n[00:00:52] >>MARGIE MALAN\, CLERK: GOOD \n[00:00:53] MORNING. \n[00:00:54] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: CAN YOU \n[00:00:55] HEAR ME? \n[00:00:57] >>LETTY BELIN: YES. \n[00:00:59] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OKAY. \n[00:00:59] GOOD MORNING\, EVERYONE. AND I \n[00:01:01] SEE THAT IT IS 9:31\, AND THIS \n[00:01:07] MEETING OF THE BCDC ENFORCEMENT \n[00:01:09] COMMITTEE IS HEREBY CALLED TO \n[00:01:11] ORDER. \n[00:01:12] MY NAME IS MARIE GILMORE AND I \n[00:01:12] AM THE CHAIR OF THIS COMMITTEE. \n[00:01:13] FOR COMMISSIONERS\, INCLUDING \n[00:01:14] THOSE ATTENDING AT BEALE STREET\, \n[00:01:14] PLEASE ENSURE THAT YOUR VIDEO \n[00:01:15] CAMERAS ARE ALWAYS ON AND PLEASE \n[00:01:16] MUTE YOURSELVES WHEN YOU ARE NOT \n[00:01:16] SPEAKING. OUR FIRST ORDER OF \n[00:01:17] BUSINESS IS TO CALL THE ROLL. \n[00:01:18] MATTHEW\, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. \n[00:01:34] MATTHEW\, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. \n[00:01:37] COMMISSIONERS\, PLEASE UNMUTE \n[00:01:37] YOURSELVES WHILE HE DOES SO TO \n[00:01:38] RESPOND AND THEN MUTE YOURSELVES \n[00:01:39] AFTER RESPONDING. \n[00:01:43] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: GOOD \n[00:01:44] MORNING. COMMISSIONER BELIN? \n[00:01:46] >>LETTY BELIN: HERE. \n[00:01:49] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: COMMISSIONER \n[00:01:50] VASQUEZ? \n[00:01:52] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: HERE. \n[00:01:54] >>MATTHEW TRUJILLO: CHAIR \n[00:01:54] GILMORE. \n[00:01:55] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: HERE. \n[00:01:56] WE HAVE A QUORUM PRESENT AND ARE \n[00:01:57] DULY CONSTITUTED TO CONDUCT \n[00:01:57] BUSINESS. AND THAT BRINGS US TO \n[00:01:58] ITEM THREE ON OUR AGENDA\, PUBLIC \n[00:02:05] COMMENT. IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR \n[00:02:08] USUAL \n[00:02:08] PRACTICE AND AS INDICATED ON THE \n[00:02:09] AGENDA\, WE WILL NOW HAVE GENERAL \n[00:02:10] PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON \n[00:02:14] TODAY’S AGENDA. WE’VE RECEIVED \n[00:02:17] NO GENERAL COMMENTS. IS THAT \n[00:02:19] STILL CORRECT\, MARGIE? \n[00:02:22] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: YES\, \n[00:02:23] THAT IS CORRECT. \n[00:02:24] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: IN \n[00:02:25] ADVANCE OF THIS MEETING. FOR THE \n[00:02:27] MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ATTENDING \n[00:02:28] ONLINE\, IF YOU WOULD \n[00:02:29] LIKE TO SPEAK EITHER DURING THE \n[00:02:30] GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OR \n[00:02:30] FOR AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA\, \n[00:02:31] PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND IN THE \n[00:02:32] ZOOM APPLICATION BY CLICKING ON \n[00:02:32] THE PARTICIPANTS ICON AT THE \n[00:02:33] BOTTOM OF YOUR SCREEN AND LOOK \n[00:02:34] IN THE BOX WHERE YOUR NAME IS \n[00:02:34] LISTED UNDER ATTENDEES. FIND A \n[00:02:35] SMALL PALM ICON ON THE LEFT. IF \n[00:02:36] YOU CLICK ON THAT PALM ICON\, IT \n[00:02:36] WILL RAISE YOUR HAND\, OR IF YOU \n[00:02:37] ARE JOINING THIS MEETING BY \n[00:02:38] PHONE\, YOU MUST DIAL STAR 9 TO \n[00:02:39] RAISE YOUR HAND THEN DIAL STAR 6 \n[00:02:39] ON YOUR KEYPAD TO UNMUTE YOUR \n[00:02:40] PHONE WHEN THE HOST ASKS YOU IN \n[00:02:41] ORDER TO MAKE A COMMENT. THE \n[00:02:41] MEETING HOST WILL CALL \n[00:02:42] INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE RAISED \n[00:02:42] THEIR HANDS IN THE ORDER THEY \n[00:02:43] WERE RAISED. AFTER YOU ARE \n[00:02:44] CALLED UPON\, YOU WILL BE UNMUTED \n[00:02:44] SO THAT YOU CAN SHARE YOUR \n[00:02:45] COMMENTS. PLEASE ANNOUNCE \n[00:02:46] YOURSELF BY FIRST AND LAST NAME \n[00:02:46] FOR THE RECORD BEFORE MAKING \n[00:02:47] YOUR COMMENT. FOR MEMBERS OF THE \n[00:02:48] PUBLIC ATTENDING IN PERSON\, \n[00:02:48] PLEASE QUEUE UP AT THE SPEAKER’S \n[00:02:49] PODIUM AND WAIT TO BE CALLED \n[00:02:50] UPON TO SPEAK. COMMENTERS ARE \n[00:02:50] LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES TO \n[00:02:51] SPEAK. PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS \n[00:02:52] RESPECTFUL AND FOCUSED. WE’RE \n[00:02:52] HERE TO LISTEN TO ANY INDIVIDUAL \n[00:02:53] WHO REQUESTS TO SPEAK\, BUT EACH \n[00:02:54] SPEAKER HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY \n[00:02:55] TO ACT IN A CIVIL AND COURTEOUS \n[00:02:55] MANNER AS DETERMINED BY THE \n[00:02:56] CHAIR. WE WILL NOT TOLERATE HATE \n[00:02:57] SPEECH\, DIRECT THREATS\, INDIRECT \n[00:02:57] THREATS OR ABUSIVE LANGUAGE. WE \n[00:02:58] WILL MUTE ANYONE WHO FAILS TO \n[00:02:59] FOLLOW THOSE GUIDELINES. MARGIE\, \n[00:02:59] DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTERS? \n[00:04:03] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: CHAIR \n[00:04:10] GILMORE\, WE DO NOT HAVE A PUBLIC \n[00:04:13] SPEAKER IN THE ROOM OR ONLINE. \n[00:04:15] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:04:15] YOU. SO\, THAT MOVES US ON TO \n[00:04:20] ITEM NUMBER FOUR\, APPROVAL OF \n[00:04:22] DRAFT MINUTES FOR THE LAST \n[00:04:23] MEETING. WE HAVE ALL BEEN \n[00:04:25] FURNISHED DRAFT MEETINGS FROM \n[00:04:26] OUR LAST MEETING. COMMITTEE \n[00:04:29] MEMBERS\, I WOULD APPRECIATE A \n[00:04:30] MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE \n[00:04:32] THESE. \n[00:04:39] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: SO MOVED. \n[00:04:40] >>LETTY BELIN: SECOND. \n[00:04:40] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OKAY. \n[00:04:41] MOVED BY COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ \n[00:04:43] AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER \n[00:04:44] BELIN. DO WE HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS \n[00:04:46] TO APPROVING THESE MINUTES? DO \n[00:04:51] WE HAVE ANY ABSTENTIONS? OKAY. \n[00:04:57] THE MEETING MINUTES PASS \n[00:05:00] UNANIMOUSLY. SO\, NOW WE ARE ON \n[00:05:05] TO ITEM NUMBER 5\, WHICH IS A \n[00:05:10] BRIEFING TO THIS COMMITTEE ON \n[00:05:11] THE STATUS OF THE CITY OF \n[00:05:15] OAKLAND’S COMPLIANCE WITH \n[00:05:16] COMMISSION ORDER CCD \n[00:05:18] 2020.001.00. BCDC COMPLIANCE \n[00:05:25] STAFF AND OAKLAND CITY STAFF \n[00:05:27] WILL NOW REPORT OUT TO THIS \n[00:05:29] COMMISSION ON THE CURRENT STATE \n[00:05:31] OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS AND \n[00:05:33] CONDITIONS OF THE COMMISSION \n[00:05:36] ORDER REQUIRING REMEDIAL ACTIONS \n[00:05:38] AT UNION POINT PARK IN THE CITY \n[00:05:41] OF OAKLAND\, ALAMEDA COUNTY. I’M \n[00:05:44] GOING TO INVITE JOHN CREECH OF \n[00:05:47] OUR COMPLIANCE UNIT TO START US \n[00:05:49] OFF. JOHN? \n[00:05:56] >>SANJAY RANCHOD: CHAIR GILMORE\, \n[00:05:58] IT’S SANJAY RANCHOD\, I JUST \n[00:06:01] WANTED TO NOTE I HAVE JOINED THE \n[00:06:04] MEETING AS WELL. \n[00:06:05] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:06:05] YOU\, SANJAY. WELCOME\, JOHN\, \n[00:06:06] BEFORE YOU START\, CAN WE HAVE \n[00:06:08] THE CITY OF OAKLAND OFFICIALS \n[00:06:09] WHO ARE PRESENT PLEASE IDENTIFY \n[00:06:11] THEMSELVES? \n[00:06:17] >>JOE DEVRIES: GOOD MORNING\, \n[00:06:17] CHAIR GILMORE. THIS IS JOE \n[00:06:20] DEVRIES\, DEPUTY CITY \n[00:06:21] ADMINISTRATOR. I DO BELIEVE \n[00:06:22] OFFICER ALBINO IS HERE TO TALK \n[00:06:23] ON THE NEXT ITEM\, BUT I’M NOT \n[00:06:25] SURE BECAUSE I CAN’T SEE WHO \n[00:06:26] ELSE IS IN THE GALLERY. \n[00:06:29] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OFFICER \n[00:06:30] ALBINO? I SEE HIM. \n[00:06:38] >>JOE DEVRIES: HE’S HERE FOR THE \n[00:06:39] NEXT ITEM. \n[00:06:39] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OKAY. \n[00:06:40] GREAT. ALL RIGHT. JOHN? \n[00:06:53] >>JOHN CREECH: GOOD MORNING\, \n[00:06:55] COMMISSIONERS\, MY NAME IS JOHN \n[00:06:56] CREECH\, I’M ON BCDC’S COMPLIANCE \n[00:06:58] TEAM. I’M HERE TODAY TO \n[00:07:00] INTRODUCE ITEM NUMBER 5\, A \n[00:07:02] BRIEFING ON UNION POINT PARK. \n[00:07:03] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: JOHN\, \n[00:07:04] EXCUSE ME. COULD YOU SPEAK UP A \n[00:07:06] LITTLE BIT? I’M HAVING \n[00:07:08] DIFFICULTY HEARING YOU. THANK \n[00:07:08] YOU. \n[00:07:10] >>JOHN CREECH: THANK YOU FOR \n[00:07:11] LETTING ME KNOW. I’LL START \n[00:07:14] OVER. I’M JOHN CREECH\, I’M ON \n[00:07:16] BCDC’S COMPLIANCE TEAM. I’M HERE \n[00:07:18] TODAY TO INTRODUCE ITEM NUMBER \n[00:07:20] 5\, A BRIEFING ON UNION POINT \n[00:07:22] PARK. WE WILL THEN HEAR FROM THE \n[00:07:23] CITY OF OAKLAND ON THE STATUS OF \n[00:07:25] THEIR PARK AND THEIR PLANS FOR \n[00:07:27] MAINTAINING THE PARK. UNION \n[00:07:36] POINT PARK AND UNION POINT \n[00:07:38] MARINA ARE LOCATED IN OAKLAND\, \n[00:07:41] ALAMEDA COUNTY JUST SOUTH OF \n[00:07:43] COAST GUARD ISLAND BRIDGE ALONG \n[00:07:47] OAKLAND’S EMBARCADERO. IT IS \n[00:07:47] GOVERENED BY TWO ADMINISTRATIVE \n[00:07:50] BCDC PERMITS. UNION POINT PARK \n[00:07:51] WAS THE SUBJECT OF BCDC \n[00:07:51] ENFORCEMENT CASE ER 2018.028 AND \n[00:07:52] THAT CASE LED TO THE ISSUANCE OF \n[00:08:03] CEASE AND DESIST ORDER CCD \n[00:08:04] 220.001.00 TO THE CITY OF \n[00:08:05] OAKLAND ON OCTOBER 21\, 2020. AS \n[00:08:07] YOU MAY RECALL\, THE ISSUE OF \n[00:08:09] ENCAMPMENTS AT THE PARK HAS BEEN \n[00:08:10] THE SUBJECT OF MANY PUBLIC \n[00:08:12] COMMENTS OVER THE YEARS. BCDC \n[00:08:13] STAFF AND THE ENFORCEMENT \n[00:08:15] COMMITTEE BEGAN RECEIVING PUBLIC \n[00:08:17] COMMENTS ABOUT THE PARK AGAIN IN \n[00:08:18] LATE JANUARY OF THIS YEAR. CCD \n[00:08:27] 2020.01.00 REFERS TO THE \n[00:08:30] ENTIRETY OF UNION POINT PARK\, \n[00:08:31] THOUGH THE PARK ITSELF IS \n[00:08:36] PERMITTED USING TWO SEPARATE \n[00:08:38] PERMIT AUTHORIZATIONS. THE ORDER \n[00:08:38] COVERS THE ENTIRETY OF THE PARK \n[00:08:40] AND IS ISSUED TO THE CITY OF \n[00:08:40] OAKLAND. THE ORDER REQUIRED \n[00:08:43] OAKLAND TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT \n[00:08:44] AN ENCAMPMENT CLOSURE PLAN AND A \n[00:08:47] PARK RESTORATION PLAN. ALL \n[00:08:49] PARTIES UNDERSTOOD THAT THE \n[00:08:51] ENCAMPMENT ENCLOSURE PLAN WOULD \n[00:08:52] TAKE TIME TO IMPLEMENT AND WAS \n[00:08:54] TO OCCUR IN STAGES. AS SUCH\, THE \n[00:08:55] CITY WAS TO ESTABLISH A REPRIEVE \n[00:08:57] ZONE TO CONSOLIDATE ENCAMPMENTS \n[00:08:59] AND THEN WORK TO CLEAR AND CLEAN \n[00:09:00] UP THE SURROUNDING AREAS. THE \n[00:09:02] CITY WAS TO PROVIDE NECESSARY \n[00:09:04] SERVICES INCLUDING SANITARY\, \n[00:09:06] OUTREACH\, HOUSING\, WEEKLY \n[00:09:09] GARBAGE COLLECTION SERVICES IN \n[00:09:11] THE REPRIEVE ZONE. BY FEBRUARY \n[00:09:13] 12\, 2021\, THE CITY WAS TO HAVE \n[00:09:16] CONDUCTED AN ENCAMPMENT CLOSURE \n[00:09:18] INTERVENTION IN THE ENTIRETY OF \n[00:09:20] THE PARK. THEN THE CITY WAS TO \n[00:09:23] IMPLEMENT ITS PARK RESTORATION \n[00:09:25] PLAN. BY APRIL 1\, 2022\, THE CITY \n[00:09:28] WAS TO HAVE FULLY RESTORED THE \n[00:09:30] PARK. IN THE INTEREST OF \n[00:09:34] PREVENTION\, THE CITY WAS TO \n[00:09:35] DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT AN \n[00:09:37] ENCAMPMENT ENFORCEMENT PLAN BY \n[00:09:41] APRIL 15\, 2021\, AS WELL AS A \n[00:09:41] LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE PLAN BY \n[00:09:42] SEPTEMBER — EXCUSE ME\, BY \n[00:09:52] SEPTEMBER 1\, 2021. THE CITY OF \n[00:09:52] OAKLAND SUCCESSFULLY IMPLEMENTED \n[00:09:54] THE ALLOWED REPRIEVE ZONE AND \n[00:09:56] CLEANED UP THE PARK OUTSIDE OF \n[00:09:57] THE ZONE AS DOCUMENTED IN A \n[00:09:59] NOVEMBER 20\, 2021 EMAIL TO BCDC \n[00:10:01] STAFF. THEN\, CITY STAFF \n[00:10:04] CONFIRMED VIA EMAIL THAT THE \n[00:10:05] PARK HAD BEEN SUCCESSFULLY \n[00:10:07] CLEANED UP ON DECEMBER 11\, 2020. \n[00:10:10] THE CITY PROVIDED THE REQUIRED \n[00:10:12] PLANS FOR BCDC REVIEW IN \n[00:10:14] COMMENTS AND THE CITY WAS — \n[00:10:17] CITY REQUESTED AND WAS GRANTED \n[00:10:19] AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE \n[00:10:21] THE NECESSARY RESTORATION OF THE \n[00:10:22] PARK. THE COMMITTEE IS BEING \n[00:10:30] BRIEFED TODAY BECAUSE THERE \n[00:10:31] SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN SOME ISSUES \n[00:10:32] WITH ORDER COMPLIANCE AT THE \n[00:10:34] PARK RECENTLY. STARTING IN \n[00:10:35] JANUARY 2024\, BCDC STAFF AND THE \n[00:10:39] ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE BEGAN \n[00:10:40] RECEIVING PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT \n[00:10:41] EXPRESSED CONCERNS OF \n[00:10:43] ENCAMPMENTS RETURNING TO UNION \n[00:10:44] POINT PARK. STAFF CONDUCTED A \n[00:10:46] SITE VISIT IN MARCH AND \n[00:10:47] CONFIRMED THE PRESENCE OF \n[00:10:49] SEVERAL TENTS THROUGHOUT THE \n[00:10:50] PARK AS WELL AS AN RV IN THE \n[00:10:51] SOUTHERN PARKING LOT. BCDC \n[00:10:53] SUBSEQUENTLY CONTACTED THE CITY \n[00:10:54] OF OAKLAND STAFF AND LEARNED \n[00:10:58] THEY WERE AWARE OF THE ISSUE BUT \n[00:11:00] WERE FACING CHALLENGES WITH THE \n[00:11:02] REQUIRED ALTERNATIVE SHELTER\, \n[00:11:03] AND THAT THERE WERE \n[00:11:04] INTERRUPTIONS IN THE CONTRACT \n[00:11:05] WITH THE OAKLAND OUTREACH TEAM\, \n[00:11:07] THIS TEAM PROVIDES FIRST CONTACT \n[00:11:10] WITH INDIVIDUALS ENCAMPED IN THE \n[00:11:11] PARKS. I WILL NOW INTRODUCE CITY \n[00:11:14] OF OAKLAND’S DEPUTY CITY \n[00:11:16] ADMINISTRATOR\, JOE DEVRIES. \n[00:11:24] >>JOE DEVRIES: THANK YOU\, JOHN. \n[00:11:26] SO\, I DON’T HAVE SLIDES. I JUST \n[00:11:28] WANT TO GIVE THE MOST RECENT \n[00:11:30] UPDATE. I THINK\, JOHN\, THAT WAS \n[00:11:32] VERY ACCURATE. WE\, YOU KNOW\, \n[00:11:34] LOOKING AT OUR LONG-TERM \n[00:11:38] ENFORCEMENT PLAN THAT WE AGREED \n[00:11:39] TO IN THE ORIGINAL CEASE AND \n[00:11:42] DESIST\, WE HAVE IMPLEMENTED THE \n[00:11:43] FIRST FEW STEPS OF THAT PLAN. AS \n[00:11:45] JOHN MENTIONED\, WE HAD A \n[00:11:47] DISRUPTION IN OUR OUTREACH \n[00:11:49] CONTRACT. THAT DISRUPTION ENDED \n[00:11:51] A FEW WEEKS AGO. WE WERE ABLE TO \n[00:11:53] SEND OUR OUTREACH WORKERS OUT TO \n[00:11:54] MAKE CONTACT WITH THE PERSONS IN \n[00:11:55] THE ENCAMPMENT AND EXPLAIN THE \n[00:11:57] PARK RULES AND THE REQUEST THAT \n[00:11:59] PEOPLE MOVE VOLUNTARILY. OR \n[00:12:02] ACCEPT OFFERS OF SHELTER. \n[00:12:06] UNFORTUNATELY WE DON’T HAVE \n[00:12:07] SHELTER BEDS TO OFFER RIGHT NOW. \n[00:12:08] WE HAVE ADDED THE ENCAMPMENT TO \n[00:12:10] THE WEEKLY AGENDA FOR THE \n[00:12:12] ENCAMPMENT MANAGEMENT TEAM\, \n[00:12:13] WHICH IS STEP TWO OF THE \n[00:12:14] LONG-TERM ENFORCEMENT PLAN THAT \n[00:12:15] WE AGREED TO. AND THAT TEAM \n[00:12:18] HOPES TO HAVE BEDS AVAILABLE TO \n[00:12:19] BE ABLE TO PERFORM A CLOSURE IN \n[00:12:22] EARLY JUNE AT THIS POINT\, BASED \n[00:12:24] ON BED AVAILABILITY. WE’VE ALSO \n[00:12:28] DEPLOYED OAKDOT\, THE DEPARTMENT \n[00:12:32] OF TRANSPORTATION VEHICLE \n[00:12:34] ENFORCEMENT UNIT THREE TIMES IN \n[00:12:35] THE PAST THREE MONTHS TO TRY TO \n[00:12:39] GAIN VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE FOR \n[00:12:41] THE RV TO LEAVE THE PARKING LOT. \n[00:12:45] THEY HAVE REFUSED TO. SO\, IN \n[00:12:47] ORDER TO CLOSE THAT PORTION OF \n[00:12:50] THE ENCAMPMENT\, WE NEED TO \n[00:12:52] PROVIDE A SAFE RV PARKING SPOT. \n[00:12:54] WE DID OPEN A SAFE RV PARKING \n[00:12:56] SITE A YEAR AGO. IT IS CURRENTLY \n[00:12:58] FULL. SO\, WE’RE REALLY LOOKING \n[00:13:00] TO FIND A SPACE FOR THAT RV \n[00:13:02] BEFORE WE CAN CLOSE IT SO THAT \n[00:13:03] WE DON’T VIOLATE ANY OF OUR \n[00:13:05] LEGAL SETTLEMENTS OR OUR \n[00:13:08] ENCAMPMENT MANAGEMENT POLICY. \n[00:13:10] SO\, WE’LL CONTINUE TO PROVIDE \n[00:13:13] OUTREACH AT THE SITE UNTIL WE \n[00:13:15] SCHEDULE THE CLOSURE. AND THE \n[00:13:17] CLOSURE WILL BE SCHEDULED BASED \n[00:13:18] ON BED AVAILABILITY. HAPPY TO \n[00:13:24] ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. \n[00:13:27] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:13:28] YOU. I WASN’T SURE THAT YOU WERE \n[00:13:30] FINISHED. DO ANY COMMISSIONERS \n[00:13:33] HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. \n[00:13:36] DEVRIES? I JUST HAVE ONE \n[00:13:43] QUESTION. I UNDERSTAND\, YOU \n[00:13:47] KNOW\, THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS \n[00:13:49] AND HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO \n[00:13:57] REMOVE THESE ENCAMPMENTS OR RVs \n[00:14:00] ONCE THEY’RE ESTABLISHED. I \n[00:14:02] THINK WHAT I WANT TO KNOW AND \n[00:14:03] MAYBE WHAT MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC \n[00:14:04] WANT TO KNOW IS GIVEN THE FACT \n[00:14:09] THAT THE CITY OF OAKLAND HAS \n[00:14:11] SPENT SO MANY RESOURCES ON \n[00:14:13] CLEANING UP THIS PARK\, WHY ISN’T \n[00:14:17] THERE MORE VIGILANCE IN TERMS OF \n[00:14:20] MONITORING THE PARK TO MAKE SURE \n[00:14:23] THAT THE ENCAMPMENTS DON’T GET A \n[00:14:26] FOOTHOLD IN THE FIRST PLACE? AND \n[00:14:29] IT MAY VERY WELL BE LACK OF \n[00:14:32] RESOURCES IN THE POLICE \n[00:14:35] DEPARTMENT OR WHATEVER. I WOULD \n[00:14:36] REALLY LIKE TO GET THIS ON THE \n[00:14:38] RECORD. THIS IS A QUESTION WE \n[00:14:40] GET A LOT. \n[00:14:44] >>JOE DEVRIES: I THINK YOU’RE \n[00:14:45] ASKING A QUESTION THAT \n[00:14:46] TRANSCENDS UNION POINT PARK. YOU \n[00:14:48] KNOW\, WE HAVE LAWS\, WE HAVE \n[00:14:50] RULES\, AND WE ALSO HAVE A \n[00:14:52] POPULATION THAT — THAT LIVES \n[00:14:54] OUTSIDE OF THOSE FOR A VARIETY \n[00:14:56] OF REASONS. YOU KNOW\, I FAILED \n[00:14:59] TO MENTION EARLIER\, WE DID ALSO \n[00:15:02] IMPLEMENT SOME SET-TED MEASURES. \n[00:15:07] YOU MAY RECALL\, LAST YEAR WE HAD \n[00:15:08] PEOPLE DRIVING INTO THE PARK\, WE \n[00:15:10] WERE ABLE TO QUICKLY GET THOSE \n[00:15:11] ENCAMPMENTS REMOVED\, AND WE \n[00:15:13] ACTUALLY PUT IN IN CONCRETE \n[00:15:15] BLOCKS TO AVOID CARS DRIVING \n[00:15:16] INTO THE PARK. THAT WAS A \n[00:15:19] SUCCESSFUL SET-TED ENDEAVOR. OPD \n[00:15:21] CAN GO AND ASK PEOPLE TO \n[00:15:23] VOLUNTARILY COMPLY WITH OUR PARK \n[00:15:25] RULES\, WITH OUR NO-CAMPING ZONE\, \n[00:15:28] WHICH IS CLEARLY BEEN POSTED \n[00:15:30] MULTIPLE TIMES. IF THEY DON’T\, \n[00:15:32] HOWEVER\, IT KICKS OVER TO THE \n[00:15:35] ENCAMPMENT MANAGEMENT TEAM. AND \n[00:15:36] THE ENCAMPMENT MANAGEMENT POLICY \n[00:15:39] IS REALLY CLEAR AND HAS BEEN \n[00:15:41] APPROVED BY A FEDERAL JUDGE THAT \n[00:15:42] WE CANNOT FORCE PEOPLE TO LEAVE \n[00:15:45] THE PARK UNLESS WE HAVE A \n[00:15:47] SHELTER BED FOR THEM. I THINK \n[00:15:52] THAT IS THE BIGGEST HURDLE WE \n[00:15:53] HAVE. WE HAVE EXPANDED OUR \n[00:15:55] SHELTER BED CAPACITY IN OAKLAND \n[00:15:56] SINCE 2017 BY SOMETHING LIKE \n[00:15:58] 800%. LITERALLY WENT FROM 100 \n[00:16:02] BEDS TO 800\, AND THEN WE ADDED \n[00:16:04] SAFE RV PARKING SITES ON TOP OF \n[00:16:06] THAT. AT THE SAME TIME\, THE \n[00:16:07] UNSHELTERED POPULATION HAS \n[00:16:12] TRIPLED. FOR ALL THOSE \n[00:16:13] EFFORTS — I WOULD ACTUALLY SAY \n[00:16:14] THE OTHER MAJOR HURDLE THE CITY \n[00:16:16] OF OAKLAND IS FACING IS THAT WE \n[00:16:18] ARE NOT MOVING PEOPLE OUT OF \n[00:16:20] SHELTER INTO PERMANENT HOUSING \n[00:16:22] BECAUSE THE PERMANENT HOUSING \n[00:16:23] DOESN’T EXIST. \n[00:16:26] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: MM-HMM. \n[00:16:28] >>JOE DEVRIES: THAT’S THE \n[00:16:29] BOTTLENECK THAT OUR CITY \n[00:16:30] STRUGGLES WITH DESPERATELY. WHEN \n[00:16:32] I STARTED DOING THIS WORK — \n[00:16:33] I’VE BEEN IN FRONT OF YOUR \n[00:16:35] COMMITTEE NOW SINCE BEFORE THE \n[00:16:36] PANDEMIC. YOU KNOW\, WE WOULD \n[00:16:40] MOVE SOMEONE INTO A CABIN\, FOR \n[00:16:42] EXAMPLE\, AND EXPECT A SIX-MONTH \n[00:16:44] STAY. AND WE — WITH OUR \n[00:16:47] ORIGINAL COMMUNITY CABIN \n[00:16:49] PROGRAM\, WE ACTUALLY MOVED TWO \n[00:16:52] THIRDS OF THE FIRST RESIDENTS OF \n[00:16:53] THOSE CABINS INTO PERMANENT \n[00:16:56] HOUSING WITHIN SIX MONTHS. \n[00:16:57] THAT’S NO LONGER THE CASE. WE \n[00:16:58] ARE FINDING THAT WE MOVE PEOPLE \n[00:16:59] INTO THESE CABIN SHELTERS OR \n[00:17:02] INTO SAFE RV SITES AND WE’RE NOT \n[00:17:05] EXITING THEM AT NEARLY THE PACE \n[00:17:08] WE WERE BECAUSE WE DON’T HAVE \n[00:17:09] THE HOUSING TO EXIT THEM TO. YOU \n[00:17:10] KNOW\, AS YOU KNOW\, THERE’S A \n[00:17:12] SUPREME COURT CASE THAT WAS \n[00:17:13] HEARD JUST ON MONDAY REGARDING \n[00:17:15] THE 9th CIRCUIT AND REALLY WILL \n[00:17:18] BE A MOMENT WHERE WE’RE REALLY \n[00:17:21] HOPING TO SEE WHAT THE SUPREME \n[00:17:23] COURT SAYS IN LATE JUNE AT THE \n[00:17:25] END OF THEIR SESSION. THAT COULD \n[00:17:27] SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT OUR \n[00:17:29] OPERATIONS AND GIVE US MORE \n[00:17:31] LEEWAY. NOT TO GO INTO TOO MUCH \n[00:17:35] DETAIL\, BUT MY OPINION\, I’M NOT \n[00:17:36] AN ATTORNEY\, I’VE READ THE 9th \n[00:17:40] CIRCUIT CASE\, I HAD TO BE IN \n[00:17:41] FEDERAL COURT SIX TIMES ON THIS\, \n[00:17:43] I BELIEVE THE JUDGES MADE IT \n[00:17:45] CLEAR\, THE CITIES COULD REGULATE \n[00:17:47] TIME\, PLACE AND MANNER\, BUT IT’S \n[00:17:49] NOT BEEN INTERPRETED THAT WAY AT \n[00:17:51] THE LOCAL LEVEL. OUR LOCAL \n[00:17:53] FEDERAL JUDGES HAVE GOTTEN VERY \n[00:17:56] INTIMATELY INVOLVED IN WHAT TYPE \n[00:17:57] OF SHELTER WE OFFER\, WHAT \n[00:17:59] AMENITIES WE OFFER AT THE \n[00:18:00] SHELTER BEFORE WE’RE ALLOWED TO \n[00:18:01] TAKE ACTION WHEN A RESTRAINING \n[00:18:03] ORDER IS FILED AGAINST US. I’M \n[00:18:06] CITING WOOD STREET AS THE MOST \n[00:18:08] RECENT EXAMPLE WHERE THE JUDGE \n[00:18:09] WOULD NOT LET US CLOSE THE WOOD \n[00:18:11] STREET ENCAMPMENT UNTIL SOME \n[00:18:13] VERY DETAILED ASPECTS OF THE \n[00:18:15] COMMUNITY CABIN PROGRAM COULD BE \n[00:18:17] PROVED OR IMPLEMENTED. THINGS \n[00:18:19] SUCH AS WHETHER WE HAD THE \n[00:18:22] SHOWERS UP AND RUNNING\, EVEN \n[00:18:24] THOUGH WE HAD THE BATHROOMS UP \n[00:18:25] AND RUNNING. WHETHER WE PROVIDED \n[00:18:27] A COMMUNITY KITCHEN. THAT \n[00:18:29] DEFINITION OF WHAT IS ADEQUATE \n[00:18:31] EMERGENCY SHELTER BEING PLAYED \n[00:18:32] OUT IN A FEDERAL\, YOU KNOW\, \n[00:18:35] COURT LOCALLY I THINK HAS REALLY \n[00:18:38] MADE OPERATIONS DIFFICULT. I \n[00:18:39] THINK WHAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN AT \n[00:18:41] THE SUPREME COURT WILL REALLY \n[00:18:42] SHAPE THINGS MORE IN THE FUTURE. \n[00:18:47] SORRY\, I’VE GONE ON A LONG TIME \n[00:18:48] ABOUT THAT. I HOPE IT GIVES YOU \n[00:18:50] A BIT OF CONTEXT. REST ASSURED\, \n[00:18:52] THIS ENCAMPMENT IS ON THE EMTs \n[00:18:55] RADAR. IT IS GOING TO BE \n[00:18:56] PRIORITIZED. I WASN’T SURE IF I \n[00:18:58] SHOULD TALK ABOUT IT DURING THIS \n[00:18:59] AGENDA ITEM OR THE NEXT ONE\, WE \n[00:19:01] DID JUST HAVE A VERY MASSIVE \n[00:19:05] CLOSURE OF THE LEET DRIVE-IN \n[00:19:08] ENCAMPMENT. OUR CENSUS DATA FROM \n[00:19:11] UNION POINT PARK SHOWS IT’S \n[00:19:12] ABOUT FIVE OR SIX PEOPLE. ONCE \n[00:19:13] WE GET THOSE BEDS IT SHOULDN’T \n[00:19:16] AN DIFFICULT LIFT TO GET IT \n[00:19:18] CLOSED. WE JUST CLOSED A MUCH \n[00:19:20] LARGER ENCAMPMENT ON LEET DRIVE\, \n[00:19:22] WHICH THIS COMMITTEE WAS \n[00:19:23] INTERESTED IN IN TERMS OF THE \n[00:19:24] IMPACT ON WATER QUALITY BECAUSE \n[00:19:26] IT WAS ALONG THE CHANNEL. THAT\, \n[00:19:28] WE CONSIDER A SUCCESS. WITH EACH \n[00:19:31] SUCCESS WE TAP OUR RESOURCES AND \n[00:19:34] MAKE THE NEXT ONE TAKE THAT MUCH \n[00:19:36] LONGER TO IMPLEMENT. \n[00:19:40] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:19:40] YOU VERY MUCH. I DEFINITELY \n[00:19:41] APPRECIATE THE CONTEXT. I THINK \n[00:19:43] IT’S IMPORTANT FOR THE — I’M \n[00:19:48] SORRY? JOHN? YOU’RE MUTED. OKAY. \n[00:19:57] I REALLY APPRECIATE THE CONTEXT. \n[00:20:00] I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT THAT THE \n[00:20:02] PUBLIC UNDERSTANDS THE CONTEXT \n[00:20:05] AND THE CONSTRAINTS UPON WHICH \n[00:20:09] ALL OF THIS IS SURROUNDED BY OR \n[00:20:11] AFFECTED BY. BEFORE I GO TO \n[00:20:14] PUBLIC COMMENT\, DO ANY MEMBERS \n[00:20:16] OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY \n[00:20:19] QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SEEING \n[00:20:24] NONE. MARGIE\, DO WE HAVE ANY \n[00:20:27] PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? \n[00:20:33] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: YES\, WE \n[00:20:33] HAVE A PUBLIC SPEAKER HERE IN \n[00:20:36] PERSON. \n[00:20:47] >>SPEAKER: GOOD MORNING CHAIR \n[00:20:48] GILMORE\, COMMISSIONER AND STAFF. \n[00:20:51] MY NAME IS MICHAEL GORMAN\, I \n[00:20:54] RESIDE IN ALAMEDA. I COME TO \n[00:20:56] REPRESENT 300 TO 400 KIDS THAT \n[00:20:59] PARTICIPATE IN OUR SAILING \n[00:21:01] PROGRAM ALL YEAR LONG AND \n[00:21:02] ESPECIALLY IN THE SUMMER. IT \n[00:21:04] CONTINUES TO CONCERN US AND \n[00:21:05] DISGUST US THAT THE GARBAGE AND \n[00:21:08] HUMAN WASTE CONTINUES TO BE PUT \n[00:21:09] INTO THE WATERS OF THE OAKLAND \n[00:21:12] ESTUARY WHERE OUR KIDS SWIM AND \n[00:21:16] RECREATE. MANY ADULTS DO THE \n[00:21:18] SAME. I’M ALSO INVOLVED WITH A \n[00:21:20] BUSINESS IN OAKLAND ON KENNEDY \n[00:21:21] STREET. I’M THERE DAILY. I \n[00:21:25] WITNESSED THE NETWORK OF RVs \n[00:21:30] ANCHORED OUT — ILLEGALLY \n[00:21:32] ANCHORED-OUT BOATS AND OTHER \n[00:21:35] STREET PEOPLE WHO OBVIOUSLY \n[00:21:37] OPERATE A NETWORK OF DRUG \n[00:21:40] DISTRIBUTION AND THIEVERY AND \n[00:21:44] ITEMS CONTINUALLY MISSING OFF OF \n[00:21:47] PROPERTY OWNERS AND BOATS IN THE \n[00:21:48] AREA. IT’S NOT JUST BY \n[00:21:51] OBSERVATION. I’VE BEEN INVOLVED \n[00:21:53] WITH THE DEA\, HOMELAND SECURITY\, \n[00:21:58] THE COAST GUARD SPECIAL \n[00:22:00] INVESTIGATORS AND THE POLICE \n[00:22:01] DEPARTMENTS\, THERE HAVE BEEN \n[00:22:03] ARRESTS MADE OF THESE PEOPLE. \n[00:22:08] CONTINUES TO BE A PROBLEM. I \n[00:22:10] GUESS THE CULMINATION OF THIS \n[00:22:11] WAS LAST WEEK OR ABOUT TEN DAYS \n[00:22:13] AGO IN A SHOOTING AND MURDER IN \n[00:22:14] THE MIDDLE OF KENNEDY STREET \n[00:22:17] AMONGST THIS GROUP OF PEOPLE. \n[00:22:22] THE KIDS ARE MY MAIN CONCERN IN \n[00:22:24] ALAMEDA\, BUT THE BUSINESSES AND \n[00:22:25] PUBLIC IN OAKLAND AND THE \n[00:22:27] WATERFRONT AND PUBLIC WATERWAYS \n[00:22:29] ARE ALSO A CONCERN. BEING A \n[00:22:32] BOATER ALL MY LIFE AND \n[00:22:34] APPRECIATIVE OF THE WATER AND \n[00:22:35] ITS RESOURCE\, I LOOK TO BCDC AS \n[00:22:36] BEING THE MAIN CONTROLLER AND \n[00:22:41] WATCHKEEPER OF THOSE RESOURCES \n[00:22:43] FOR THE PUBLIC. FRANKLY\, THE \n[00:22:46] INTRUSION OF THE ANCHOR-OUTS\, \n[00:22:48] ILLEGAL ANCHOR-OUTS\, THE OTHER \n[00:22:51] THINGS THAT I MENTIONED ON LAND \n[00:22:53] AND WITHIN A FEW BLOCKS OF UNION \n[00:22:56] POINT PARK KEEP THE PUBLIC AWAY \n[00:22:57] FROM THE AREA. THE ONLY PEOPLE \n[00:22:59] WHO GO THERE ARE THOSE \n[00:23:00] PARTICIPANTS OF THOSE \n[00:23:02] ACTIVITIES. I’VE BEEN OVER THERE \n[00:23:04] FOR YEARS. I’VE YET TO SEE A \n[00:23:06] FAMILY WALKING A CHILD DOWN THAT \n[00:23:07] BAY TRAIL OR EVEN HARDLY A \n[00:23:11] INDIVIDUAL RIDING A BIKE OR \n[00:23:12] GOING DOWN THE BAY TRAIL IF \n[00:23:14] THEY’RE NOT PART OF WHAT I WOULD \n[00:23:15] CALL THE ILLEGAL COMMUNITY. I’VE \n[00:23:17] ALWAYS FELT BCDC HAS DONE A \n[00:23:19] GREAT JOB. I WANT TO THANK YOU \n[00:23:21] FOR YOUR PAST ACTIONS IN \n[00:23:22] CLEANING UP THE PARK. YOU HAVE \n[00:23:24] THE ULTIMATE CLOUT THROUGH THAT \n[00:23:26] PERMITTING PROCESS AND \n[00:23:28] ENFORCEMENT\, THIS COMMITTEE \n[00:23:31] ENFORCEMENT ACTION FOR THE CITY \n[00:23:32] OF OAKLAND. I WOULD URGE YOU TO \n[00:23:34] STEP IT UP. PUT MORE \n[00:23:36] ENFORCEMENT\, FIRM ENFORCEMENT \n[00:23:38] ACTION IN PLACE AND TRY TO GET \n[00:23:40] SOMETHING DONE ABOUT THIS \n[00:23:41] PROBLEM. I APPRECIATE OAKLAND’S \n[00:23:45] COMMENTS\, THE DEPUTY \n[00:23:48] ADMINISTRATOR’S COMMENTS ON \n[00:23:49] THEIR CONSTRAINTS AND \n[00:23:51] DIFFICULTIES\, I ALSO KNOW IT’S A \n[00:23:53] MATTER OF PRIORITIES. IF YOU \n[00:23:54] HAVE PRESSURE ON THEM FOR AN \n[00:23:56] ENFORCEMENT ACTION\, I’M SURE \n[00:23:57] THEIR PRIORITIES WILL INCREASE\, \n[00:23:59] ESPECIALLY IF IT INCLUDES \n[00:24:01] PENALTIES AND FINES. THANK YOU \n[00:24:03] FOR YOUR COMMENTS — THANK YOU \n[00:24:05] FOR LISTENING. \n[00:24:09] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:24:09] YOU\, SIR. I’M GOING TO ASSUME \n[00:24:11] THAT THOSE COMMENTS APPLY \n[00:24:15] EQUALLY TO ITEM NUMBER 6\, WHICH \n[00:24:18] IS A BRIEFING ON OUR \n[00:24:20] ALAMEDA-OAKLAND ESTUARY \n[00:24:22] ENCAMPMENT ISSUES. \n[00:24:24] >>SPEAKER: YES. \n[00:24:25] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: I’M NOT \n[00:24:26] SURE IF YOU MEANT TO SPEAK ON \n[00:24:31] THAT ITEM OR IF THESE COMMENTS \n[00:24:33] APPLY TO BOTH ITEMS. \n[00:24:35] >>SPEAKER: THE COMMENTS APPLY TO \n[00:24:36] BOTH. I PROBABLY FORGOT TO \n[00:24:38] COMMENT ON MY THANK YOU TO THE \n[00:24:41] OAKLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT\, \n[00:24:42] ALAMEDA POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR \n[00:24:43] ALL THEY ACCOMPLISHED ALREADY. \n[00:24:46] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OKAY. \n[00:24:47] THANK YOU\, SIR. \n[00:24:49] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: THANK \n[00:24:49] YOU VERY MUCH. WE HAVE ONE MORE \n[00:24:50] PUBLIC SPEAKER. PLEASE STATE \n[00:24:52] YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND YOU \n[00:24:53] HAVE THREE MINUTES. \n[00:24:55] >>SPEAKER: MY NAME IS CHRIS \n[00:24:56] McKAY\, I’M WITH THE EMBARCADERO \n[00:24:59] NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. A YEAR \n[00:25:02] AGO WE WERE PLANTING TREES IN \n[00:25:05] THE PARK. WE HAD A BUNCH OF \n[00:25:07] SCHOOL CHILDREN COME IN. WE \n[00:25:08] CLEANED UP GRAFFITI\, PICKED UP \n[00:25:10] LITTER\, EVERYBODY WAS TALKING \n[00:25:12] ABOUT\, YOU KNOW\, HOW GREAT THE \n[00:25:13] PARK WAS LOOKING AND WE COULD — \n[00:25:16] WHAT WE WERE GOING TO DO WITH \n[00:25:18] FIXING UP THE PLAYGROUND AND \n[00:25:19] PLANTING MORE TREES. A DAY AFTER \n[00:25:21] THAT\, SOMEBODY MOVED INTO THE \n[00:25:22] PARK WITH A TENT. NOBODY TOLD \n[00:25:25] THEM TO LEAVE. IT GREW AND MORE \n[00:25:27] PEOPLE SHOWED UP AND MORE PEOPLE \n[00:25:28] SHOWED UP. AND NOW I’VE \n[00:25:31] SUBMITTED PICTURES OF THIS\, \n[00:25:33] THERE’S BASICALLY A TWO-BEDROOM \n[00:25:34] HOUSE THAT’S BEEN BUILT IN THE \n[00:25:36] CENTER OF THE PARK RIGHT NEXT TO \n[00:25:38] THE PLAYGROUND. EVERY NIGHT \n[00:25:40] PEOPLE HAVE BONFIRES THERE. \n[00:25:43] THEY’RE SURROUNDED BY TRASH\, \n[00:25:45] HUMAN WASTE. RECENTLY THE GUY \n[00:25:48] HAS GOTTEN A DOG. I WAS — HAD \n[00:25:53] TO RUN YESTERDAY WHEN I WAS OVER \n[00:25:54] THERE TAKING PICTURES BECAUSE \n[00:25:56] THIS BIG BLACK DOG CAME OUT OF \n[00:25:59] THIS STRUCTURE AND I HEARD FROM \n[00:26:01] OTHER PEOPLE THAT HE’S ATTACKED \n[00:26:03] PEOPLE AND THAT THERE’S ANOTHER \n[00:26:04] DOG ROAMING THE PARK THAT \n[00:26:09] BELONGS TO ONE OF THE PEOPLE. \n[00:26:10] THE PARK IS ABANDONED. THERE’S \n[00:26:12] NOBODY THERE. NO ONE NOW WILL GO \n[00:26:14] NEAR IT WITH THIS DOG. I CAN \n[00:26:17] UNDERSTAND SOMEONE IN A TENT\, \n[00:26:19] BUT THIS GUY HAS BUILT A HOUSE \n[00:26:21] IN THE CENTER OF THE PARK AND \n[00:26:23] BEEN ALLOWED TO STAY THERE FOR \n[00:26:25] OVER SIX MONTHS. IT’S JUST \n[00:26:28] UNBELIEVABLE THAT THIS HAS \n[00:26:31] HAPPENED. THE AMOUNT OF TRASH IS \n[00:26:33] RIDICULOUS. THE CRIME ELEMENT \n[00:26:35] NOW. THERE WAS A SHOOTING\, AS \n[00:26:37] MICHAEL MENTIONED\, ON KENNEDY \n[00:26:43] STREET TWO WEEKS AGO. THIS CAME \n[00:26:45] FROM THE THEFT OF THE COPPER \n[00:26:46] WIRING FROM JACQUELINE SQUARE \n[00:26:48] MARINA. IT WAS TAKEN — IT WAS \n[00:26:52] STOLEN BY THE GUYS ON THE BOATS \n[00:26:54] FROM THE ANCHOR-OUT. THE POLICE \n[00:26:57] KNOW ALL ABOUT THIS. THEY STOLE\, \n[00:26:59] I DON’T KNOW HOW MANY THOUSANDS \n[00:27:00] OF DOLLARS WORTH OF COPPER WIRE. \n[00:27:03] THEY TOOK IT DOWN TO KENNEDY \n[00:27:04] STREET AND THEY STRIPPED IT ALL \n[00:27:06] THERE AND YOU CAN SEE THE — YOU \n[00:27:08] KNOW\, THE REMAINS FROM THE \n[00:27:10] STRIPPING. ANOTHER GANG OR A \n[00:27:13] GANG CAME AND ATTEMPTED TO ROB \n[00:27:16] THE GUY\, GRAY DUBEL\, THAT STOLE \n[00:27:20] THE WIRING. GRAY DUBEL SHOT THE \n[00:27:24] GUY IN THE HEAD AND KILLED HIM. \n[00:27:25] THIS WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF \n[00:27:27] KENNEDY STREET AT 3:30 IN THE \n[00:27:28] AFTERNOON\, WHICH IS AROUND THE \n[00:27:29] CORNER FROM THE DOWNTOWN CHARTER \n[00:27:32] ACADEMY WHERE ALL THE PARENTS \n[00:27:34] WERE PICKING UP THEIR KIDS AND \n[00:27:35] DRIVING DOWN KENNEDY TO GET ON \n[00:27:37] THE FREEWAY. WHAT’S GOING ON \n[00:27:39] THERE IS IT’S ALL TIED TOGETHER. \n[00:27:41] IT’S THE MURDER ON KENNEDY \n[00:27:43] STREET\, IT’S THE PEOPLE IN THE \n[00:27:45] PARK LIVING IN THE PARK\, AND \n[00:27:47] IT’S ALSO THE ANCHOR-OUTS. SO\, \n[00:27:51] SOMEWHERE THIS LINK HAS TO BE \n[00:27:53] BROKEN. I DON’T KNOW WHETHER \n[00:27:55] IT’S THE PARK\, GETTING RID OF \n[00:27:57] THE ANCHOR-OUTS\, CLOSING KENNEDY \n[00:27:59] STREET. WE’D LIKE TO SEE ALL \n[00:28:00] THREE OF IT\, THREE THINGS \n[00:28:03] HAPPEN. BECAUSE THIS IS \n[00:28:04] UNTENABLE. WE ASK BCDC\, USE ITS \n[00:28:09] ENFORCEMENT POLICY. THE CITY HAS \n[00:28:11] 23 MILLION OF UNSPENT MONEY FROM \n[00:28:16] MEASURE Q ALLOCATED FOR LEANING \n[00:28:17] UP THE PARKS. WHY HASN’T HAS \n[00:28:20] BEEN SPENT? YOU COULD PUT PEOPLE \n[00:28:22] IN RITZ CARLTON IF YOU NEED A \n[00:28:24] PLACE FOR THEM WITH THIS MONEY. \n[00:28:26] PLEASE DO SOMETHING. WE CAN’T \n[00:28:28] TAKE IT ANYMORE. THANK YOU. \n[00:28:34] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:28:35] YOU. \n[00:28:35] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: THANK \n[00:28:36] YOU VERY MUCH. CHAIR GILMORE\, \n[00:28:38] THAT’S ALL WE HAVE FOR THE \n[00:28:42] PUBLIC SPEAKER IN-PERSON. WE \n[00:28:45] HAVE A COMMENTER ONLINE. \n[00:28:52] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:28:52] YOU. \n[00:29:01] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: VH? \n[00:29:03] >>SPEAKER: HI. \n[00:29:07] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: PLEASE \n[00:29:08] STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD \n[00:29:08] AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. \n[00:29:11] [ BROKEN AUDIO ] \n[00:29:13] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OKAY. WE \n[00:29:14] CAN’T HEAR YOU OR UNDERSTAND \n[00:29:15] YOU. \n[00:29:17] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: VH? WE \n[00:29:24] CANNOT HEAR YOU. \n[00:29:29] [ BROKEN AUDIO ] \n[00:29:35] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: SORRY\, \n[00:29:36] WE CAN’T HEAR YOU. \n[00:29:43] >>SPEAKER: I’M A RESIDENT — CAN \n[00:29:46] YOU STILL NOT UNDERSTAND ME? \n[00:29:48] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: YOU’RE \n[00:29:49] FADING IN AND OUT. TRY AGAIN. \n[00:29:51] >>SPEAKER: I’M SORRY. I JUST \n[00:29:52] DON’T KNOW WHAT ELSE I CAN DO ON \n[00:29:54] MY END. \n[00:29:55] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: YOU’RE \n[00:29:56] FINE RIGHT NOW. \n[00:29:57] >>SPEAKER: OKAY. GREAT. I WOULD \n[00:29:58] RATHER NOT STATE MY NAME. I HAVE \n[00:30:02] SPOKEN MANY TIMES AT THESE \n[00:30:05] ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETINGS \n[00:30:07] IN THE PAST. I’M A RESIDENT AT \n[00:30:10] UNION POINT MARINA. I FEEL LIKE \n[00:30:15] IF I GIVE MY NAME\, I WILL BE A \n[00:30:19] TARGET FOR RETALIATION. AS A \n[00:30:26] RESIDENT\, VERY\, VERY GRATEFUL \n[00:30:29] FOR THE ANCHOR-OUT SITUATION \n[00:30:31] BEING IMPROVED. THERE’S STILL \n[00:30:33] TRAFFIC BACK AND FORTH PAST THE \n[00:30:35] MARINA\, PAST BUD BOAT ALL NIGHT \n[00:30:40] LONG OF — I DON’T KNOW WHAT’S \n[00:30:42] GOING ON. ALL NIGHT LONG THERE’S \n[00:30:44] TRAFFIC BACK AND FORTH FROM THE \n[00:30:45] REMAINING ANCHOR-OUTS GOING PAST \n[00:30:48] THE MARINA. THERE ARE FREQUENT \n[00:30:55] ARGUMENTS AND FIGHTS IN THE \n[00:30:57] PARKING LOT. THE SCENE HAS \n[00:31:00] STARTED — JUST GOING TO MY CAR \n[00:31:02] HAS STARTED TO FEEL UNSAFE \n[00:31:04] AGAIN. WHAT I TRULY DON’T \n[00:31:08] UNDERSTAND IS WHY THERE IS A \n[00:31:11] PUBLIC BATHROOM AT UNION POINT \n[00:31:15] PARK. THERE ARE MANY\, MANY\, \n[00:31:18] MANY\, MANY PARKS IN THE CITY OF \n[00:31:20] OAKLAND THAT DON’T HAVE PUBLIC \n[00:31:22] BATHROOMS AND DON’T HAVE \n[00:31:23] FOUNTAINS AND FAUCETS. THERE ARE \n[00:31:26] MANY\, MANY\, MANY MILES OF \n[00:31:29] SHORELINE AROUND THE BAY WHERE \n[00:31:31] THERE’S NO IMMEDIATE ACCESS TO \n[00:31:34] BATHROOMS AND WATER. AS LONG AS \n[00:31:36] THOSE BATHROOMS ARE THERE AND AS \n[00:31:38] LONG AS THOSE WATER FOUNTAINS \n[00:31:40] AND THOSE FAUCETS ARE THERE\, \n[00:31:41] PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BATHE THERE. \n[00:31:43] PEOPLE ARE GOING TO WASH THEIR \n[00:31:45] CLOTHES THERE. PEOPLE ARE GOING \n[00:31:46] TO — IT IS A — IT IS A MAGNET \n[00:31:50] FOR THE PROBLEM\, THE FACT THAT \n[00:31:52] THOSE FACILITIES ARE THERE. I \n[00:31:53] WOULD LIKE TO SEE THOSE \n[00:31:55] FACILITIES CLOSED. THEY WERE \n[00:31:57] CLOSED FOR A WHILE AFTER THE \n[00:32:00] ENCAMPMENT WAS REMOVED. IT \n[00:32:03] REALLY — IT REALLY HELPED. IT \n[00:32:05] WAS ACTUALLY THE REOPENING OF \n[00:32:07] THOSE BATHROOMS AND TURNING THE \n[00:32:11] WATER BACK ON THAT RE-STIMULATED \n[00:32:14] PEOPLE TO START MOVING BACK IN. \n[00:32:19] PLEASE — PLEASE DO SOMETHING \n[00:32:23] ABOUT THIS. I DON’T KNOW IF THIS \n[00:32:25] HAS BEEN SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED \n[00:32:29] SHUTTING DOWN THOSE BATHROOMS. \n[00:32:30] THEY SERVE — OTHER THAN — \n[00:32:36] OTHER THAN FACILITIES FOR THE \n[00:32:38] HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS\, THEY \n[00:32:41] REALLY ARE NOT SERVING ANY OTHER \n[00:32:43] PUBLIC PURPOSE. THAT’S ALL FOR \n[00:32:45] THE MOMENT. THANK YOU. \n[00:32:49] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: THANK \n[00:32:50] YOU VERY MUCH. CHAIR GILMORE\, \n[00:32:51] THAT’S ALL WE HAVE. \n[00:32:53] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:32:54] YOU\, MARGIE. I GUESS MY FINAL \n[00:32:58] QUESTION IS ONE FOR STAFF. \n[00:33:02] CLEARLY WE’VE ALL BEEN KEEPING \n[00:33:05] AN EYE ON THE SITUATION. DO WE \n[00:33:08] HAVE ANY IDEA WHEN THIS MIGHT \n[00:33:10] COME BACK TO US FOR AN UPDATE? \n[00:33:17] >>JOHN CREECH: IN MY NEXT \n[00:33:18] PRESENTATION I WILL PROPOSE TO \n[00:33:20] BRING OAKLAND AND ALAMEDA BACK \n[00:33:21] FOR A BRIEFING ON THE \n[00:33:25] OAKLAND-ALAMEDA ESTUARY\, AND IT \n[00:33:28] MAKES SENSE TO HAVE THEM ADDRESS \n[00:33:29] THIS ISSUE THEN AS WELL. \n[00:33:31] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OKAY. \n[00:33:32] GREAT. I GUESS I JUST JUMPED THE \n[00:33:34] GUN. ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM \n[00:33:36] COMMITTEE MEMBERS ON THIS ISSUE? \n[00:33:43] OKAY. SEEING NONE. LET’S MOVE ON \n[00:33:45] TO ITEM NUMBER 6\, WHICH IS A \n[00:33:48] BRIEFING ON THE ALAMEDA-OAKLAND \n[00:33:52] ESTUARY AND ENCAMPMENT ISSUE. \n[00:33:54] THIS COMMITTEE WILL RECEIVE A \n[00:33:56] BRIEFING ON THE ACTIONS TAKEN TO \n[00:33:57] ADDRESS SHORELINE ENCAMPMENTS\, \n[00:34:00] ABANDONED AND DERELICT VESSELS \n[00:34:02] AND ANCHOR-OUTS IN THE \n[00:34:05] ALAMEDA-OAKLAND ESTUARY BY BCDC \n[00:34:08] STAFF AND THE CITIES OF OAKLAND \n[00:34:10] AND ALAMEDA. BEFORE WE GET \n[00:34:14] STARTED\, CAN WE HAVE \n[00:34:17] REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE CITY OF \n[00:34:20] ALAMEDA AND OFFICER ALBINO \n[00:34:25] IDENTIFY THEMSELVES FOR THE \n[00:34:26] RECORD\, PLEASE? \n[00:34:31] >>JOSHUA CROSSLEY: LIEUTENANT \n[00:34:32] JOSHUA CROSSLEY\, CITY OF ALAMEDA \n[00:34:36] POLICE DEPARTMENT. \n[00:34:42] >>KALEO ALBINO: OFFICER KALEO \n[00:34:43] ALBINO\, OAKLAND POLICE \n[00:34:43] DEPARTMENT MARINE UNIT. \n[00:34:47] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:34:48] YOU AND WELCOME. I WILL INVITE \n[00:34:49] JOHN CREECH OF OUR COMPLIANCE \n[00:34:49] UNIT TO START THE BRIEFING. \n[00:34:51] JOHN? \n[00:35:02] >>JOHN CREECH: GOOD MORNING \n[00:35:02] AGAIN. I’M STILL JOHN CREECH ON \n[00:35:05] BCDC’S COMPLIANCE TEAM. THIS IS \n[00:35:08] ITEM 6\, A BRIEFING ON \n[00:35:10] OAKLAND-ALAMEDA ESTUARY. WE WILL \n[00:35:12] THEN HEAR FROM THE CITIES OF \n[00:35:13] ALAMEDA AND OAKLAND ON THE \n[00:35:15] PROGRESS THEY MADE TOWARDS \n[00:35:16] CLEANING UP THE ESTUARY \n[00:35:22] SHORELINE BAND AND THE PLANS FOR \n[00:35:24] PREVENTING ISSUES IN THE FUTURE. \n[00:35:27] THE ISSUES OF SHORELINE \n[00:35:28] ENCAMPMENTS\, ABANDONED AND \n[00:35:31] DERELICT VESSELS AND ANCHOR-OUTS \n[00:35:34] IN AND AROUND THE \n[00:35:35] OAKLAND-ALAMEDA ESTUARY IN \n[00:35:36] ALAMEDA COUNTY WAS INTRODUCED TO \n[00:35:36] THE ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE AT THE \n[00:35:38] FEBRUARY 23\, 2022 MEETING. AT \n[00:35:40] THAT MEETING\, BCDC AND CITIES \n[00:35:41] AGREED TO CONTINUE TO \n[00:35:42] COLLABORATE AND REGULARLY RETURN \n[00:35:44] TO PROVIDE PROGRESS REPORTS TO \n[00:35:45] THE ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE. THIS \n[00:35:48] COLLECTIVE ISSUE WAS BROUGHT \n[00:35:50] BACK TO THE ENFORCEMENT \n[00:35:51] COMMITTEE ON FEBRUARY 22\, 2023\, \n[00:35:54] WHERE THE COMMITTEE SUGGESTED \n[00:35:55] THAT BCDC’S NEWLY-FORMED \n[00:35:58] COMPLIANCE TEAM CONTINUE TO WORK \n[00:35:59] WITH THE CITIES TO ADDRESS THIS \n[00:36:00] ISSUE. BCDC STAFF HAVE BEEN \n[00:36:03] HOSTING MONTHLY CHECK-IN \n[00:36:05] MEETINGS WITH REPRESENTATIVES \n[00:36:05] FROM THE CITIES OF OAKLAND\, \n[00:36:07] ALAMEDA\, BOARD OF OAKLAND\, EAST \n[00:36:11] BAY REGIONAL PARKS\, OAKLAND PD \n[00:36:12] AND ALAMEDA PD. THESE MEETINGS \n[00:36:16] HAVE BEEN VERY BENEFICIAL TO \n[00:36:18] FACILITATE PRODUCTIVE \n[00:36:20] CONVERSATION AND KEEP THIS ISSUE \n[00:36:21] IN THE FOREFRONT OF PEOPLE’S \n[00:36:22] MINDS. THE COMMITTEE LAST HEARD \n[00:36:25] FROM THE CITIES OF ALAMEDA AND \n[00:36:27] OAKLAND AT THE JANUARY 24th \n[00:36:30] ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING \n[00:36:30] AND STAFF PROPOSES TO INVITE THE \n[00:36:32] STAFFS OF ALAMEDA AND OAKLAND \n[00:36:33] BACK FOR THE AUGUST 8\, 2024 \n[00:36:36] COMMITTEE MEETING TO GIVE \n[00:36:37] ANOTHER UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF \n[00:36:38] THE ESTUARY. AT THE ENFORCEMENT \n[00:36:46] COMMITTEE BRIEFING IN JANUARY\, \n[00:36:47] WE LEARNED THAT THE ESTUARY WAS \n[00:36:50] SUCCESSFULLY CLEANED UP OF \n[00:36:52] ILLEGAL VESSELS AND ANCHOR-OUTS. \n[00:36:54] OFFICER KALEO ALBINO OF OAKLAND \n[00:36:57] PD BRIEFED THE COMMITTEE ABOUT \n[00:36:57] THE TASK FORCE HE ASSEMBLED \n[00:36:59] WHICH RESULTED IN OVER 400 HOURS \n[00:37:00] OF WATER PATROL AND ARRESTS \n[00:37:03] RELATED TO ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES \n[00:37:07] PERFORMED FROM ANCHOR-OUTS AND \n[00:37:09] 25 VESSELS BEING ABATED FROM THE \n[00:37:10] ESTUARY. THIS PICTURE SHOWS \n[00:37:15] ABATED VEHICLES PILED UP AND \n[00:37:16] JACK LONDON’S AQUATIC PARKING \n[00:37:17] LOT WHERE THEY WERE LOADED ON TO \n[00:37:18] DUMP TRUCKS AND HAULED OFF. \n[00:37:23] MOVING FORWARD\, BCDC STAFF AND \n[00:37:25] CITY STAFF ARE COMMITTED TO \n[00:37:27] CONTINUING TO REGULARLY CHECK IN \n[00:37:28] AND MONITOR THE STATUS OF THE \n[00:37:29] ESTUARY TO ENSURE IT REMAINS \n[00:37:31] CLEANED UP AND FREE OF ILLEGAL \n[00:37:33] VESSELS. BCDC STAFF IS PLEASED \n[00:37:36] WITH THE PROGRESS IN \n[00:37:37] COLLABORATION WITH OAKLAND AND \n[00:37:40] ALAMEDA DEMONSTRATED OVER THE \n[00:37:41] YEARS TO WORK TOWARDS GETTING \n[00:37:42] THE ESTUARY WHERE IT IS TODAY. \n[00:37:44] WE REALIZE THIS JOB IS NOT \n[00:37:46] COMPLETE\, WE’RE HAPPY WITH THE \n[00:37:47] PROGRESS AND DEDICATION THE \n[00:37:49] CITIES HAVE DEMONSTRATED. \n[00:37:52] PREVENTION IS BECOMING THE POINT \n[00:37:53] OF FOCUS FOR US AND THE CITIES. \n[00:37:55] WE LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING \n[00:37:56] REGULAR UPDATES ON HOW THEY ARE \n[00:37:58] KEEPING ESTUARY AND SHORELINE \n[00:38:00] BAND CLEAN AND ENSURING THAT THE \n[00:38:02] CITIES ARE DEVOTING THE \n[00:38:04] NECESSARY RESOURCES TO THE \n[00:38:06] SHORELINE AND TO THE ESTUARY. I \n[00:38:10] WILL NOW INTRODUCE LIEUTENANT \n[00:38:12] JOSH CROSSLEY OF ALAMEDA PD AND \n[00:38:16] THEN DEPUTY CITY ADMINISTRATOR \n[00:38:19] JOE DEVRIES\, OFFICER KALEO \n[00:38:23] ALBINO OF OPD\, AND I ALSO SAW \n[00:38:26] LIEUTENANT THEBEL FROM OPD IF HE \n[00:38:32] HAS ANYTHING TO ADD. THANK YOU. \n[00:38:35] >>JOSHUA CROSSLEY: GOOD MORNING\, \n[00:38:36] LUTENANT CROSSLEY\, ALAMEDA PD. \n[00:38:38] I’M THE HEAD OF OUR MARINE \n[00:38:40] PATROL UNIT. I’LL START WITH A \n[00:38:42] BRIEF UPDATE ON OUR S.A.V.E. \n[00:38:44] GRANTS AND FUNDING. OUR S.A.V.E. \n[00:38:46] ’22 GRANT\, GOING INTO THIS WEEK\, \n[00:38:49] WE HAD APPROXIMATELY 36\,000 LEFT \n[00:38:53] ON THAT. THE S.A.V.E. ’23 GRANT \n[00:38:57] WE HAVE 200\,000\, THE S.A.V.E. \n[00:39:00] ’24 WE HAVE 150\,000 THAT’S IN \n[00:39:03] THE PROCESS OF BEING APPROVED. \n[00:39:04] WE HAVE NO REPORTED ANCHOR-OUTS \n[00:39:07] ON OUR END OF THE ESTUARY AS OF \n[00:39:09] YESTERDAY. WE DO HAVE — WE DID \n[00:39:11] HAVE FOUR SUNKEN VESSELS OFF THE \n[00:39:13] ROCKWALL THERE THAT PARKER \n[00:39:17] DIVING IS IN THE PROCESS OF \n[00:39:18] REMOVING. THEY STARTED MONDAY. \n[00:39:19] THEY SHOULD BE DONE TODAY\, MAYBE \n[00:39:22] TOMORROW. THEY’RE PULLING UP ON \n[00:39:24] THE BOAT RAMP AND DISPOSING OF \n[00:39:27] THEM. WHILE THEY’RE DOING THAT\, \n[00:39:28] WE WENT AHEAD AND TOOK THREE OF \n[00:39:30] OUR V-TIPS WAITING IN LINE AND \n[00:39:33] HAD THEM DISPOSE OF THAT AS WELL \n[00:39:35] AS THEY WERE DOING THE SUNKEN \n[00:39:37] VESSELS. I HAVE A FINAL AMOUNT \n[00:39:39] THAT WILL PROBABLY TAKE UP ABOUT \n[00:39:40] 75\,000\, SO THAT SHOULD LEAVE US \n[00:39:42] WITH ABOUT 160\,000 LEFT ON THE \n[00:39:45] ’23 S.A.V.E. GRANT FOR OTHER \n[00:39:48] V-TIPS. WE PROBABLY HAVE 12 TO \n[00:39:51] 15 IN MIND THAT WE NEED TO GO \n[00:39:52] AND TAKE AND GET RID OF. SO\, \n[00:39:55] THAT’S THE CLEANUP. THE HOMELESS \n[00:39:57] ENCAMPMENT ISSUE\, THE ONLY ONE I \n[00:39:59] TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME WAS MAIN \n[00:40:01] STREET. THAT HAS SINCE PRETTY \n[00:40:03] MUCH BEEN CLEANED UP TO ONE \n[00:40:04] LITTLE SMALL AREA THERE. IT’S ON \n[00:40:06] THE OTHER SIDE\, NOT ON THE WATER \n[00:40:08] SIDE. IT’S NOT AFFECTING THE \n[00:40:10] SHORELINE THERE AT ALL. OUR BOAT \n[00:40:13] IS STILL GOING OUT ABOUT THREE \n[00:40:15] TO FOUR DAYS A MONTH. I WOULD — \n[00:40:19] PERSONALLY I WOULD LIKE IT TO GO \n[00:40:20] OUT THREE TO FOUR DAYS A WEEK\, \n[00:40:22] BUT WITH OUR BUDGET RESTRAINTS \n[00:40:24] AND OUR STAFFING ISSUES\, IT’S \n[00:40:25] ALL OVERTIME. WE WOULD HAVE TO \n[00:40:27] KEEP IT DOWN TO ABOUT THREE\, \n[00:40:28] FOUR DAYS A MONTH THAT WE’RE OUT \n[00:40:30] THERE PATROLLING THE ESTUARY. IF \n[00:40:33] ANYTHING POPS UP\, SOMETHING \n[00:40:34] MAJOR\, WE’LL SEND THEM OUT TO \n[00:40:35] TAKE CARE OF THE ISSUES. I \n[00:40:37] BELIEVE THAT’S ABOUT IT. \n[00:40:41] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:40:42] YOU. I’M NOT SURE IF WE GO TO \n[00:40:47] MR. DEVRIES OR OFFICER ALBINO. \n[00:40:52] >>JOE DEVRIES: IF I COULD\, \n[00:40:53] BEFORE OFFICER ALBINO JUMPS IN\, \n[00:40:55] I WANT TO REITERATE\, SINCE THIS \n[00:40:57] IS ABOUT SHORELINE AS WELL\, WE \n[00:40:59] DID HAVE A MAJOR OPERATION ON \n[00:41:01] LEET DRIVE. WE’RE EXCITED ABOUT \n[00:41:03] THAT. THAT WAS A REALLY BIG \n[00:41:07] ENTRENCHED ENCAMPMENT FOR A LONG \n[00:41:09] TIME WITH HUGE DEBRIS BEING \n[00:41:11] GENERATED. THAT’S ON THE \n[00:41:12] SHORELINE. FOR THE WATER\, I’LL \n[00:41:14] TURN IT OVER TO OFFICER ALBINO. \n[00:41:16] WHEN HE’S DONE\, I WANT TO TALK \n[00:41:17] ABOUT WHAT THE FUTURE IS LOOKING \n[00:41:19] LIKE OR WHAT OUR HOPES ARE. \n[00:41:26] OFFICER ALBINO? \n[00:41:28] >>KALEO ALBINO: GOOD MORNING. \n[00:41:28] THANK YOU\, JOHN\, THANK YOU\, JOE\, \n[00:41:30] THANK YOU LIEUTENANT CROSSLEY. I \n[00:41:34] WANT TO EXTEND MY COMMENTS OUT \n[00:41:35] TO MR. GORMAN\, MR. McKAY AND THE \n[00:41:37] OTHER PERSON WHO LIVES AT UNION \n[00:41:39] POINT. I SHARE YOUR CONCERNS AS \n[00:41:41] FAR AS THE ESTUARY CONCERNS. I \n[00:41:44] DIRECT MOST OF MY DAILY \n[00:41:45] RESOURCES TO THOSE CONCERNS. I \n[00:41:48] ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT I SHARE \n[00:41:51] THE SAME ISSUES THAT ARE GOING \n[00:41:53] FORWARD AND I HOPE THAT YOU GUYS \n[00:41:56] WILL BE RELIEVED TO HEAR IN THE \n[00:41:57] NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS OR SO WITH \n[00:41:59] THE WORK WE HAVE PROJECTED AHEAD \n[00:42:01] OF US FOR THE REST OF THIS YEAR. \n[00:42:03] THANK YOU\, JOHN\, FOR THOSE \n[00:42:05] SLIDES ON THE ESTUARY. SINCE \n[00:42:08] THAT JANUARY 24th DATE\, WE HAVE \n[00:42:11] ABATED OR REMOVED APPROXIMATELY \n[00:42:12] 30 VESSELS FROM THE ESTUARY. WE \n[00:42:15] HAVE IMPLEMENTED THE DEPARTMENT \n[00:42:17] POLICIES THAT WE HAVE SET IN \n[00:42:19] PLACE OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF \n[00:42:20] YEARS WITH OUR NUISANCE VESSEL \n[00:42:22] ORDINANCE AND OUR ABANDONED \n[00:42:25] VESSEL ORDINANCE AS WELL. MY \n[00:42:27] DEPARTMENT HAS GRACIOUSLY GIVEN \n[00:42:30] ME THREE OFFICERS ON LOAN OVER \n[00:42:32] THE LAST SIX MONTHS. THAT HAS \n[00:42:34] BEEN A HUGE HELP FOR ME. PRIOR \n[00:42:37] TO THAT\, I’VE BEEN WORKING \n[00:42:39] ESSENTIALLY BY MYSELF OR HAVING \n[00:42:41] OTHER OFFICERS ON OVERTIME\, \n[00:42:43] WHICH HAS BEEN A CHALLENGE. THAT \n[00:42:45] LOAN IS ENDING SOON\, BUT I THINK \n[00:42:49] THE PATHWAY FORWARD WILL BE \n[00:42:51] OKAY\, CONTINUING OPERATIONS ON \n[00:42:53] OVERTIME OR SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT. \n[00:42:57] RECENTLY\, THE MEDIA HAS SHOWN TO \n[00:43:00] LIGHT THE RECENT CRIME CASE THAT \n[00:43:02] WE’VE HAD ON THE OAKLAND \n[00:43:03] ESTUARY. SPECIFICALLY THE \n[00:43:08] ANCHOR-OUTS OFF OF UNION POINT \n[00:43:09] PARK WHERE WE SERVED TWO \n[00:43:11] SIMULTANEOUS SEARCH WARRANTS AND \n[00:43:12] CONDUCTED THREE ARRESTS. THE \n[00:43:14] DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF ALAMEDA \n[00:43:17] COUNTY CHARGED THOSE SUSPECTS IN \n[00:43:19] THAT CASE AND THE CASE IS \n[00:43:20] CURRENTLY JUST WORKING ITS WAY \n[00:43:22] THROUGH THE COURT SYSTEM. WE DO \n[00:43:24] HAVE A PLAN IN PLACE FOR THOSE \n[00:43:25] THREE ANCHOR-OUTS. THERE HAS \n[00:43:27] BEEN SOME CONTRACTING DELAYS \n[00:43:30] WITH THE CITY ADMINISTRATION\, \n[00:43:32] BUT I’M HAPPY TO SAY THAT \n[00:43:36] ADMINISTRATIVE WORK IS COMING TO \n[00:43:37] A POSITIVE CLOSE AND WE WILL BE \n[00:43:39] CONTRACTING WITH LYNN MARINE TO \n[00:43:42] REMOVE MULTIPLE VESSELS OUT OF \n[00:43:44] THE ESTUARY. LIKELY THOSE THREE \n[00:43:47] ANCHOR-OUTS\, IF THEY DON’T LEAVE \n[00:43:48] BEFORE WE SEIZE THOSE VESSELS. \n[00:43:53] WE HAVE A PLAN IN PLACE OVER THE \n[00:43:54] NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS TO REMOVE \n[00:43:57] 40 VESSELS OUT OF THE OAKLAND \n[00:44:00] MARINAS. THOSE ANCHOR-OUTS ARE \n[00:44:02] INCLUDED IN THAT 40-VESSEL \n[00:44:04] COUNT. THAT IS A PROJECT TO — I \n[00:44:08] GUESS A LONG-TERM WAY TO ATTACK \n[00:44:10] THIS PROBLEM\, REMOVING THESE \n[00:44:13] ABANDONED VESSELS WHERE PEOPLE \n[00:44:14] HAVE WALKED AWAY FROM THEIR \n[00:44:16] VESSELS INSIDE OF MARINAS \n[00:44:18] ESSENTIALLY\, WHERE THEY WILL PAY \n[00:44:20] FOR A SLIP INSIDE OF A MARINA\, \n[00:44:23] THEY CAN’T AFFORD TO FIX THEIR \n[00:44:25] BOAT AND THEY JUST SIMPLY JUST \n[00:44:27] STOP PAYING THEIR BILL. THEY \n[00:44:28] WON’T SHOW UP. THAT BURDEN IS \n[00:44:31] LEFT ON THE HARBORMASTERS. SO\, \n[00:44:35] THIS PROJECT IS LENDING A HAND \n[00:44:36] TO THE HARBORMASTERS LOCALLY TO \n[00:44:38] REMOVE THOSE 40 VESSELS OUT OF \n[00:44:41] THE MARINAS AND GET AHEAD OF \n[00:44:43] THIS PROBLEM OF HAVING THESE \n[00:44:45] VESSELS END UP AS ANCHOR-OUTS OR \n[00:44:47] SUNKEN BOATS INSIDE OF THE \n[00:44:49] OAKLAND ESTUARY. I WANT TO THANK \n[00:44:52] ALAMEDA POLICE FOR DOING YOUR \n[00:44:54] GUYS RECENT CLEANUP. ANY CLEANUP \n[00:44:57] THAT I THINK OR ANY ACTIVITY \n[00:45:00] THAT WE DO THAT MAKES THE \n[00:45:01] MEDIA — HAS A RIPPLE EFFECT \n[00:45:06] AMONGST BRINGING VESSELS TO THE \n[00:45:10] OAKLAND ESTUARY TO EITHER LEAVE \n[00:45:12] THERE\, STORE\, OR LIVE ABOARD\, I \n[00:45:15] THINK IT HELPS US ALL OUT AND IT \n[00:45:17] KEEPS THE ESTUARY CLEANER. OUR \n[00:45:22] FUTURE CHALLENGES THAT WE’RE \n[00:45:23] FACING ARE LOSING THOSE OFFICERS \n[00:45:25] ON LOAN. I WILL CONTINUE TO BE \n[00:45:27] VERBAL ABOUT MAYBE GETTING A NEW \n[00:45:30] LOAN ONCE OUR NEW CHIEF GETS SET \n[00:45:32] IN PLACE AT THE DEPARTMENT. I’LL \n[00:45:35] REATTACK THAT PLAN THERE. I’M \n[00:45:38] GOING TO CONTINUE DIRECTING MOST \n[00:45:41] OF MY TIME AND RESOURCES INTO \n[00:45:43] THE ANCHOR-OUT ISSUES. I’M \n[00:45:45] CURRENTLY APPLYING FOR $200\,000 \n[00:45:47] FOR THE NEXT CYCLE OF THE \n[00:45:49] S.A.V.E. GRANT THROUGH THE STATE \n[00:45:50] OF CALIFORNIA. WE STILL \n[00:45:52] CURRENTLY TO DATE HAVE $167\,000 \n[00:45:55] LEFT TO SPEND WITH OUR 2023 \n[00:45:59] GRANT\, AND THAT’S WHAT WE’LL \n[00:46:01] REMOVE THESE 40 VESSELS WITH. \n[00:46:03] WE’RE ALSO WAITING TO HEAR BACK \n[00:46:04] TO SEE IF WE’RE AWARDED THROUGH \n[00:46:07] NOAA FOR OUR MULTIMILLION DOLLAR \n[00:46:09] GRANT PROGRAM. I THINK WE’LL \n[00:46:10] HEAR BACK MAYBE IN THE FALL OR \n[00:46:11] THE WINTER OF THIS YEAR TO SEE \n[00:46:13] IF WE WERE AWARDED ANY FUNDING \n[00:46:15] FROM THAT. IF WE DO GET THAT \n[00:46:19] FUNDING\, THAT WILL BE A HUGE \n[00:46:21] DEAL FOR BOTH ALAMEDA AND \n[00:46:22] OAKLAND. WE’LL BE ABLE TO REMOVE \n[00:46:24] ALL OF THE VESSELS THAT ARE \n[00:46:26] SUNKEN BELOW THE WATER LINE IN \n[00:46:27] THE ESTUARY AS WELL AS A TON OF \n[00:46:29] PROJECTS ALONG THE SHORELINE AND \n[00:46:33] THE PARKING LOTS AS WELL. I \n[00:46:35] BELIEVE THAT’S ALL THAT I HAVE \n[00:46:36] FOR AN UPDATE ON THE OAKLAND \n[00:46:38] ESTUARY. IF YOU HAVE ANY \n[00:46:39] QUESTIONS FOR ME\, I’M FREE TO \n[00:46:41] TAKE THEM AT THIS TIME. \n[00:46:44] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:46:44] YOU. JOE? \n[00:46:48] >>JOE DEVRIES: JUST TO ROUND OUT \n[00:46:49] WHAT OFFICER ALBINO HAS SAID\, \n[00:46:51] HE’S DONE FANTASTIC WORK. THE \n[00:46:52] NOAA GRANT IS NOT JUST ABOUT \n[00:46:56] REMOVING THE SUNKEN BOATS\, SOME \n[00:46:58] OF THE BIGGER ONES THAT WILL \n[00:46:59] COST A LOT OF MONEY\, IT’S ALSO \n[00:47:01] ABOUT SHORELINE CLEANUP OF \n[00:47:03] MARINE DEBRIS AND REALLY DEGREE \n[00:47:06] IN GENERAL. IT’S A REALLY \n[00:47:08] INNOVATIVE GRANT PACKAGE THAT WE \n[00:47:10] PUT FORWARD THAT WORKS WITH I \n[00:47:12] HEART OAKLAND-ALAMEDA ESTUARY. \n[00:47:16] IT’S A CLEANUP PROGRAM AS WELL \n[00:47:18] AS AN EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM WHERE \n[00:47:20] THEY WILL TAKE STUDENTS OUT \n[00:47:22] ON — IN KAYAKS TO DO SHORELINE \n[00:47:25] CLEANUP WHILE EDUCATING THEM \n[00:47:27] ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF WATER \n[00:47:28] QUALITY AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL \n[00:47:30] IMPACTS THAT HUMANS ARE HAVING. \n[00:47:33] IT ALSO IS AN ECONOMIC WORK \n[00:47:36] FORCE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY IN \n[00:47:37] THAT THEY’LL BE HIRING SOME \n[00:47:39] STUDENTS AND THEY’LL BE MAKING \n[00:47:41] SOME MONEY DOING IMPORTANT WORK. \n[00:47:43] WE THINK IT’S A REALLY BALANCED \n[00:47:45] PROPOSAL. WE’RE REALLY KEEPING \n[00:47:47] OUR FINGERS CROSSED. THERE’S A \n[00:47:49] LOT OF PUBLIC OUTREACH INVOLVED. \n[00:47:51] WE BUILT IN MONEY FOR A BOAT \n[00:47:53] BUYBACK PROGRAM. OFFICER ALBINO \n[00:47:56] MENTIONED SOME OF THOSE BOATS \n[00:47:57] THAT PEOPLE WALK AWAY FROM AT \n[00:47:58] THE MARINA. WE BUILT IN AN \n[00:48:00] OUTREACH COMPONENT SO WE CAN LET \n[00:48:03] MARINA RESIDENTS KNOW AHEAD OF \n[00:48:04] TIME OR PEOPLE THAT HAVE BOATS \n[00:48:06] THAT THERE IS A PROGRAM\, SO THAT \n[00:48:07] THEY SHOULDN’T WALK AWAY OR SINK \n[00:48:08] THEIR BOAT. I THINK THIS COULD \n[00:48:10] BE A REALLY EXCITING OPPORTUNITY \n[00:48:12] IF WE GET THE GRANT. EVEN IF WE \n[00:48:14] ARE NOT SUCCESSFUL GETTING THIS \n[00:48:16] GRANT\, WE’VE WRITTEN A PROPOSAL \n[00:48:18] THAT I THINK WE CAN SHOP AROUND \n[00:48:21] TO OTHERS IF THIS ONE’S NOT \n[00:48:23] SUCCESSFUL. THAT’S ALL. \n[00:48:26] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:48:27] YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANYBODY ELSE \n[00:48:29] FROM YOUR STAFF HERE OR IS THAT \n[00:48:31] IT FOR YOU GUYS? \n[00:48:35] >>JOE DEVRIES: AGAIN\, WE HAVE \n[00:48:38] MR. THEBEL\, BUT I THINK OFFICER \n[00:48:41] ALBINO SAID EVERYTHING SO I \n[00:48:42] THINK WE’RE GOOD. \n[00:48:43] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:48:44] YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS \n[00:48:45] FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS? NOT \n[00:48:53] SEEING ANY. MARGIE\, DO WE HAVE \n[00:48:55] ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? \n[00:49:04] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: UM\, \n[00:49:05] ONLINE WE HAVE A COUPLE. \n[00:49:08] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OKAY. \n[00:49:08] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: FIRST \n[00:49:09] ONE IS MR. BROCK DE LAPPE. YOU \n[00:49:16] HAVE THREE MINUTES. \n[00:49:18] >>SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON\, \n[00:49:19] COMMISSIONERS. I JUST WANT TO \n[00:49:21] COMMENT ON THE ESTUARY CLEANUP \n[00:49:24] ACTIVITIES THAT HAVE BEEN \n[00:49:24] UNDERTAKEN BY BOTH OAKLAND AND \n[00:49:27] ALAMEDA POLICE DEPARTMENTS. I \n[00:49:29] REALLY HAVE TREMENDOUS \n[00:49:31] APPRECIATION FOR THE WORK \n[00:49:32] THEY’VE DONE. THE ESTUARY RIGHT \n[00:49:34] NOW IS CLEANER THAN IT’S BEEN IN \n[00:49:36] PROBABLY CLOSE TO A DECADE. MY \n[00:49:40] CONCERN IS THAT AFTER A CLEANUP\, \n[00:49:44] JUST LIKE WE’VE SEEN IN UNION \n[00:49:47] POINT PARK\, IF THERE’S NOT \n[00:49:48] ONGOING ENFORCEMENT\, THE PROBLEM \n[00:49:50] WILL RECUR. AND THIS IS A \n[00:49:54] DISASTER. THIS IS AN ENDLESS \n[00:49:55] CYCLE OF CLEANUP AND THEN LET IT \n[00:49:59] BE REOCCUPIED. I’M VERY \n[00:50:02] CONCERNED THAT OFFICER ALBINO IS \n[00:50:05] LOSING THE TEMPORARY STAFFING \n[00:50:08] THAT HE HAS FOR THE MARINE \n[00:50:10] PATROL UNIT. AS GOOD AS HE IS\, \n[00:50:12] HE CANNOT DO THIS BY HIMSELF. I \n[00:50:16] ENCOURAGE BCDC TO ENCOURAGE THE \n[00:50:20] CITY OF OAKLAND TO MAKE SURE \n[00:50:22] THAT THERE’S SUFFICIENT STAFFING \n[00:50:25] FOR THE MARINE PATROL UNIT TO \n[00:50:27] GUARD AND PROTECT THE ESTUARY \n[00:50:29] GOING FORWARD. I ALSO WOULD LIKE \n[00:50:32] TO GIVE KUDOS TO THE ALAMEDA \n[00:50:35] POLICE DEPARTMENT. I’VE BEEN \n[00:50:37] MONITORING THE CLEANUP THAT’S \n[00:50:39] UNDER WAY AT THE ROCKWALL JETTY \n[00:50:43] ON THE SOUTHWEST END OF ALAMEDA. \n[00:50:45] THEY’RE REMOVING MANY SUNKEN \n[00:50:47] BOATS FROM THAT SITE. THAT’S A \n[00:50:50] TREMENDOUS ACHIEVEMENT. I WAS \n[00:50:53] UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THAT \n[00:50:54] WAS FUNDED THROUGH YOUR S.A.V.E. \n[00:50:56] GRANT\, LIEUTENANT CROSSLEY. I’D \n[00:51:00] LIKE CLARIFICATION ON THAT \n[00:51:02] BECAUSE WHEN I WAS OUT AT THE \n[00:51:03] SITE YESTERDAY\, I WAS TOLD THAT \n[00:51:05] IT WAS ALAMEDA COUNTY FUNDING. I \n[00:51:07] JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT \n[00:51:09] THE APPROPRIATE AGENCY GOT \n[00:51:11] CREDIT FOR THAT CLEANUP. IN ANY \n[00:51:13] EVENT\, THAT’S A REAL BENEFIT TO \n[00:51:16] THE BAY. JUST LIKE THERE’S BEEN \n[00:51:19] PUBLICITY ABOUT THE PROBLEMS \n[00:51:22] THAT HAVE OCCURRED FROM THE \n[00:51:24] CRIME AND THE ANCHOR-OUTS\, I \n[00:51:27] THINK IT’S EQUALLY IMPORTANT \n[00:51:28] THAT THERE BE PRESS COVERAGE ON \n[00:51:32] THESE CLEANUP EFFORTS. IT SHOWS \n[00:51:34] THAT THE RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES \n[00:51:35] ARE TAKING THIS SERIOUSLY AND \n[00:51:38] THAT THERE ARE EFFORTS BEING \n[00:51:39] MADE TO CLEAN AND PROTECT THE \n[00:51:41] BAY AND THERE NEEDS TO BE CREDIT \n[00:51:44] FOR THAT AS WELL. AGAIN\, THANK \n[00:51:47] YOU FOR THE WORK THAT YOU’VE \n[00:51:48] DONE. I REALLY HOPE THAT GOING \n[00:51:50] FORWARD THERE IS SUFFICIENT \n[00:51:52] SUPPORT TO MAINTAIN REGULAR \n[00:51:55] MARINE PATROLS. IF YOU STOP IT \n[00:51:58] AT NUMBER ONE\, THERE WILL NEVER \n[00:51:59] BE TWO\, FOUR\, EIGHT\, 16\, 32 \n[00:52:03] BOATS IN THE ESTUARY AGAIN. \n[00:52:07] LET’S MAKE SURE THAT WE DON’T \n[00:52:09] BACKTRACK. LET’S MAKE SURE THAT \n[00:52:11] THERE IS APPROPRIATE STAFFING \n[00:52:13] FOR THE RESPECTIVE MARINE PATROL \n[00:52:15] UNITS. THANK YOU. \n[00:52:18] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: THANK \n[00:52:18] YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT UP WE HAVE \n[00:52:20] VH. VH? \n[00:52:28] >>SPEAKER: CAN YOU HEAR ME? \n[00:52:30] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: YES. \n[00:52:31] >>SPEAKER: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. \n[00:52:32] YEAH. I MADE COMMENTS ON THE \n[00:52:35] EARLIER ITEM ON THE AGENDA. \n[00:52:39] FIRST\, I WANT TO REALLY \n[00:52:42] APPRECIATE OFFICER ALBINO FOR \n[00:52:45] HAVING ACKNOWLEDGED COMMENTS \n[00:52:47] FROM THE PUBLIC. IT JUST FEELS \n[00:52:56] GREAT TO KNOW WE’RE HEARD. I \n[00:52:57] WANT TO POSE THE QUESTION — I’M \n[00:52:59] NOT SURE WHY PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE \n[00:53:02] NOW BEING DONE AT THE END OF AN \n[00:53:05] AGENDA ITEM AS OPPOSED TO AT THE \n[00:53:07] BEGINNING\, BECAUSE THE EFFECT \n[00:53:09] OVER HERE IS THAT WE’RE MAKING \n[00:53:12] COMMENTS AND ASKING QUESTIONS \n[00:53:15] AND THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY THAT \n[00:53:21] SOMEBODY MIGHT TAKE THOSE INTO \n[00:53:23] ACCOUNT IN THEIR — IN THEIR — \n[00:53:27] BASICALLY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC \n[00:53:28] WHO BOTHER TO COME AND SHOW UP \n[00:53:30] AND SPEAK UP\, IT HANDS US A \n[00:53:32] DEAD-END. I WOULD REALLY \n[00:53:34] APPRECIATE THAT BEING MOVED BACK \n[00:53:35] TO COMMENTS AT THE BEGINNING OF \n[00:53:38] AN AGENDA ITEM. I’M GLAD TO HEAR \n[00:53:40] THERE’S A PLAN IN PLACE FOR THE \n[00:53:45] REMOVAL OF THE REMAINING \n[00:53:48] ANCHOR-OUTS AT UNION POINT AND \n[00:53:51] FOR DEALING WITH THE ABANDONED \n[00:53:53] VESSELS AT UNION POINT MARINA. \n[00:53:57] THRILLED TO HEAR THAT. AND THERE \n[00:54:00] IS A LONGSTANDING ENCAMPMENT \n[00:54:04] RIGHT NEAR WHERE THE — RIGHT \n[00:54:06] WHERE THE SHORELINE MEETS COAST \n[00:54:11] GUARD ISLAND BRIDGE. THERE’S A \n[00:54:13] BIG WHITE TENT WITH AN ENORMOUS \n[00:54:15] PILE OF TRASH NEXT TO IT. IT \n[00:54:17] APPEARS TO BE UNINHABITED FOR A \n[00:54:21] LONG TIME. THE KING TIDES \n[00:54:23] WENT — FLOODED IT COMPLETELY. \n[00:54:25] SO WHAT THERE IS IS JUST A \n[00:54:28] MOUNTAIN OF TRASH IN THAT CORNER \n[00:54:29] BY THE SHORE. I SEE NO REASON \n[00:54:32] WHATSOEVER\, GIVEN THAT NOBODY \n[00:54:34] APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN LIVING \n[00:54:35] THERE FOR QUITE AWHILE NOW. IT’S \n[00:54:38] ALL BEEN FLOODED\, EVERY TIME THE \n[00:54:39] TIDE GOES HIGH\, MORE TRASH GOES \n[00:54:41] INTO THE WATER. I SEE ABSOLUTELY \n[00:54:43] NO REASON WHY THE CITY OF \n[00:54:44] OAKLAND CAN’T MOVE AHEAD AND \n[00:54:46] HANDLE THAT DEBRIS. I UNDERSTAND \n[00:54:48] THAT THE REMOVAL OF THE VESSEL \n[00:54:50] THAT IS UP ON THE ROCKS ON THE \n[00:54:52] SHORE IS A MUCH BIGGER DEAL AND \n[00:54:54] THAT THAT’S GOING TO REQUIRE \n[00:54:57] SPECIAL FUNDING AND SO FORTH\, \n[00:54:58] BUT CERTAINLY THE CITY CLEANING \n[00:55:02] UP THE TRASH SURROUNDING AN \n[00:55:07] ABANDONED ENCAMPMENT TENT WOULD \n[00:55:10] REALLY APPRECIATE SEEING THAT \n[00:55:12] DONE. THANK YOU. \n[00:55:17] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: ALL \n[00:55:18] RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. \n[00:55:18] CHAIR GILMORE\, THAT’S ALL WE \n[00:55:20] HAVE. I BELIEVE WE HAVE ONE \n[00:55:21] PUBLIC SPEAKER HERE IN PERSON. \n[00:55:25] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OKAY. \n[00:55:27] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: MR. \n[00:55:27] McKAY? \n[00:55:28] >>SPEAKER: YES\, MY NAME IS CHRIS \n[00:55:29] McKAY. I’M WITH THE EMBARCADERO \n[00:55:31] NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. I JUST \n[00:55:34] WANT TO REALLY ACKNOWLEDGE \n[00:55:37] OFFICER KALEO\, THE WORK HE’S \n[00:55:40] DONE AND ALSO BROCK DE LAPPE FOR \n[00:55:43] BRINGING THIS — KEEPING THIS IN \n[00:55:45] FOCUS. I SUBMITTED A PICTURE \n[00:55:49] YESTERDAY OF THE SHORELINE CLOSE \n[00:55:52] TO THE COAST GUARD ISLAND \n[00:55:54] BRIDGE. YOU CAN SEE IT. I THINK \n[00:55:58] IT’S ON YOUR WEBSITE. IT’S \n[00:55:59] REALLY A LOT OF TRASH. AS THE \n[00:56:01] TIDES CHANGE\, IT GETS PICKED UP \n[00:56:03] AND FLOATED OUT. YOU CAN SEE \n[00:56:04] THAT PICTURE. THERE’S NO ONE IN \n[00:56:07] THERE. IT WOULD SURE BE GREAT TO \n[00:56:10] SEE THAT GET CLEANED UP. I JUST \n[00:56:12] HOPE THAT THE FUNDING IS IN \n[00:56:14] PLACE FOR THESE PROJECTS AND I \n[00:56:18] REALLY APPRECIATE\, YOU KNOW\, \n[00:56:20] EVERYBODY — ALL YOU’RE DOING \n[00:56:22] AND EVERYBODY WORKING TOGETHER \n[00:56:23] BECAUSE OUR SHORELINE IS \n[00:56:26] CRITICAL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. \n[00:56:27] BYE. \n[00:56:31] >>MARGIE MALMAN\, CLERK: THANK \n[00:56:31] YOU VERY MUCH. THAT’S ALL WE \n[00:56:33] HAVE. \n[00:56:35] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:56:36] YOU\, MARGIE. DO WE HAVE ANY \n[00:56:39] QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM \n[00:56:41] COMMITTEE MEMBERS? OH\, MR. \n[00:56:44] DEVRIES? \n[00:56:46] >>JOE DEVRIES: THANK YOU\, CHAIR \n[00:56:47] GILMORE. I WANTED TO THANK THE \n[00:56:48] CALLER WHO DIDN’T IDENTIFY \n[00:56:50] THEMSELVES AND THE GENTLEMAN \n[00:56:54] FROM EMBARCADERO COVE. I DIDN’T \n[00:56:55] KNOW THAT THAT ENCAMPMENT AT \n[00:56:57] COAST GUARD BRIDGE — I DID SEE \n[00:56:59] HIS PICTURE YESTERDAY. I DID NOT \n[00:57:01] KNOW THAT WAS AN ABANDONED \n[00:57:02] ENCAMPMENT. THAT DOES FALL UNDER \n[00:57:04] A DIFFERENT PROCESS FOR US. SO\, \n[00:57:06] WE CAN SEND PEOPLE OUT TO \n[00:57:08] CONFIRM THAT IT’S ABANDONED. IF \n[00:57:10] THEY CAN CONFIRM THAT\, THEY WILL \n[00:57:11] PICK UP THAT GARBAGE. I WILL \n[00:57:13] FOLLOW UP ON THAT ONE. I’M \n[00:57:15] ASSUMING MR. McKAY’S PICTURE\, \n[00:57:17] THAT WAS IN THE EMAIL YESTERDAY \n[00:57:19] THAT WAS COPIED TO ME\, IS OF \n[00:57:21] THAT SPOT. IF THAT’S THE ONE. TO \n[00:57:22] THE OTHER PERSON WHO DIDN’T \n[00:57:23] IDENTIFY THEMSELVES\, THEY’RE \n[00:57:25] WELCOME TO EMAIL ME IF THEY HAVE \n[00:57:27] ADDITIONAL PHOTOS AND \n[00:57:28] INFORMATION THAT IT’S BEEN \n[00:57:31] ABANDONED. I THINK THE FACT THAT \n[00:57:33] IT’S WASHED OUT DURING THE KING \n[00:57:34] TIDE IS GOOD EVIDENCE THAT IT’S \n[00:57:36] ABANDONED. I THINK WE SHOULD BE \n[00:57:37] ABLE TO GET THAT CLEANED UP \n[00:57:38] WITHOUT GOING THROUGH A LONG \n[00:57:40] ENCAMPMENT PROCESS. THANK YOU. \n[00:57:44] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: THANK \n[00:57:45] YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? OKAY. SO\, \n[00:57:50] NEXT STEPS\, IF WE CAN GET \n[00:57:52] AGREEMENT ON THIS IS TO ALL BE \n[00:57:57] BACK HERE — I BELIEVE IT WAS IN \n[00:57:58] EARLY AUGUST FOR A CHECK-IN? IF \n[00:58:02] THE DATE MEETS EVERYBODY’S \n[00:58:04] SCHEDULES. OKAY. IF THERE ARE NO \n[00:58:08] OTHER COMMENTS\, I’M GOING TO \n[00:58:11] CLOSE THIS ITEM. COMMITTEE \n[00:58:15] MEMBERS\, I WILL ENTERTAIN A \n[00:58:16] MOTION AND A SECOND TO ADJOURN \n[00:58:19] OUR MEETING. \n[00:58:23] >>LETTY BELIN: MOVE TO ADJOURN. \n[00:58:26] >>JOHN VASQUEZ: SECOND. \n[00:58:27] >>LETTY BELIN: OKAY. \n[00:58:28] >>MARIE GILMORE\, CHAIR: OKAY. \n[00:58:29] COMMISSIONER BELIN MOVES. I \n[00:58:31] BELIEVE THAT WAS COMMISSIONER \n[00:58:33] VASQUEZ WHO SECONDED. YES. YES. \n[00:58:35] OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS \n[00:58:38] TO THE MOTION TO ADJOURN? SEEING \n[00:58:41] NONE\, THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED. \n[00:58:43] THANK YOU\, EVERYBODY\, FOR YOUR \n[00:58:45] ATTENDANCE AND YOUR COMMENTS. \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/april-24-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240424T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240424T170000
DTSTAMP:20260525T222127
CREATED:20240130T055542Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240424T211404Z
UID:10000152-1713963600-1713978000@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:April 24\, 2024 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/april-24-2024-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240501T140000
DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240501T153000
DTSTAMP:20260525T222127
CREATED:20240528T225619Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240628T213323Z
UID:10000181-1714572000-1714577400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:May 1\, 2024 Bay Adapt Local Electeds Regional Task Force
DESCRIPTION:Meeting Notice \nPresentation
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/may-1-2024-bay-adapt-local-electeds-regional-task-force/
CATEGORIES:Bay Adapt Local Electeds Regional Task Force
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR